james_davis_nicoll | Atheists are people, too

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Or belief in a creator without an organized religion surrounding that belief.

That, too. I also forgot to mention flaming ignorance of actual Islam, the theology of Judaism, or religions that don't really emphasise the role of "the Creator", such as various forms of animism.

Finally, there are spiritually-inclined persons who have had direct experience of the supernatural. To such an person, the atheist worldview makes about as much sense as Young Earth Creationism does to a geologist working the lower levels of the Grand Canyon. I.e, it comes across as the babbling of a smug, ignorant fool and isn't going to persuade said spiritual person that the atheist has anything of value to say.

Calling said spiritual person a deluded idiot while mocking their deities ("magical sky fairy" and the like)--who may well be close personal friends in the case of animists or neo-pagans-- won't make them magically agree with the atheist. It will just make them see the atheist as a smug, ignorant, rude asshole.

Edits: because I can't speel early in the morning.

Edited 2014-09-28 13:33 (UTC)

"Finally, there are spiritually-inclined persons who have had direct experience of the supernatural. To such an person, the atheist worldview makes about as much sense as Young Earth Creationism does to a geologist working the lower levels of the Grand Canyon. I.e, it comes across as the babbling of a smug, ignorant fool and isn't going to persuade said spiritual person that the atheist has anything of value to say."

If that were true, I couldn't BE an atheist without inherently disrespecting you (even if I never said a word about your religious experiences one way or another). Moreover, if that were true, you couldn't be a spiritual person without inherently disrespecting me. I hope that's not what you actually mean to imply.

To such an person, the atheist worldview makes about as much sense as Young Earth Creationism does to a geologist working the lower levels of the Grand Canyon. I.e, it comes across as the babbling of a smug, ignorant fool and isn't going to persuade said spiritual person that the atheist has anything of value to say.

Let me loudly disagree. I have had what I believe to be direct experience with something outside myself. To me, the atheist worldview makes perfect sense, given that atheists haven't had that direct experience (or have had something similar that they explain in a different way.)

It is absolutely possible for a believer to respect atheists, to respect the intellectual and emotional paths that have led them to choose atheism, and to learn a lot from various atheists.

"To me, the atheist worldview makes perfect sense, given that atheists haven't had that direct experience (or have had something similar that they explain in a different way.)"

Thank you. For context, I was raised agnostic, decided early in my high school years that I believed in Christianity, was baptized Episcopalian at 21, and subsequently changed my mind and left the church. I have indeed had experiences of my own that at one time I thought of as religious experiences and now see otherwise. Of course I can't know whether they're anything like what anyone else has experienced.

I was referring to a specific subset of atheists, what someone above referred to as "evangelistic atheists"--those who aggressively denigrate all religion, proclaim all non-atheists to be deluded sheep, love the expression "magical sky fairy", and often try to argue questionable premises as established fact ("there is no supernatural", "obviously no one was raised from the dead", etc).

I have no problem with someone who has had different experiences and come to different conclusions. If a/any religion doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. What I do not respect are people who insist that your or my experiences and beliefs are invalid because they don't believe that way themselves.

"I was referring to a specific subset of atheists"

"The atheist worldview" is not a very good name for that subset.

I don't really know whether I think other people's beliefs are valid. I am not sure I know what you mean by validity. If I thought their beliefs were completely valid, after all, I would agree with them, and if I don't, I don't. But I don't have to agree with everything someone else thinks in order to get along with them -- just enough so that we have sufficient assumptions in common that we aren't inherently incompatible. Some beliefs are going to be deal-breakers for me. Lots aren't.

Aside from the points above, experience of the supernatural isn't the same as experience of the divine, and while atheism is often strictly materialist, it doesn't have to be. Smug generalizations about "the atheist worldview," as though that were a singular coherent thing, aren't any more convincing than any other smug generalizations.

Just what will make them agree with the atheist? If the answer is 'nothing', maybe they shouldn't be bringing up their religion in the first place.

This is something of a general principle actually: don't presume to lecture to me about your views if you have no intention of listening to mine in return. Fair enough?

*giggle* Aptly put.

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."

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".

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.

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.

Edited 2014-09-27 23:22 (UTC)

You're shifting the subject. Your claim was 'most supposed atheist "evangelism" actually equates to "refusing to stay silent or spout polite lies when discussing religion".' I pointed out an example where atheist evangelism equated to 'Talking to the voices inside his head again then.'

"Tu quoque" is a lousy basis for a society. I have lived in a predominantly Evangelical Christian community full of bad logic and rudeness. That doesn't justify anybody else's being full of bad logic and rudeness; it's a stain against that community.

"I believe, based on my study of reality and history, that all human religion is both factually mistaken and ultimately harmful"

If online atheists (and Christians! and everybody else!) stuck to statements like this, the world would be a better place.

' 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".'

Surely the atheist response to this is the same as the atheist response to being threatened with the wrath of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I was not attempting to shift the subject; I was attempting to provide a perspective that I think is relevant.

Is "magical sky-daddy" impolite? Sure. Do plenty of atheists say impolite things about religion, particularly when talking amongst themselves? Absolutely. Is any version of the gently mocking phrase "sky-daddy" anywhere near the same ballpark of obnoxiousness as "God hates fags"? Or even the more polite versions of that phrase used in more respectable churches? Absolutely not.

And yet there is an attempt to equate the two; the routine declaration that "militant [1] atheists are just as bad as / worse than fundamentalists". The example you're citing of obnoxious atheist evangelism is one person making a mildly snarky comment equating religion with hallucination (which, although not polite, is hardly an original or outrageous statement) in a context in which there was no reason to suspect that the commenter had ever intended any sort of "evangelism" at all. And is immediately followed in the comments by a discussion amongst a bunch of other atheists about how they feel that those sorts of statements are counter-productive and they wish he hadn't said that.

So, the example you're citing was: not from a formally declared atheist; not apparently done with the intention of evangelism; mildly cheeky at worst; not technically incorrect; immediately criticised by atheist bystanders for bad tone.

In my experience, most supposed atheist "evangelism" actually equates to "refusing to stay silent or spout polite lies when discussing religion".

I'm happy to stand by that.

[1] For values of militant that equate to calmly and clearly stating views when asked.

Edited 2014-09-28 15:20 (UTC)

Incidentally, I also agree with PZ's original post. Way too many arseholes in organised atheism & scepticism; the same problems as fandom and wider geek culture, in generous helpings.

You're making a tone argument. Christians are in a position of privilege and can say whatever they want about atheists -- we're ruining the country, we're going to hell, we have no morality and can't be trusted in any way, shape or form -- but when atheists use sharp terms to criticize theism (and "invisible sky fairy" is nothing more than a sarcastic restatement of Russell's Celestial Teapot argument), they're going beyond the bounds of civility.

But this thread is *about* tone. It starts with "In my experience, most supposed atheist "evangelism" actually equates to "refusing to stay silent or spout polite lies when discussing religion". "

Here are some things I'm pretty sure lostwanderfound and I agree with:

1. The dominant Evangelical culture in the U.S. has (A) too much political power and (B) is full of loudmouthed ignoramus assholes.
2. The formal atheism movement has infinitely less power than do Christians, and especially less power than Evangelical Christians.
3. Atheists are a lot more oppressed in the U.S. than Christians. (See the recent move in which the Air Force tried, and then backed down, to prevent an airman from reenlisting unless he included So Help Me God in his oath.

Summary: atheists are being oppressed, and need a constant fight to be treated as complete human beings and citizens. The dominant culture is NOT religion-neutral, and it ought to be.

Here's where I think we disagree:
1. The official atheism and atheism-advocacy groups have, historically, included incredible assholes (as well as courteous and reasonable human beings) in their leadership. Richard Dawkins. Penn. Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
2. These self-selected and, in some cases, community-supported thinkers have been just as insulting and divisive as their religious opponents.
3. Some of the rank and file of the atheism-advocacy groups have modeled their behavior on the prominent assholes in the movement.

That's what I'm talking about. Blanket statements that "well, the atheists aren't behaving as badly as their opponents" don't wash with me. Some of the atheists, including prominent and community-accepted representatives, are behaving just as badly as their opponents, minus the power.

And the thing about "minus the power" is, the particular subject here is atheists self-policing their own community, not being rude to Christians. It's the same power structures as always.

Dawkins and Penn are certainly arseholes, but in neither case does their arseholery have anything to do with their atheist advocacy. O'Hair is a bit too American History for me to know much of.

The things that get Dawkins held up as a paragon of incivility are usually nothing more than calm statements of beliefs that are not in themselves unreasonable or offensive.

Arguing that "I think all religion is massively harmful, factually wrong and so blatantly ridiculous that I'm frankly amazed that any non-idiot would fall for it; perhaps it reflects a deep-seated flaw in human rationality" is just as insulting and divisive as the crap routinely spouted by vast numbers of mainstream religious leaders on a constant basis displays a serious lack of perspective. Or did you have a particular example of Dawkins' intolerable offensiveness you were thinking of?

I am rather reminded of this comic: http://api.ning.com/files/xl2Uv0dtDlkQGdAp5Xs0bqLDBcFyT0*jfLrFemocQqhvk-PZy1nRusbyp1Kbgg7G1ah8-vtW49Mf82W44IqlQerm3BVs0mHi/Thouwiltrespectmyreligion.jpg?width=465&height=600

Religion in the USA is massively privileged, more so than in the rest of the West. The fact that religious folk there tend to react to the slightest rebalancing of the scales with cries of "oppression!" is in itself a feature of this privilege.

"Just as badly". You're equating the occasional bit of intemperate verbal mockery with the routine and open advocacy of imprisonment, death and eternal suffering for large segments of the population, an endless collection of statements to the effect that abuse/rape victims brought it on themselves, and a frequent declaration that scientists are immoral ungodly deceivers who must be ignored. Etc.

It's the false equivalency that bothers me, not the (trivially true) claim that some atheists are sometimes somewhat obnoxious.

Relative power matters. See prior discussions in online activism around "kicking up vs kicking down" and "why members of an oppressed group are not obliged to be polite when discussing their oppression".

The thing is, there is (back to the beginning of this discussion, at James's link) more than one oppressed group here. Atheists are oppressed. So are women. So are nonwhite people. Many of the major atheist conferences have had incidents and/or policies where women were sexually harassed and made to feel uncomfortable. Several prominent name-brand atheists are viciouly dismissive when you critique representation and harassment issues.

My particular objection to Richard Dawkins is that he has constantly belittled sexual harassment as an issue, and has gone so far as to classify which rapes he does and does not think are traumatizing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-says-date-rape-is-bad-stranger-rape-is-worse-on-twitter-9634572.html

http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/2014/09/19/dear-richard-dawkins-your-hypothetical-is-still-rape/

an endless collection of statements to the effect that abuse/rape victims brought it on themselves,
Indeed.

Here is Sam Harris being asked about why his audience is heavily male:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/is-sam-harris-sexist.html

“I think it may have to do with my person[al] slant as an author, being very critical of bad ideas. This can sound very angry to people… People just don’t like to have their ideas criticized. There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree intrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women,” he said. “The atheist variable just has this—it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”

You cannot get out of "atheists are unwelcoming and dismissive of the concerns of women and other non-majority groups" with "atheists are oppressed". You can be both oppressed and an oppressor.

When I think of rudeness and atheists, I do think of Dawkins, and of Harris, and of all the other people within the movement who have attacked individual women for speaking up about women's issues and their own experiences. That's where I'm coming from. I should have stated that clearly in my original post, and I apologize for not thinking more clearly then. (Edit: Just to clarify: My initial statement should have been what I said right here, rather than wiffling about the Guardian.)

I'm not saying "One prominent feminist said something extreme, therefore I can ignore all of them". I'm saying "Lots of prominent atheists dismiss women and sexual harassment, and they're being endorsed as the public face of the movement by such means as headlining conferences and book sales." It's the difference between "Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes were eugenicists" (true) and "The current Planned Parenthood organization and its spokesmen support eugenics" (false).

Edited 2014-09-28 22:38 (UTC)

Well, put! I don't agree, but that doesn't keep me from acknowledging that was fairly said.

Speaking of shifting the subject, this is the first point at which this discussion has been about shitty statements on gender by prominent atheists rather than impolite dismissals of religion. It is an important point, though.

Both Harris and Dawkins are widely considered within the atheist community (particularly by the Skepchick and FTB crowd) to be complete arseholes, and their appalling attitudes to gender equality and rape culture are the primary reason why (Harris' racism doesn't help him either). This is also why a large proportion of atheists do not consider Harris and Dawkins representative of anything but Harris and Dawkins and their respective fanbases.

Their repeated misogynistic arseholery does not, however, appear to have any causal link with their atheism. It's not part of the scripture. And the vast bulk of the criticism they face from outside the atheist community itself has nothing to do with their statements on gender and everything to do with their statements on religion.

Ophelia, Greta, P.Z. and others have been advocating for some time for the exclusion of obnoxious speakers from conferences, and the active promotion of equality in stagetime and general conduct at conferences. The demented Slymepit reaction to Rebecca Watson was a reaction against the growing profile and authority of women in organised atheism.

It's a perfect mirror of the crap that's been happening in gamer circles with Anita Sarkeesian, also echoed in the recent harassment scandals at tech and science conferences, also echoed in recent fandom scandals. Geek boys on average are shitheads on gender.

Edited 2014-09-29 00:53 (UTC)

If you follow James's link, though, it is specifically about the atheist community and women. That's why (I presume) he made the post. That was the jumping-off point of the whole thing.

But both Harris and Dawkins are widely idolized/admired within the atheist movement, too. They aren't fringe figures *within the movement*. There are a lot of people who object to what they say, but there are also a lot of people shouting down people who criticize them.

Yes, gaming, fandom, atheism, open-source ... there's a specific sort of "The woman I hypothesize myself being wouldn't have this problem/complain about this/mind this" person who is much in evidence.

PZ is an interesting case for separating the strands of this argument: he's as strident and sometimes obnoxious about the "magic sky fairy" stuff as any New Atheist, but he's specifically calling out the sexism in the movement.

Yup.

"Dawkins is a dickhead on gender issues" is a whole separate thing from "public advocacy of atheism is just as obnoxious as the behaviour of religious evangelists". The reputation of both Dawkins and Harris has been plummeting within the atheist community for years, and you'll be hard pressed these days to find any defenders of them at Skepchick or FTB. Amongst the libertarian/MRA faction over at JREF or richarddawkins.net, however...

PZ's post is about the first (and other things); this thread began with the second. Sharp and unyieldng criticism of self-appointed atheist leadership is a notable feature of the Gnu's. So is being bluntly honest about religion (e.g. "no, actually I do think that your religious tradition is both destructive and blatantly idiotic to the point of being an obvious scam, and I will not be politely silent about that view").

It's the second factor which shapes the public criticism of organised atheism. Criticism of the first comes almost entirely from within the atheist community.

The gender-issues fight, though, is really just a small piece of the gender-issues fight happening within the larger world of everything identified as "geek" (science and engineering, the computer and software industries, and science-fiction, comics and videogame fandom). And that definitely is getting some press.

PZ Myers works in an area of science in which degree programs are rapidly becoming majority female, which might be one of the things driving him to take relatively enlightened positions there.

PZ Myers works in an area of science in which degree programs are rapidly becoming majority female, which might be one of the things driving him to take relatively enlightened positions there.

Unlikely.

1) PZ does not appear to be the sort of dickhead who requires a personal stake before he'll do the right thing.

2) I come from a female-dominated academic background (psych, although on the relatively Y-chromosome heavy neuro side of the field). No shortage of misogynistic douchebags there (put it this way: the mother of my professor's child was one of his ex grad students), despite it having been a majority female profession for quite a long time.

Edited 2014-09-30 02:20 (UTC)

But Skepchick is both one of the loud feminist voices within the movement *and* the person Dawkins directly attacked over complaining about harassment. The whole thing occurred within PZ Myers's blog, which again has been decrying women's sidelining within the movement for years. Saying "Skepchick and Myers are good on feminism and dislikes Dawkins" is very very much beside the point.

There are voices within atheism saying "Stop. This isn't cool. Back off." There are equally (at least) powerful voices within atheism saying "These women and their allies are being ridiculous." It isn't a settled issue. It is an ongoing issues, with ongoing flareups. The most recent I could find was August 2013, where atheist leading lights James Randi and D.J. Grothe, of JREF, bungle a sexual-harassment case badly.

This is a big problem; it can't be isolated to a few bad apples.

I apologize again for getting sidetracked into Guardian comments. That wasn't what James was posting about, and it wasn't what I should have talked about.

D.J Grothe is a sexist douche bag, it wasn't bungled, it was monkey-wrenched.

Yup. There's been a campaign (finally successful!) to oust DJ for a few years now.

I'm one of the people contributing to pay for the lawyers on the plaintiff side of the harassment case.

It is a big problem, and no, it isn't settled. It's not just a few bad apples; it's a steaming cesspit of scrumpy.

But it's a minority cesspit, and it's on the way down (IMO). The MRA crowd are self limiting; they repel everyone except themselves.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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).

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."

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.

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.

Atheists are people, too

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject