Atheists are people, too

[james_davis_nicoll]

Unfortunately that means some of them are terrible people.

I’ve been writing about atheism for about 10 years now. What has driven me is a combination of awe at the amazing insights produced by science, so much deeper and more substantial than any collection of myths, and a furious rage at the lies and injustice and corruption of humanity by religion. For a while there, in the middle, there was also an ebullience at the growing success of atheism, and hope that someday we would be able to cast aside the follies of faith. The awe is still here, the rage is still burning, but the optimism is fading and is being consumed by a new anger at the incompetence and betrayal of the self-appointed atheist leadership.

Comments

[seth ellis (from livejournal.com)]

I had no idea organized atheism existed until I started to hear about its various fuck-ups, and it's still a weird idea to me. We are united by the lack of an organizing principle!

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

I don't see anything especially odd about it. It's certainly no odder than associations for unschoolers or free-love advocates. Anyone whose ideas are out of the mainstream can benefit from a community for emotional support and exchange of ideas about how to exist in a world that is inclined to look askance at you. Also, there's a difference between atheists who see at least some forms of religion as essentially harmless and those who think all belief in the supernatural is harmful and should be fought against. The latter are naturally going to be more inclined to be evangelical, and evangelicalism generally requires some organization.

[seth ellis (from livejournal.com)]

Perhaps it's the phrase "atheist movement" that gives me a problem, since I don't see organized atheism moving in any particular direction. I agree with the difference you mention, but I haven't seen these folks actively moving to destroy this or that religion, or even get out there and make converts one by one, so much as get together to talk about their common interests. Not every community based on shared themes is an organization.

[youraugustine.livejournal.com]

Actually, when they are organized, it tends to be "we are united by the fact that we think other people are WRONG and we need to tell them so and tell them they are ruining the world."

This is a natural human enterprise, so I'd be stunned if they weren't organized.

[seth ellis (from livejournal.com)]

On reflection, this is where I'm coming from: I was raised more or less Presbyterian, and am now agnostic, though from a religious point of view I'm indistinguishable from an atheist. Though I was never deeply into any church experience, when I was younger I took very seriously on an intellectual level the hardcore Protestant idea that faith is a matter between the individual conscience and God, and that's my view of atheism too, that it's between you and the universe. Social organization of atheism, unless it's real, concrete activism aimed at destroying religious structures, just seems weird to me; I just don't get the appeal. I realize this is a personal take on it, but there it is.

[youraugustine.livejournal.com]

And I can understand the personal experience and take.

On the flipside, as a polytheist, in my life I have actually been evangelized at (and condescended to, and treated like an idiot, and patronised, and otherwise treated badly) by so many self-proclaimed atheists that I am more wary of someone who feels the need to tell me they're an atheist than someone who feels the need to tell me they're a Christian.

So it exists, and it exists as most organizations amongst humans do: at least in part to tell everyone else that they're wrong and ruining society and should be ashamed of themselves.

[seth ellis (from livejournal.com)]

Which brings us back to the original point that atheists can be shitty.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Dear gods yes. In my experience the problem is two-fold - evangelical atheists are no more pleasant company than evangelists for any other belief system, and also the vast majority of athiest arguments are focused on Christianity (with a large side-order of bigotry and Islamophobia for atheists who are also vile bigots), and so few of their arguments even make sense wrt my own (neopagan) belief system, and more than a few atheists seem to lack the ability to see that all faiths do not have the same (obvious) faults as fundamentalist Christianity.

[dragoness-e.livejournal.com]

I've noticed that, too. More than a few of the louder and more ignorant atheists seem to be unaware that there are any forms of Christianity other than evangelical fundamentalists, let alone any comprehension of neo-pagans, old pagans, the major polytheistic religions of the modern world, or even basic cultural anthropology.

[quirkytizzy.livejournal.com]

*giggle* Aptly put.

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

More like, "We are united in a desire to break the Christian monopoly on American culture, and that sometimes does require us to tell Christians they're wrong about history, culture, science, other religions, the contents of the Bible and the color of the sky."

Seriously, try to discuss public displays of the Ten Commandments with a Fundamentalist without, at some point, saying, "No, you're wrong. The Commandments aren't common sense morality. More than half of them would be un-Constitutional if enacted in law."

[lostwanderfound.livejournal.com]

Yes.

In my experience, most supposed atheist "evangelism" actually equates to "refusing to stay silent or spout polite lies when discussing religion". And most of the purpose of atheist organising and lobbying, at least in the US, comes under the heading of "protesting theocracy".

[mme-hardy.livejournal.com]

It very much depends on where you are and who you associate with. I read the (British) Guardian's articles. Every time they do an article that touches on religion, the comments fill up with "Yah yah believers are stupid you and your sky idol". An example, from an article on the Archbishop of Canterbury's admitting religious doubt.

[lostwanderfound.livejournal.com]

As opposed to the calm and respectful comments from the religious that are routinely to be found on articles discussing atheism, gay rights, secularism, etc.?

There is a massive double standard in play. Atheist speakers are labelled as extreme and fanatical just for politely and calmly answering when directly asked about their views, whereas religious agents seem to need to start actually detonating bombs before they get anywhere near the same treatment.

"I believe, based on my study of reality and history, that all human religion is both factually mistaken and ultimately harmful" is a much less offensive statement than "all non-believers are going to eternal torment, and it is right and just that this is so". The first statement creates scandal whenever anyone with any public profile says it; the second one is routinely delivered, in varying levels of explicitness, by religious figures around the world every day without a stir.

[legionseagle (from livejournal.com)]

I follow the Lawyers Secular Society on Twitter and while I much enjoy (and am in broad agreement) with most of their posts and support their objects, I can't help thinking their members would get further if some of them could have the phrase "magic sky fairy" and cognates removed from their vocabularies.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Hmm. PZ isn't always the most reliable source.

[mme-hardy.livejournal.com]

He may or may not be, but if you follow his links, there's a lot of history there. In particular, there's history, from multiple witnesses, of women being shouted down when they complain about harassment.

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

Well, (a) I have found PZ pretty reliable in general, and (b) he's far, far, FAR from the only person saying this stuff.

[solarbird]

I haven't seen that, but I have certainly seen all the things he's talking about out of the Atheist Movement (tm). It's been sexist as fuck.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

True, but this piece seems remarkably accurate given the comments I've heard from numerous people within the atheist movement about misogyny, racism, and the driving force behind much of these problems - tolerating the presence of vocal libertarians within organized atheism.

[pperiwinkle.livejournal.com]

That hasn't been my experience, if he makes a mistake, he comes back and corrects it. Can you point out some incidents where his information proved unreliable and he didn't correct himself?

[drcuriosity]

It's times like this that I'm glad I live in a place that has low general levels of religiosity, and high levels of "religion is a personal matter" even among the people who do think religion is an important part of their daily lives.

We still have plenty of jerks, of course, just fewer people being jerks by reason of religion (or lack thereof).

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

I've been saying for a while variants on the theme of "I am an atheist. So was Ayn Rand. When I agree with Ayn Rand about anything I check my assumptions. Fred Clark is a Christian. When I disagree with him about anything not relating to the existence of God I check my assumptions. Atheism says something about what I don't believe rather than something about what I do."

[w. dow rieder (from livejournal.com)]

Religious labels are often used as tribal markers, with associated baggage. 'Atheism' can also be used as a tribal marker, as Myers does, and his point seems to be that the baggage associated with it is becoming increasingly negative, even among people who aren't religious.

[david wilford (from livejournal.com)]

What has driven me is a combination of awe at the amazing insights produced by science, so much deeper and more substantial than any collection of myths, and a furious rage at the lies and injustice and corruption of humanity by religion.

Christ, what an asshole.