"Why are all you atheists so angry?"

[gary_s]

Who is this "we" that is being victimized by theists? What you're describing when you speak of standing up to and going head-to-head against thus and so, it sounds somewhat fantastical to me, certainly it's beyond anything I myself have experienced. Are you perhaps talking about activism, organized atheist activism?

Humanguy makes an important point here. There seems to be a tendency toward addressing an argument toward a group and that's where any issue gets muddied. I am responsible for me and I can explain myself and no one else, let alone an entire class of people. Case in point, I recently made the mistake of challenging an Internet petition set forth by a group of female atheists. They call themselves the skepchicks; you can look up their website. This turned out differently than I expected. My counterpoint to their argument was not met with cool, intellectual consideration, but rather I was immediately labeled, categorized and derided for having all the "wrong" opinions on a whole host of issues even though I had commented on only one. And these were people who, by and large, agree with my view of the universe. Needless to say, I find this troubling and disappointing and I don't want to be guilty of this same behavior.

[gary_s]

Hey, Gary, welcome back!

Thanks, Rian. I wonder if I chose a good thread to get involved in. It seems a little bit chaotic and I'm not exactly sure what the point is.

[Aaron]

Yeah I hear what you're saying Gary. I'll be honest KTR's position worries me. It's either accept his opinion on the hot topic issues of our day or hit the road. It seems to me he tries to justify his ideas by making a case that certain groups or philosophies are being stepped on or something, like hes the victim of some horrible injustices. But then if I listen to the other sides ideas they often use the same arguments he is pushing. I don't know its all real hard to nail down exactly. I think humanguy was the one that brought up this 'us and them' idea, that if you demonize the other side its easier to ignore their concerns and make them the bad guys. Maybe it has something to do with personality types too. It almost seems like KTR is trying to round up troops to support his campaign against these supposed theistic injustices of the world, but maybe its not working very well because most of the posters on this forum are people who've had enough of being ignorant followers and are people who'd much rather do what they do because they've thought about it for themselves and have made up their own minds. But what do I know...

I'm pretty sure China doesn't have much for theistic injustices oh and from what I've learned from my transfer student counter parts their value of human life is also a little lower than in the United States so maybe if a guy wanted to kill embryos for science he'd be more than welcome there (just some speculation) so perhaps that would be a nice place to live... or maybe even North Korea, I've heard they don't even tolerate so much as a private prayer meeting amongst friends, you'd never have a better more receptive environment to spout your ideas on atheistic supiriorism... I don't know if either country allows butt bonking though... but hey then you'd have some social evolution work to keep you occupied.

Okay maybe I'm being a little bit obnoxious... but then again maybe not...

[Keep The Reason]

There's no getting ahead with you. No matter what anyone says, you say that they're not getting it. Now you're saying that this isn't really a speech, that it is, as you say, preaching. Preaching to the choir. It's not intended to argue a philosophical point.

Then why in the pissing universe put it up here? What's there to discuss, what's anyone supposed to say? "Nice job of preaching to the choir?"

The objections you and Rian raise are not valid. What I don't get is this tendency to move the issue around. Things can be more than one thing, but that doesn't mean they are EVERYTHING.

Yes it's a speech.
Yes it is towards like minded individuals
Yes it is an attempt to give voice to an emotional state.
No it is not a philosophical dissertation.
No it is not a call to violence
Yes it's an attempt to explain an individuals feelings
No it is not meant to be the claim of ALL individuals feelings.

See? It can be things appropriate to its context.

The goal of the thread is to expose the tactic, and, yes,to share the message itself AND the tactic.

[Keep The Reason]

makes an important point here. There seems to be a tendency toward addressing an argument toward a group and that's where any issue gets muddied. I am responsible for me and I can explain myself and no one else, let alone an entire class of people. Case in point, I recently made the mistake of challenging an Internet petition set forth by a group of female atheists. They call themselves the skepchicks; you can look up their website. This turned out differently than I expected. My counterpoint to their argument was not met with cool, intellectual consideration, but rather I was immediately labeled, categorized and derided for having all the "wrong" opinions on a whole host of issues even though I had commented on only one. And these were people who, by and large, agree with my view of the universe. Needless to say, I find this troubling and disappointing and I don't want to be guilty of this same behavior.

I agree that the online scenario can be chaotic and that atheists can be just as guilty as anyone else for entrenchment and mob mentality. I make no apologies for that for such groups, and don't embrace their tactics-- even if I fail sometimes and embrace them myself.

Now that's all I'm going to say about it, because my above paragraph -- which I mean quite sincerely -- also exposes something that I'm wondering if anyone else might see.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Actually, there were people who blamed slavery (or justified it) on Christianity

Just to be clear on this absolutely there were, Hodge one of the most important of the Princeton theologians (not the Hodge who with Warfield co-wrote the key piece on biblical inerrancy but his father) defended slavery on Biblical grounds and the reason there is a Southern Baptist denomination is that the Baptists in the south split from those in the north who opposed slavery. So Christians were divided on this as on so many issues. I take that as an indication that we have to think these complex social issues through and not take any kind of party line.

, and women's suffrage gave birth to a number of women who rightly assigned blame directly to patriarchal religious beliefs common to the day (and extant even now. Do we any of us believe that the wearing of a burka is not a religious decree, whether or not you disagree with the interpretations of the mullahs?)

Well there are feminists who have tried to revive goddess worship, but a lot of arguments about patriarchy and matriarchy rely on applying distinctions that did not exist in the cultures we are talking about and as my anthropology tutor pointed out to one Robert Graves fan, there just is no evidence for a prehistoric matriarchal culture (the evidence is complex though and ambivalent - Erich Fromm did some linguistic work on this in 'The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness but he sees these early cultures as matrilinear and matricentric rather than matriarchal)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton + 26 Authors wrote "The Woman's Bible" just for this reason.

I didn't know about this so can't really comment.

Granted, you won't find a lot of atheists in the forefront of such movements, but that's another complaint I have -- theists have had thousands of years and literally global support at least as theists to spearhead many civil movements, whereas atheists have only had a real voice in maybe the last 50 years. Sure, there were a few throughout history, but never in any numbers large enough to effect much change -- or, if they were they pretended to be religious if only to avoid that little inconvenience of being burned at the stake! Hardly a thing to blame atheist to be "uninvolved" over. Now that we can't just be tortured and murdered, the voices are becoming louder and more cohesive; and I'm even seeing a greater structuring of athiests as a group. 10 years ago, there were deep concerns that getting athiests to cohere and work together amongst themselves was like herding cats. We wouldn't kill each other of course, but we would argue over triviliaties, and yeah, the anger part was overbearing. It was a matter of, "Okay, we're angry, let's do somehting about it". It wasn't unjustified anger that was the problem, it was the "not doing shit aobut it" that was a problem.

It's about 150 years since an atheist said philosophers have hitherto attempted to understand the world the point is to change it. Around the same time an associate of this gentleman said 'God is the principal of evil. However around the same time another atheist asked his father why philosophers do not rule the world and his father answered 'They do silly they just do it about 200 years after they die' So maybe populist atheist culture is just catching up with 19th Century thought. Which means that in another hundred years the populist atheist movement will start to consider the criticisms brought to bear on atheist thinking since Marx, Proudhon and Mill. Some really good books about 19th Century atheist idealism - and children's books at that - are Pullman's Sally Lockhart novels; have you read them?

For the present day therist-- it's important to remember that the Romans hooted at the early Christians and dismissed them, and disenfranchised them, and rendered their social outrage as irrelevant, the Christians now hoot at the early atheists. Guess what happened?

And as you know the main criticism levelled at the early Christians was that they were atheists. But are modern atheists in principal saying anything Lucretius hadn't already said hundreds of years ago?

[Moonwood the Hare]

But if the blame is being misplaced then I have an issue with that. For example you blame acts of paedophilia committed by Catholic Priests on their religion and its attitude to sexuality. If that were so then surely paedophilia would be more common among these priests than among the rest of the population rather than less so.

So what you're saying is, if an institution allows something harmful to breed, but less so than other entities, then what--? We can just walk away from the entity that is breeding it? The Catholic doctrine of Jesus doesn't foster child abuse directly, as I've noted, but the institution of the religion itself does. And yes, moreso than in other places.

The only study I am aware of done on this states that between 1950 and 2002 in the USA between 3% and 6% of Catholic preists were involved in child sex abuse. That is certainly not more that the percentage among the general population at that time and may be less. Imagine a conversation that went like this - it's made up but I can imagine it taking place in any bar or workplace.

"We have to do something about all these homosexuals sexually abusing our children?"
"Actually there is no evidence to suggest that child sex abuse is more prevalent among homosexuals than among heterosexuals?"
"Yes but some homosexuals do abuse children. You can't deny that."
"No, I can't"
"So we have to put the blame for that abuse where it belongs on their homosexuality"
"But heterosexuals also abuse children."
"So because heterosexuals abuse children you are saying it's okay when homosexuals do it. Doesn't all this abuse of children by homosexuals make you angry?

"
You take my point?

[Keep The Reason]

You take my point?

I get your point that one can find other scenarios to apply to this. However, you are ignoring AIDs, condom use, abortion rights, stem cell research et al. We've focused on child abuse here, but that's just one small log on the fire. And indeed, it's not so much the actual abuse --which is bad enough-- but the institutional coverup that occurs. If you go through my posts on this, have I not said over and over it's the institutional hierarchy and secrecy?

Recently, there have been arrests over child sexual abuse in the sports department at some universities. Rest assured, arrests were made and while there is a coverup involved-- heads are already rolling. The response is swift, and it's appropriate, and those guilty-- including those who cover it up, are being brought down as well they should. This in comparison to the church, which has exposed decades of coverups and protectionism. Religion gets a pass, and that is the way it is, and that is what needs to change.

[Keep The Reason]

Elizabeth Cady Stanton + 26 Authors wrote "The Woman's Bible" just for this reason.

I didn't know about this so can't really comment.

Well, be that as it may, you certainly seem to be skipping over it rather blithely. In fact, it's a stunning development-- that disenfranchised women were standing up to this religious hierarchy at this time in Western culture and confronting it's bad and destructive message.

Like all movements, it takes time for the data to flow and reach a tipping point where it begins to build on its own momentum. Atheists are only recently reaching that point, and now the establishment -- theists in this case -- are the "Romans". You're the ones saying things like "angry atheists" in a manner to dismiss and diminish. You are the modern equivalents of those who used to say:

"Mannish women, wanting the vote! Poppycock!"
Or,
"Uppity coloreds who don't know their place"

That's what it sounds like because that's what it is. How dare we stand up and vocalize our anger? How dare we demand equal say. How dare we demand a place at the table of social discourse. How dare we be angry.

It's about 150 years since an atheist said philosophers have hitherto attempted to understand the world the point is to change it. Around the same time an associate of this gentleman said 'God is the principal of evil. However around the same time another atheist asked his father why philosophers do not rule the world and his father answered 'They do silly they just do it about 200 years after they die' So maybe populist atheist culture is just catching up with 19th Century thought.

I hope we are able to look back and not see a world blighted with the use of MWDs and smallpox. The game changers here is, I don't believe humanity will survive a confrontation between the two most driven religious ideologies extant: Christianity and Islam. We are already at war. And it's almost certainly going to get worse.

Which means that in another hundred years the populist atheist movement will start to consider the criticisms brought to bear on atheist thinking since Marx, Proudhon and Mill. Some really good books about 19th Century atheist idealism - and children's books at that - are Pullman's Sally Lockhart novels; have you read them?

No I haven't. I'll look into them.

And as you know the main criticism leveled at the early Christians was that they were atheists. But are modern atheists in principal saying anything Lucretius hadn't already said hundreds of years ago?

Almost nothing is new under the sun. But what's new is the scope of technological power. When you cobble the 21st century power with the 1st century mythology, and believe it's real, then we're in serious shit.

[Keep The Reason]

Yeah I hear what you're saying Gary. I'll be honest KTR's position worries me. It's either accept his opinion on the hot topic issues of our day or hit the road. It seems to me he tries to justify his ideas by making a case that certain groups or philosophies are being stepped on or something, like hes the victim of some horrible injustices.

I find the integrity of some posters here to be deeply questionable. The tactics are blatant and blatantly self-serving. That's fine-- it's a forum with maybe 10 active posters. Small potatoes. But integrity is still integrity. I know the follow-up: If I don't like it, leave. I may just do that but not because it's "accept my opinion" -- though you'll probably define it that way, it's really about the tactics used.

But then if I listen to the other sides ideas they often use the same arguments he is pushing. I don't know its all real hard to nail down exactly. I think humanguy was the one that brought up this 'us and them' idea, that if you demonize the other side its easier to ignore their concerns and make them the bad guys. Maybe it has something to do with personality types too.

I would say it has everything to do with personality types. And character, honesty and as mentioned, integrity.

Politically speaking, there is always an "us and them" paradigm; the difference between a rational version of this and an irrational version is a matter of degree. There's nothing inherently wrong with "us and them" -- there are groups of people, like a woman's help group, that naturally precludes being populated by men, and vice versa. So I don't have any problem with "us" versus "them" -- but that doesn't equate to demonizing people. Neither "us" nor "them" are in any way superior or inferior in either direction, but they are different. And differences are good and healthy, but there are realms in which they conflict. Yeah, I'm always going to consider those who would outlaw evolution being taught in science class as a "them", as opposed to those who champion valid science being taught in science class as the "us". I don't create them as any enemy, but they define it that way and the only appropriate response to to stand toe-to-toe with them.

Let me put it another way. I would have no problem with people being theists if it didn't translate in dictating what I should or should not do in the course of my life. The "us" is simply looking for a neutral playing field. It's the "them" who have hurled down the gauntlet here, and one can only take so much of the crack across the face before one needs to stand up and say, "Enough." If you consider that demonizing people, so be it.

It almost seems like KTR is trying to round up troops to support his campaign against these supposed theistic injustices of the world, but maybe its not working very well because most of the posters on this forum are people who've had enough of being ignorant followers and are people who'd much rather do what they do because they've thought about it for themselves and have made up their own minds. But what do I know...

Not from this forum. And I'm not waving a flag for others so much as I am merely doing it on my own. I'm politically and socially active in these matters (as well as a number of others) but I have no expectations of anyone here doing the same.

I'm pretty sure China doesn't have much for theistic injustices oh and from what I've learned from my transfer student counter parts their value of human life is also a little lower than in the United States so maybe if a guy wanted to kill embryos for science he'd be more than welcome there (just some speculation) so perhaps that would be a nice place to live...

The above comment makes no sense. China certainly has its problems, we have our problems. My interest is in the problems religion causes, and bridging a way for people to leave it behind.

or maybe even North Korea, I've heard they don't even tolerate so much as a private prayer meeting amongst friends, you'd never have a better more receptive environment to spout your ideas on atheistic supiriorism... I don't know if either country allows butt bonking though... but hey then you'd have some social evolution work to keep you occupied.

North Korea is deeply religious-- they believe Kim Il Song's dead father still governs, and is a god. They believe Dear Leader Kim Il Song can do no wrong. They are steeped in religious belief, just not anything Abrahamic. And yes, like most religions, the necrocracy of NK doesn't tolerate competition very well.

[Moonwood the Hare]

You take my point?

I get your point that one can find other scenarios to apply to this. However, you are ignoring AIDs, condom use, abortion rights, stem cell research et al. We've focused on child abuse here, but that's just one small log on the fire. And indeed, it's not so much the actual abuse --which is bad enough-- but the institutional coverup that occurs. If you go through my posts on this, have I not said over and over it's the institutional hierarchy and secrecy?

Recently, there have been arrests over child sexual abuse in the sports department at some universities. Rest assured, arrests were made and while there is a coverup involved-- heads are already rolling. The response is swift, and it's appropriate, and those guilty-- including those who cover it up, are being brought down as well they should. This in comparison to the church, which has exposed decades of coverups and protectionism. Religion gets a pass, and that is the way it is, and that is what needs to change.

Well, there are certainly problems with the bureaucracy within the Catholic Church. The problem is not a new one. Back in the late middle ages any Catholic priest who committed a crime, say murder, could ask to be tried in a Church court. If he was found guilty the worst penalty that could be imposed was excommunication. The secular courts were okay with Church courts doing there work so long as afterwards they could also try the person and the Church was saying no they can't be tried twice for the same offence. Something similar happened when Cardinal Ratzinger issued directives on dealing with child abuse. Many local clergy acted as if these were alternatives to the legal procedures in various countries and Ratzinger had not felt he needed to make clear that these run alongside the law in each country. Sometimes it is said that Ratzinger ordered a cover up until the children involved turned 18. As far as anyone can tell this is untrue. When a priest is subject to disciplinary action within the Church there is a kind of statute of limitations, that is if a certain amount of time has passed then a charge cannot be brought. In the case of child abuse it was being said that this statute of limitations should begin when the child was 18 not when the act took place. But as I recall the time given was comparatively short. In sum I think there is evidence of bureaucratic incompetence but not of a systematic cover up by the Church's central authority. But bureaucratic incompetence in dealing with these kinds of issues has been rife in all kinds of institutions. To be utterly honest when you are in the middle of one of these things you often don't know what to do and need good structures and help all along the way. To give you an idea a few years ago someone from the Salvation Army asked me about an issue where someone fairly young but in contact with younger children had been accused of abuse; the accusation would almost certainly turn out to be unfounded - we knew who had made it and what the history there was - but what actions did the SA officer need to take. I advised him to contact the person with responsibility higher up within his organization - this was before we had designated safeguarding reps at a local level - and follow the policy. He said but I don't want to betray a confidence and start naming names and I said you do not need to do that you need to explain the situation and take advice - that seemed very clear to me but the relief on his face showed it was not to him.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Keep the Reason wrote:

My experience is that atheists get into the debate on the level of the debate and while they may be emotional at times, there is nothing in their worldview that leads people to or away from "eternal doom and destruction". However, this is not the same for most religions, and therein lies a huge difference. The theist -- particularly those who have eternal dispensations -- are far more reactive in their response to their ideas being attacked than are atheists, because theists believe the attack itself is an attack not only on the person, but on their object of worship.

If you were to call Dawkins a "dipshit moron", I would be defensive of him and argue otherwise, but I wouldn't think you are adopting some position of deep disrespect to some supreme being. If I call Jesus a "douchebag zombie" (and note, Jesus isn't even alive to hear me call him that and Dawkins can hear insults), then people become literally enraged at my disrespecting their GOD. The sword does not cut both ways. It cuts far harder one way than it does the other.

Yes I think that's true; there is often a level of emotional involvement that is different with theists. And some of us can be very vulnerable. But I think one answer is to criticise rather than abuse. I have suggested that Greta Christina is rather immature in her thinking (not as a person I wouldn't know about that) but I have not felt a need to call her any names. Now the reaction my criticism called forth from you seemed very emotional and angry; you did seem to feel you were under attack. Now I don't for one minute think this is because you literally worship Greta Christina and you were careful to say that you did not regard all her views as necessarily correct but there was a sense of you not feeling she was being given the respect she deserved. As for Richard Dawkins well I have a lot of respect for the man when he does what he is best at (popularizing scientific ideas) he is very good indeed, and that is not only in his own field of biology. I read something not long ago where he was explaining information theory and he was so lucid it was astonishing, especially when you compare this to the writing of John Lennox (one of Dawkins debate partners) on the same theme and bearing in mind that this is Lennox's own field. However as soon as he starts trying to do philosophy something just goes wrong.

[humanguy]

I would have no problem with people being theists if it didn't translate in dictating what I should or should not do in the course of my life.

What do theists force you to do? What do you want to do that theists prevent you from doing?

[Aaron]

I would have no problem with people being theists if it didn't translate in dictating what I should or should not do in the course of my life.

Translation: a person cannot have any ideas or belief that mean anything to them in any meaningful way otherwise those ideas or beliefs might influence how they go about their lives and in a free society where laws can change based partially on the will of the people that means laws might be influenced by the ideas or beliefs of those people and by Joe we can't have any of that going on!

[Keep The Reason]

]Translation: a person cannot have any ideas or belief that mean anything to them in any meaningful way otherwise those ideas or beliefs might influence how they go about their lives and in a free society where laws can change based partially on the will of the people that means laws might be influenced by the ideas or beliefs of those people and by Joe we can't have any of that going on!

Tactic, poorly done.

Here's an example: stem cell research. Huge issue here in the USA primarily thanks to Christian morality (Bush in particular) If such Christians do not believe in such a religious tenet, then away goes the obstacle. My belief is that humans will discard such beliefs not in "accordance with my personal demands" like the nincompoopery that Aaron tries to redefine, but by recognizing that such beliefs are harmful, self destructive, and antithetical to human happiness. I don't think this change will happen without effort however.

And to loop it back to the thread, in order to help grow this movement, speeches such as GC's help that cause. For instance, to use simple figures as illustrations, lets say 10 years ago, there were 500 atheists. Well, thanks to speeches and conferences and forums and so on, now there are 10,000 atheists.

None of those atheists would stand as an obstacle to stem cell research, and for every atheist out there, that means one less Christian who IS an obstacle. Hence, the social model can change. Until such time, the social model is entrenched due to the religious view. Religious views change exceedingly slowly,slower than any other human institution.

It would be great if those Christians who do NOT stand as obstacles would reform their own churches, but that is a very slow, grinding, and often useless expectation. It would be great if Catholics would stand against their churches view on condoms and hence stop the ongoing spread of AIDS in Africa, but, well, they don't in any remarkable numbers.

So, someone has to be willing to make those changes. And they will meet with all the sorts of tactics extant here, and worse ones. They will even get asked questions like humanguy asks, as if I personally have to suffer from a religious tenet's consequences in order to see one as wrong and harming millions of people. I may not be a personal victim of the catholic campaign against safe sex, but that doesn't mean I am morally justified in sitting on my ass, doing nothing and watching Jeopardy.

One can be outraged at slavery without themselves personally being a slave.