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. Now if these atheists hold humanistic beliefs they sure could not prove to me with how strongly they react even to liberal and progressive Christians. 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 (any human) with how a few atheists are behaving concerning the subject of working with liberal Christians. Mind you, this is a site that has both non-theists and liberal theists.
Then I was accused of supporting moderates. Um… No, that would be conservatives, IMO, who are midway between liberals and the Religious Reich. So the word moderate needs to be defined.
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.
As a matter of fact, Dawkins mention Bishop Spong in The God Delusion in favourable terms (p 237). Apparently they missed that and took everything way out of perspective. So, Dawkins does not mean for anyone to be hateful to liberal Christians. So, it would seem that the militant behaving atheists are taking things to extreme concerning what Harris and Dawkins wrote.
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 have noticed this as well; less on this site than on others. But it is of concern to me. Blind hatred is really an obstacle to honest dialogue and understanding.
As I’ve said before, people seem to insist on joining ethical beliefs with theistic beliefs. And that’s just wrong. It’s like trying to correlate the color of an automobile with the hearing acuity of the person driving in the other direction. The religious love to equate the Decalogue with belief in a christian god. Many atheists like to equate humanist ethics with their secular beliefs. And when we find a very religious person who routinely breaks the ten commandments, or an atheist who demonstrates a lack of humane ideas, we are shocked.
There are good people and assholes across the spectrum of religious faith from fundamentalist to complete atheist.
We, as secular humanists, have two separate and distinct jobs. 1) To help the religious understand the reasoning of the non-religious and accept them as equals; 2) To help the non-religous develop humanistic ethics.
I have noticed this as well; less on this site than on others. But it is of concern to me. Blind hatred is really an obstacle to honest dialogue and understanding.
I agree Doug. The conversation isn’t getting anywhere with atheists showing so much hatred for Christians who talk about doing humane things in “good faith” and alike. I’m not so sure either side is understanding each other and the more anger and hatred shown by some atheists perpetuates a stereotype that I don’t care for. Of course, I can’t say all Xians are playing nice either since one irrational comment was made by one or more atheists. It has a domino affect.
erasmusinfinity said:
I agree and I don’t ascribe it to Dawkins or Harris either. I don’t think that either of them intend such a tone.
I don’t think they did either, but whatever the case, it is being stretched out of perprotion with quotes by them that may or may not be out of contexts.
Occam said:
There are good people and assholes across the spectrum of religious faith from fundamentalist to complete atheist.
Oh yeah. I have seen both extremes and turned off by both, but we can’t do either two jobs you suggest if no one cares to listen. Might as well shut up and let them have at it. They MIGHT learn the hard way.
I agree that one can feel discouraged, but I haven’t found that “no one cares to listen.” Very few do, but occasionally we can get through to someone, especially a young person. That makes up for a lot of rejection. :grin:
I imagine this shouldn’t be surprising, since people need not be anymore thoughtful or introspective to become an atheist than to become a christian. I would love to see studies of how many self-proclaimed atheists chose that world view due to their hate of christianity. The atheist camp seems to get the types that the communist/socialist groups in universities used to get—the anti-establishment iconoclasts.
It seems to me a bad idea to increase tribalism, but I guess that is just the natural direction most humans tend to take, and that is what many atheists choose to do.
I also feel that Harris’ rhetoric is greatly to blame due to how he overstates (in light of lacking data) the evil of moderate religion.
We, as secular humanists, have two separate and distinct jobs. 1) To help the religious understand the reasoning of the non-religious and accept them as equals; 2) To help the non-religous develop humanistic ethics.
Amen, brother! One could argue that the second is MORE important than the first.
I see it differently. What I see is that the creationist act like it’s OK for them to impose their beliefs on everyone else, spread the word of God, or what have you, but when atheist relay their non-belief, they are labeled as having prejudice or being militant extremist, etc…
I see quite the opposite of what you are saying. Creationist are so hard set in their ways, they rarely bother to try to understand our reasoning for non-belief. They immediately become defensive, and call on us like we are being offensive. Sure there are some atheist out there that are really being offensive and it is their purpose, but I think it is just a fraction of the whole. You will have these type of people on both sides. But I see more prejudice coming for the creationist then I do the atheist. Of course this could be due to their larger numbers to begin with, but… you see what I’m getting at.
I have noticed there are some atheists that are just as mean and hateful as the Religious Reich.
Yes, I have noticed this too.
However, it is my observation that in neither the atheist nor religionist camps this is the norm, but rather the vocal minority. Because people posting on this website tend to be more “e-vocal”, I think it makes it appear as though there is a higher percentage of mean and hateful atheists than there really is.
On this website, some of the type of people you’re talking about have inferred that I am stupid or ignorant. On other websites, I’ve had Christians curse at me and assure me that I’ll burn in hell. Given the choice, I prefer stupid.
I wasn’t talking about this site and I’m not sure what “e-vocal” is. However, I see your point- if you believe in hell. I’d just laugh because from what I understand, Christians are not suppose to use such foul language and they are showing their ignorance when they talk about burning in hell.
I see it differently. What I see is that the creationist act like it’s OK for them to impose their beliefs on everyone else, spread the word of God, or what have you, but when atheist relay their non-belief, they are labeled as having prejudice or being militant extremist, etc…
I see quite the opposite of what you are saying. Creationist are so hard set in their ways, they rarely bother to try to understand our reasoning for non-belief. They immediately become defensive, and call on us like we are being offensive. Sure there are some atheist out there that are really being offensive and it is their purpose, but I think it is just a fraction of the whole. You will have these type of people on both sides. But I see more prejudice coming for the creationist then I do the atheist. Of course this could be due to their larger numbers to begin with, but… you see what I’m getting at.
I find that moderates don’t care for either. I don’t see the inconsistency. Many religious individuals fight for the separation of church and state and file lawsuits about this.
I think the moderates are justified in not trusting groups that identify with Sam Harris and his anti-moderate stance.
I like Harris’ writings, but they are troubling at times.
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 Vulcans have noticed that atheists are humans too.
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 Vulcans have noticed that atheists are humans too.
psik
I’m a Betazoid. Not a Vulcan.
PaineMan said:
I made it up. It’s being “vocal” in internet blogs.
Oh ok.
How can you say that about one of the most powerful tools Christianity made up to keep people “in line”!
Eh. I’ve said much worse. Christian Fundies call me a heretic, infidel, atheist… I just laugh. The militant atheists accuse me of supporting liberal and progressive Christians. I get it from both sides too, PaineMan, and I guess I stand guilty as charged by both extremes, but to me, if one’s goal is a humanistic goal, then I don’t see why we can’t support and work with that group of people irregardless of beliefs, labels, etc. This strong hatred by the extremes on both sides doesn’t seem like it will accomplish anything, except more battles.
This strong hatred by the extremes on both sides doesn’t seem like it will accomplish anything, except more battles.
I couldn’t agree more.
In the political realm in the US, for example, people seem to be missing the point that the Constitution does not provide definitive answers, there is a bicameral legislation, there is a two party system, etc., etc., and all these serve to provide platforms for and as an encouragement to debate. When one truly debates, one must listen to and evaluate the position of the opposition. Strong hatred results in everybody shouting and nobody listening.
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.
