Atheism in America coming out?

[Faramond]

What sort of atheist is obsessed with God? I can't imagine following your links, demo, and coming away with a positive opinion of atheists. But Dawkins and the people behind the blasphemy challenge are more accurately called anti-theists I think, which is not the same at all as being an atheist.

I've read Bertrand Russell, including some of his essay "Why I am not a Christian", and I have to say that Dawkins doesn't even belong in the same league with him. Russell isn't an anti-theist. He doesn't have a strange need to base his identity on what he is opposed to, as Dawkins and the people who are behind the Blasphemy challenge seem to do.

I'd like to point out how bizarre and unhealthy it is to find a belief system you disagree with and set out to commit a filthy, evil act within it. What is this, some sort of fetish? Why all the effort to reject God and Jesus by people who don't believe in them? How do you reject something you don't believe exists, anyway? What does that even mean?

There are a lot of atheists on this board. In my experience they are all lovely, moral people. I don't think the quality of a person has anything to do with their faith or lack of faith. I'm not a big fan of anti-theists, though. Or pushy Christians who tell everyone they're going to hell, for that matter. Different shades of the same beast, if you ask me.

[yovargas]

Excellent post, Faramond. The "anti-theist" term is an excellent observation that pinpoints why I feel no connection whatsover to guys like Dawkins.

Would you mind posting that in the (currently dead) b77 version of this thread?

[Cerin]

Faramond also put his finger on what I was feeling was odd about these atheists or anti-theists who seem so intent on sticking a finger in God's eye. Me thinks they doth protest too much.

[JewelSong]

Faramond also put his finger on what I was feeling was odd about these atheists or anti-theists who seem so intent on sticking a finger in God's eye. Me thinks they doth protest too much.

I have often said that I think Dawkins is a closet fundamentalist. In some ways, he reminds me of those people who are adamantly and violently opposed to homosexuality who later turn out to be homosexual themselves. They oppose it so strongly because they fear it in themselves.

Who knows?

That being said, I don't think God gives a rat's patootie about what is being said regarding His existence.

[Democritus]

What sort of atheist is obsessed with God? I can't imagine following your links, demo, and coming away with a positive opinion of atheists. But Dawkins and the people behind the blasphemy challenge are more accurately called anti-theists I think, which is not the same at all as being an atheist.

I've read Bertrand Russell, including some of his essay "Why I am not a Christian", and I have to say that Dawkins doesn't even belong in the same league with him. Russell isn't an anti-theist. He doesn't have a strange need to base his identity on what he is opposed to, as Dawkins and the people who are behind the Blasphemy challenge seem to do.

I'd like to point out how bizarre and unhealthy it is to find a belief system you disagree with and set out to commit a filthy, evil act within it. What is this, some sort of fetish? Why all the effort to reject God and Jesus by people who don't believe in them? How do you reject something you don't believe exists, anyway? What does that even mean?

It's funny, I remember the same accusations being made against Ayaan Hirst Ali for her film "Submission" after she left Islam, similarly against Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti by angry Sikhs with a similarly themed play in Birmingham, England called "Behzti", and finally against the writers of "Jerry Springer The Opera" and the artist who produced "Piss Christ". In each case instead of looking at the reasons and the climate that precipitated these acts of art they were dismissed in some quarters as just being the work of angry, disrespectful anti-theists.

Now I said at the top of my initial post that you could easily dismiss the Blasphemy Challenge as a college-level stunt and similarly you could condemn Dawkins for his some of his more extreme comments (as I have done before) but the point I was making in my essay was that there are feelings and concerns amongst American Atheists that have been building for a while. I explored the reasons for those concerns and feelings in my post and how the more extreme reactions can be utilised by other more moderate voices to a positive end over the longer run.

Now as I also said at the top of my original post Faramond, if you prefer just to react to the Blasphemy Challenge rather than the real point that my essay went on to outline then thats fine. But don't think they are one and the same.

[Democritus]

Ner

No worries, no need to flay that dead horse any longer.

[Democritus]

Faramond also put his finger on what I was feeling was odd about these atheists or anti-theists who seem so intent on sticking a finger in God's eye. Me thinks they doth protest too much.

Me thinks you haven't thought about this too much at all. If you want to understand why a group starts to react a certain way you may want to walk in their shoes a little bit and consider what may be precipitating it. Rather than just stand there and go "oh that seems awfully rude, I can't imagine what precipitated that, they must be closet Christians or something".

[Democritus]

I have often said that I think Dawkins is a closet fundamentalist. In some ways, he reminds me of those people who are adamantly and violently opposed to homosexuality who later turn out to be homosexual themselves. They oppose it so strongly because they fear it in themselves.

Who knows?

What I said to Cerin. Dawkins has his moments, he can be very good as you have preciously mentioned to me and he can also be over-the-top. It pays to remember with Dawkins though that he is one of the worlds premier evolutionary biologists who has had a life-time of militant creationists deliberately trying to misconstrue his work while telling him that he is going to burn in the hell-fires. It may have had an effect.

[Cerin]

If you want to understand why a group starts to react a certain way you may want to walk in their shoes a little bit and consider what may be precipitating it. Rather than just stand there and go "oh that seems awfully rude, I can't imagine what precipitated that, they must be closet Christians or something".

I understand you had broader points you were wanting to address, Demo, but it happens that I found Faramond's comments astute (as pertaining to that narrow aspect of the discussion) and they helped crystallize what I'd been feeling about those people who seem to be paying an awful lot of attention to a being they don't believe exists. I didn't mean it as a comment on the broader question of prejudice against atheists; I can certainly at least try to imagine how atheists feel being so outnumbered in our society.

[Democritus]

If you want to understand why a group starts to react a certain way you may want to walk in their shoes a little bit and consider what may be precipitating it. Rather than just stand there and go "oh that seems awfully rude, I can't imagine what precipitated that, they must be closet Christians or something".

I understand you had broader points you were wanting to address, Demo, but it happens that I found Faramond's comments astute (as pertaining to that narrow aspect of the discussion) and they helped crystallize what I'd been feeling about those people who seem to be paying an awful lot of attention to a being they don't believe exists. I didn't mean it as a comment on the broader question of prejudice against atheists; I can certainly at least try to imagine how atheists feel being so outnumbered in our society.

The number of anti-theists who are just anti-theists for the sake of it and who enjoy baiting believers for the sake of it do exist. But their numbers are not high and merely reflect that there are unpleasant people in all walks of life. Intelligent theists learn to distinguish between these types of people and genuine criticism of theism that can take the legitimate form of angry, coriscating, even rude satire or commentary (such as Bill Hicks at one end of the spectrum or Voltaire at the other) It you want to know why they are inspired to produce that criticism or commentary in the first place, read my post to Nerdanel below.

[Democritus]

Excellent Nerdanel, that backs up the heart of what I am saying and also backs up the essence of the replies that the ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirst Ali gave as to why she was so strongly criticising Islam after she left the faith (it was what was being done to women in the name of that religion, even in Europe).

I'll put it to you this way, in countries where organised religion is weak in the public domain and predominently a private matter then instances of anti-theism and fierce criticism of religion is also weak. It is no surprise that much of the celebrated satire and criticism of Christianity in Europe occured during the centuries where Catholicism was interfering in just about everybody's private life and severely warped public life as well. It is no surprise that there is now appearing criticism against Islam in a generation of women who fled to Europe and America where they can (safely?) speak out against the strictures of their faith where in their home countries they would have been killed immediately usually be their own family. It is also no surprise that much of the best satire and sustained criticism against evangelical Christianity has come from the USA with the rise fo the evangelical right in the last few decades.

It is the corrupting and illiberal nature of religion when joined with power that creates the backlashes with the most inspiration. In places where secularism and liberalism is truly dominent (like NZ, like Sweden) criticism and anti-theism is muted. This says a lot more about faith than non-faith by the way. As Faramond said, why would Atheists go about attacking something they don't believe in? Well the answer is, they usually don't when they and the things they care about, are left well enough alone.

Edit: Weird... I'm sure I had just read a long post by Nerdanel on being pressurised by the Catholic church. Did I just hallucinate that?

[nerdanel]

No, you didn't, Demo - I posted it, then thought better of it. Still, since you wrote a post in response to mine - and saying things that I largely agree with - it seems only fair to put mine back. Here you go - sorry for confusing you.

Why all the effort to reject God and Jesus by people who don't believe in them? How do you reject something you don't believe exists, anyway? What does that even mean?

I can't speak to this question as an atheist, of course - only in my own way as a wandering agnostic.

It's funny, because I saw your question, Faramond, just as I was writing a(nother) journal entry about why Jesus - the human figure - touches me so deeply. Sometimes I muse whether it is possible to be a "follower of Jesus" while not accepting any of the religious, faith-required Christian tenets about who Jesus was (i.e. what it would mean to be an agnostic follower of Jesus' ethical teachings). I don't think that I could feel this way and "reject Jesus," exactly.

But I have repeatedly, persistently, and even angrily rejected Christianity, and will probably do so in future. Why the difference? I feel that I have been persistently indoctrinated with and then threatened by Christianity since early childhood. I was baptized as a toddler, before I was old enough to consent or even to have a remote understanding of what was happening, something I will always regard as a violation, by both my parents (specifically, my father, who ignored my mother's feeling that baptism should be an older child's consenting choice) and the Catholic Church. (I firmly believe that individuals should be permitted to consent to any action that has purportedly metaphysical consequences.) I was then taught Christian doctrine as absolute truth for the next ten or so years. When I was exploring the possibility of leaving Christianity as a pre-teenager finally old enough to think for myself, I was repeatedly intimidated by warnings that I would be destined for hell if I turned my back on Christianity. I have neither forgotten nor forgiven the hatefully condescending things that I heard about Jews from Christians trying to dissuade my interest in Judaism. And when I finally broke through that haze of intimidation, I was informed that I would always be Catholic no matter what, because I had been baptized before I was old enough to consent...and that unfortunately, excommunication is no longer an option.

Why all the effort to "reject God and Jesus," at least in the sense you mean? Because it is imposed on so many of us from birth as the one true way, and our any attempt to find a different spiritual path is condemned wholesale. I reject it because I have been told one too many times that I have no alternative to eternal hellfire (or, on the flip side, no way to enter into heaven) other than to accept it. And - even without explicitly believing in the existence of heaven or hell, which I do not - I find that view so repugnant and coercive, when repeatedly thrust in my face, that I must react to it.

I feel no need to explain where my views differ from Buddhism, Hindusim, Jainism, Sikhism, or any of the other religions that have never sought to intimidate me into accepting their teachings. I do not feel the compulsion either to accept or reject the views of these religions, which is probably why I will never self-identify as an atheist. I do not see a need even to consider where they seem True and where not.

However, I can understand why others do. Although I feel particularly aggrieved by the unwanted imposition of a particular religious tradition in my life, it is easy for me to understand why others could feel aggrieved by the unwanted imposition of a bigger concept - a Divinity - in their life. There are many valid reasons why someone might not believe in a god or gods. And it is very true that that belief (or lack thereof) will subject them to stigma, suspicion, and in some cases, fear and ridicule, even today. I think that when someone experiences such prejudice, it is a natural reaction to be even more vocal about what one is or believes (here, in the lack of existence of a god) and as vocal about what one is not or does not believe (in a god, which in our society ordinarily means the Christian god.)

[Cerin]

It is the corrupting and illiberal nature of religion when joined with power that creates the backlashes with the most inspiration.

I wonder how you would react to a statement like this directed toward a lack of religious belief? For example, 'It is the corrupting and prideful nature of atheism when joined with power that creates the backlashes with the most inspiration'?

Is there a double standard operating here? You seem to feel that atheists should be free to sweepingly condemn religion, but people who believe in God shouldn't be free to sweepingly condemn atheism? Is that correct?

As to the substance of the above quote, it is people who are corrupting and illiberal, and therefore responsible for the corruption of spiritual truth, not the other way around.


Edited to quote complete sentence, rather than just the part I was intending to focus on, so as not to be accused of deliberately trying to distort another person's statement.

[yovargas]

I have no problem if some particular person/persons want to make it their life goal to disprove Christianity or whatever. What I have issue with is them acting like if they represent atheists as a group. They most certainly do not.

[nerdanel]

Goodness, Cerin, that is such a painfully distorted misquote that I have to believe you accidentally failed to read the entire sentence you were attempting to quote, rather than intentionally misrepresenting what Demo posted. You quoted, “It is the corrupting and illiberal nature of religion...” when the actual sentence was, “It is the corrupting and illiberal nature of religion when joined with power that creates the backlashes with the most inspiration.”

I imagine it would be as legitimate for a religious person to opine that atheism has a corrupting and illiberal nature when joined with power. But that would be a different matter indeed than stating that atheism is de facto corrupting and illiberal.

FWIW, I don’t automatically agree with that sentence of Demo’s, as sweepingly written. I think it depends both on the tenets of the religion in question and the nature of the power that it wields. I would fear most religions, though, when backed by the police power of the states - and would as readily fear a militant atheism (in itself a philosophical belief system) backed by government power.

[yovargas]

Yeah, anti-theist governments don't have that great of a track record either...

[Cerin]

nel, my intent was not to deliberately distort what Demo wrote. For the purposes of my point, the rest of his comment was irrelevant. Power always corrupts, regardless of what '-ism' it is combined with. So if you subtract the power from either side of the equation (atheism v. religiosity), you have reduced it to atheism on the one hand and religiosity on the other, which is what I was interested in looking at.

I'll go back and modify the quote, though, so as to negate the assertion that I was either reading carelessly or deliberately seeking to distort Demo's comment.

[nerdanel]

Thank you, Cerin. When I first read your post, I was genuinely startled, because I had just posted that I largely agreed with Demo’s post, and I would not have agreed with his partial statement as you quoted it. I wondered if I had misread his post, and I had to go back to reread it. The partial quote you used read as a frontal attack on all religion, which I couldn’t possibly endorse as an agnostic who still attends a place of worship weekly for spiritual reflection purposes. I appreciate your clarification.

[vison]

I'd like to point out how bizarre and unhealthy it is to find a belief system you disagree with and set out to commit a filthy, evil act within it. What is this, some sort of fetish? Why all the effort to reject God and Jesus by people who don't believe in them? How do you reject something you don't believe exists, anyway? What does that even mean?

Precisely my thoughts.

As for this:

. . . . the essence of the replies that the ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirst Ali gave as to why she was so strongly criticising Islam after she left the faith (it was what was being done to women in the name of that religion, even in Europe).

I am familiar with this woman and her work. She is not by any stretch of the imagination "blaspheming" Islam, she is criticizing it. It may well be that her criticism is seen as blasphemy in some quarters, but that is not the issue.

I have a dear friend who has been angry with God for decades, since her son died. She doesn't even realize what she's saying, poor woman, when she says, "I won't believe in God any more". She still believes, she's just angry.

[Faramond]

demo: Now I said at the top of my initial post that you could easily dismiss the Blasphemy Challenge as a college-level stunt and similarly you could condemn Dawkins for his some of his more extreme comments (as I have done before) but the point I was making in my essay was that there are feelings and concerns amongst American Atheists that have been building for a while. I explored the reasons for those concerns and feelings in my post and how the more extreme reactions can be utilised by other more moderate voices to a positive end over the longer run.

I reacted to the Blasphemy Challenge because that was the most "interesting" part of your post to me. I was unimpressed by your comparisons to women and homosexuals, and didn't feel there was much to comment on there. I may say more later ... just to be clear I'm not suggesting atheists are never discriminated against.

I didn't merely condemn the Blasphemy Challenge in my first post, either. I characterized it for I thought it really is. It's not an atheist affirmation, but rather an anti-theist affirmation, a participation in a strange fetish.

I do not make an equation between the Blasphemy Challenge and a rejection or a criticism of religion, which you seem to think I'm making. You mention a list of films and artworks I'm not familiar with. I can't say if they have anything in common with the Blasphemy Challenge or not.

I really don't see how the Blasphemy Challenge can be of any use to moderate voices. It will just encourage the sort of negative characterization of atheists that you fear. The Challenge is just disrespect for the sake of being disrespectful. I don't think it's justified by past trauma at the hands of disrespectful Christians, either. The motivation for it may be explained by that ...


yov: I'll look into posting on B77 later this evening.


nel: I'll have to get to your post later. I will just say now that there are different senses of rejecting God and Jesus. There is a big difference between rejecting a religion, criticising a religion, being angry at people in a religion who may have wronged you --- and seeking out some way to blaspheme within that religion.