This post is written for the religious people who stop by. I've gotten sick of a number of atheist stereotypes you're often fond of passing around.1. We didn't become atheists so that we'd be free of a moral standard. Many of us ended up starting our path to atheism out of moral disgust with our churches, preachers, etcetera. I stopped my church attendance when a new Sunday school teacher openly condoned the pointless suffering known as Hell. I had thought everyone there went through a looser interpretation to dismiss the torture chamber in favor of, at most, a temporary prison with a finite sentence. And worse, he saw nothing wrong with categorically throwing non-Christians in there. I left because I couldn't tolerate God being described as a fascist with such random, arbitrary, tribalist standards. I had already known a number of non-Christians who were decent, upright people. The idea that he and his diabolical interpretation of God would be just hunky-dory with throwing them in a lake of fire for no reason strained my credulity. I left, convinced he was a empty, heartless Satanist. (That was before I met a Satanist online who chewed out a Christian white supremacist by telling him her interracial marriage was all about love, and that his idea of women as baby factories was appalling.)
2. We don't necessarily hate God. That's primarily reserved for maltheists, those who believe God exists and that he's evil. Atheists regard him as a fictional character. Different versions merit different emotional responses. The merciful, compassionate God I believed in is still okay by my standards, if more than a bit confused. The tyrannical, genocidal, slaver god of the fundies merits nothing but contempt. Atheism just means I'm relieved to know the latter is highly unlikely to exist. Unfortunately, there are people who hold that monster up as a moral ideal and make sloppy attempts at justifying acts that are clearly evil.
3. We aren't wild, selfish hedonists. I plan having a decent life span to enjoy. Going out and doing crazy criminal things for thrills is going to cut my short time in this world even shorter. I'm probably blander than you are. That's one reason. Mostly, though, we're a morally inclined bunch who don't want to bring any hurt unto others. Christians didn't invent the golden rule. It's a part of who we are as social beings, and necessary for an orderly society where its members can feel safe. Please, no apologetics to create special loopholes in the principle.
4. We aren't rebelling for the sake of rebellion. Yes, there are teenagers who go through stereotypical emo phases like that. No, we're not like those who can't articulate a good reasons to be skeptical of theism. If you'd stop being so closed-minded and repeating rationalizing stereotypes and discuss the merits of theism, you'll actually get something from us.
5. No, we aren't hurting. Some of us have had bad experiences in life, but pretty much every atheist I know arrived at the position through logic, not a knee-jerk response to a tragedy. Theism is a positive claim without good evidence. It's supported only by fallacies and wishful thinking. That's how I think about it. It'd be nice if there was a compassionate being protecting us and such, but we're not about to take wishful thinking as evidence. Without evidence, your belief in a happy afterlife won't comfort us, even if we haven't learned to cope with the inevitability of death, anyway.
6. Yes, we can say without equivocation that Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were evil. Hitler was a genocidal, maniacal fundie. Stalin killed and gulaged people for having different political and scientific opinions. Pol Pot committed mass murder for the sake of some agrarian utopia pipe dream. We have pretty firm moral principles against killing. The fact that the latter two were atheists has about as little to do with us as Catholics have to do with the ancient Mayans, who believed in gods that demanded blood sacrifices. Stalin and Pol Pot may have been atheists, but they acted in the name of absurd utopian practices and believed the ends justified the means. You'd be extraordinarily hard pressed to find one among us who support any of those figures. And if you do, tell me so that I can flame them.
This post is subject to expansion.
13 comments:
Don't forget the idea that we can be convinced with the bible...
That one probably needs some explanation for them. Basically, our standards of proof are ranked differently than theirs.
Relatedly, I remember one of the Left Behind dissections on Slacktivist that pointed out that the authors had written an atheist character with some out-of-place baptist(?) hangups.
So it's not just Hollywood, it's culture. Which shows the importance of understanding other cultures: otherwise, you look like an idiot when you try to portray or interact with them.
Yeah, I recognize it's not just Hollywood. It's something of a shorthand of mine for popular culture that's consumed without thought.
Oh yes, the Bible verses! I find it hard to understand how they can possibly think reading isolated verses out of their holy books can convince us, though I try and have met with some success (I think).
I would like them to understand that reading isolated verses out of their holy books does nothing for me, or for many other atheists, because their holy books only mean something if you already beleive that the holy book in question is correct and has value.
A tactic that I've thought of, but never put into practice, to try to get this point across is to pick up any random object with text on it, the more disjointed and out of contect the better, and read it to them, ask them to recall how they felt when they heard those words, and then tell them that I feel the same way when I hear quotes from their holy books.
Think that would work?
In my experience, nothing actually works - the best you can hope for is to make them go away and leave you alone. Two strategies worth experimenting with for that are (a) utter scorn, or (b) asking lots of very detailed and technical questions about their theology, with lots of poly-syllabic technical terms thrown in. The second strategy can also be used to pull a reverse-heresy gambit, where you pick on some obscure technicality they've never even heard of and accuse them of being Satan-worshipping heretics because they don't give the "right" answer.
Although a friend of mine did come up with a slightly different strategy for dealing with the Jehovahs, which was simply to invite them in and rant crazed (but polite) nonsense at them until they ran away. Of course, he was on the third day of an amphetamine bender at the time... ;)
"I find it hard to understand how they can possibly think reading isolated verses out of their holy books can convince us,"
Well, miraculously, of course. But it sure is weird when they act like they expect that to work.
I would've left the "necessarily" out of point number 2, and not just for added pithiness. We can hate religion, and we can hate the idea of "god" held by specific religions, but we can't hate "god" per se, since we don't think he exists. It'd be like hating leprechauns and unicorns.
I am getting pretty tired of this 'Hitler was a fundie' nonsense. It grows out of an over reaction of the argument advanced most notoriously in Expelled that evolutionary science leads strait to the gas chambers. It was rightly pointed out at the time of the film's release by many atheist bloggers that Hitler was a Catholic, not an Atheist. Fine. But that is far removed from him being a fundamentalist. It is also evident that though Hitler acknowledged Christianity in Mein Kampf and his speeches for public consumption, that his private Table talk and his personal conversations recorded by Albert Speer present a quite different picture. Hitler was disturbed to the point that he probably considered the thing in the world closest to god to be himself. The grandiosity about the act of creation he believed he was carrying out in the war is frightening. So either please don't call Hitler a fundamentalist, or even a Christian in anything but name, because you are making an intellectually dishonest argument exactly as our opponents do. Or else lay out the evidence that Hitler was a a fundamentalist and prove me wrong. Its possible I haven;t read anything about Hitler in the last 15 years or so.
(as an aside, people also tend to conflate all Nazis together--In fact Hitler thought that the Neo-paganism that fascinated Himmler and many other Nazis was a pathetic joke, but I've seem him labeled as a neo-pagan too, though not here).
You seem to be employing the old "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Hitler repeatedly invoked Christianity as justification for doing what he wanted. Many fundies do that today.
You may want to provide a link to that table talk you describe. Should prove interesting either way.
And note: There's a difference between a fundamentalist and a fundie: Being a fundie takes a certain degree of viciousness.
As for comparing this to the Expelled propaganda, there's a big difference: Providing an example of a fundie gone off the deep end isn't saying that all religion leads to that sort of thing.
I am getting pretty tired of this 'Hitler was a fundie' nonsense. It grows out of an over reaction of the argument advanced most notoriously in Expelled that evolutionary science leads strait to the gas chambers. It was rightly pointed out at the time of the film's release by many atheist bloggers that Hitler was a Catholic, not an Atheist. Fine. But that is far removed from him being a fundamentalist. It is also evident that though Hitler acknowledged Christianity in Mein Kampf and his speeches for public consumption, that his private Table talk and his personal conversations recorded by Albert Speer present a quite different picture. Hitler was disturbed to the point that he probably considered the thing in the world closest to god to be himself. The grandiosity about the act of creation he believed he was carrying out in the war is frightening. So either please don't call Hitler a fundamentalist, or even a Christian in anything but name, because you are making an intellectually dishonest argument exactly as our opponents do. Or else lay out the evidence that Hitler was a a fundamentalist and prove me wrong. Its possible I haven;t read anything about Hitler in the last 15 years or so.
It is interesting how everyone with a different view and actions are considered evil by the diametric opposite.
For example, George W Bush is never considered 'evil' by any standard even when he holds completely equal fundamental views as any Hitler or Stalin you could mention, yet he was limited by actions but still carried out atrocities killing hundreds of thousends (indirectly) by the war he carried out/sanctioned.
Hitler was certainly more intelligent then most people here, the same people condemning him, and that is the point, people that are inferior have some sort of complex needing to attack the superior, just because you do not agree with someone does not make them inferior, and certainly not because they do something you consider 'evil'.
The purification of the world by eradicating the jews have existed for millenia, and most of christendom have been or stood behind it, and its only todays hypocrits that condemn it seemingly ignorant of their Christian History and what their belief is actually saying.
That hitler did mistakes, just as everyone else, is hardly shocking, and calling him a 'fundamentalist' or 'fundie' is less warranted in the use we have the word today.
I actually read Main Kampf, and most here would most likely not be able to read it, that is, comprehend it, as the limited intellect has shown several times, I suspect Bronze Dog would understand it but most likely attack it on fallacious basis.
Hitler was indeed a Christian, he also did not like Christianity, or Catholicism in general because of its lack of actions towards the jews and other degenerates, alot of talk but little action could sum up the views of his, of the religious right during the historic times.
Please, attacking a dead man together with comrades is rather pathetic, why dont you attack Barack Obama, Saddam Hussein or George W Bush on the same ground?
But wait, you do, you do attack SADDAM HUSSEIN, a FOREIGNER, but none one of our own, wonder why... Oh, the color is starting to see... And it looks dark.
For example, George W Bush is never considered 'evil' by any standard...
...You lost me there.
Hitler was certainly more intelligent then most people here, the same people condemning him, and that is the point, people that are inferior have some sort of complex needing to attack the superior, just because you do not agree with someone does not make them inferior, and certainly not because they do something you consider 'evil'.
Are you actually saying that our collective problem with Hitler was born out of insecurity about our intelligence and had nothing to do with, you know, the Holocaust?
That's just sick, man.
Nice way of ignoring the entire post, giving no proper response, indeed I think atleast a score of four banans out of give oranges.
The point was, try be objective rather then letting your opinions spew of subjective reading and self-rojected opinion.
Nimrod (I know, you don't get that reference either).
Wait, your post actually had a point beyond a bizarre appeal to motive?
Oh, and, if you bothered to learn anything about us, we did hate Bush and Saddam. And I've been getting impatient with Obama and the rest of the Democrats for not pulling troops out of Iraq and undoing other crap Bush put us through.
So, your experience not hearing people calling for most of the Bush administration getting tried for treason trumps my experience of people calling for that?
Also, are you saying that killing Jewish people is morally justified? That... that's just... A: Some of my best friends have been Jews. B: While I'm sure somebody else could have, say, formulated relativity, I don't see how killing Einstein would have benefited anybody.
Seriously, what is wrong with you?
(More comments came.)
Wasn't Nimrod some great and heroic, or at least capable, king, I think? Then, people started alluding to him sarcastically, and so all we have is a word that lost its denotation and left us with a bad connotation. *check* What do the Tower of Babel and Bugs Bunny have to do with any of this? (And 'heroic' was wrong, if you take the Torah/Bible/Koran at its word.)
Okay, I'll try to be objective: Hitler orchestrated the deaths of 11 million people, 6 million of them Jews. He did this because he thought those people were all working to bring down the empire he was trying to forge. I still don't see how any of that could be construed as a Good Thing.
It leaves me to wonder if Gabe watches anything other than Fox News.
Post a Comment