alienating atheists one story at a time…
Have you ever wanted to be a published author? Are you an atheist or an agnostic secularist? If you answered yes to both questions, the (Non)Prophet blog has a contest for you. All you need to do is write about being an ordinary humanist who doesn’t offend religious people in 800 words or less. Sounds easy, right? Well, before you get to writing, you may want to check out an example of what they actually want as explicitly noted in the post. The link will take you to an article by the blog’s author lamenting his experience with a group of atheists, agnostic and secularists who wanted to separate themselves from religious affiliations instead of singing the praises of religious values and morals while comparing them to their humanist ideas. Instead, he says, he’s more at home in theology class amongst believers, drawing up parallels between humanism and a religious morality codex. And he wants you to write him a nice, fluffy story saying pretty much the same things he did.
It could be that I missed something here, but how exactly does one establish a humanist or secular identity by complaining that all the non-theists around you are so pushy and negative in a ridiculous caricature? The very same faitheists who are so concerned that you don’t describe all religious people as fundamentalists bent on exterminating science and education in the name of their god, are the very ones who rush to categorize pretty much every atheist who actually insists on secularism and a firm separation of belief and opinion as a whiny, cantankerous, antagonistic loudmouth. Then, when they receive a rebuttal, they act offended and surprised, going on to complain even more about how rude and evil those atheists are by picking on them. It’s annoying, petty and a pretty clear attempt to get on the good side of religious people. By positioning themselves as nice and non-threatening to seem harmless to theists, the faitheists seem ready and willing to add to the stream of condescension and berating the religious crowd likes to lay on atheists, all while claiming to be really atheist and support the secular and humanist community with every fiber of their being. Just not when it matters.
Look, atheists don’t steal candy from babies, they generally don’t go out and spread the word of atheism, and not every religious person they see is a target for verbal abuse. Chances are, you’ve met at least a few dozen atheists in your life and have no idea that they’re atheists because they wouldn’t badger you with it. Out in the real world, I have friends who are liberal Christians, conservative Jews and moderate Catholics. I’ve been out with Methodists, Lutherans and pagans, and had a long-term relationship with a Buddhist. And while I never shy from conversations about beliefs and ideas, I don’t feel I have to antagonize them. The same goes for the vast majority of atheists I’ve met and though in large groups we can get a little out of hand, I could promise you that the only way you’ll find an atheist knocking on your door in the morning to preach science and skepticism will be for a hidden camera gag. To call atheists a pack of dogmatic fundamentalists while giving real theistic fundamentalists a free pass and calling oneself a “non-believer” is dishonest and if I daresay so, cowardly. It sounds like a cry for everyone to like you while you pander to whatever group is bigger.
Really, it’s ok to be religious. I hear a lot of people do it. Just don’t call yourself a devoted atheist while enjoying everything religion has to offer because that’s not fair to everyone involved. Like Chris Steadman, the author of the (Non)Prophet shows in his article, it seems to be more of a way of being a fascinating curiosity for a high minded group of theists around you interested in why someone wouldn’t believe in a deity. Of course I wonder what answer someone who sets up an atheist blog that dishes out antagonistic and generally pretty negative stories about outspoken atheists would be able to give them…
[ illustration by Valerei ]
Damn straight. If anything, I’m too reserved about saying my non-beliefs in public, something I’m actively working on getting over.
You sound bitter. You sound like the problem. You seem to be saying that people shouldn’t get along. I am sorry that you see the world so negatively.
What’s the difference between faitheists and accomodationists? I’m pretty much a closet atheist. I’m in the habit of not being pushy. I think it’s mostly who I am, and not my religious status, but that may be why I’m an atheist; I have no luck getting aroused about these ancient dieties who are all equally absurd.
@Nate: Angry is not the same as bitter. He’s not angry at theists, he’s angry at faitheists/accomodationists = people who claim to be atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, and yet kowtow to theists for some reason. People who seem to be trying to ingratiate themselves with theists to further their own private agendas.
You sound like the problem. You seem to be saying that people shouldn’t get along.
@Nate. So the problem isn’t the approach to the differences in opinion between the theists and atheists, the problem is people like me? And I’m the bitter and negative one who doesn’t want people to get along?
What’s the difference between faitheists and accomodationists?
@RaggMopp. I would say the degree of how much they browbeat atheists for being atheists and want to make friends with theists by doing so. Accommodationists are generally content with vague tut-tutting while faithests go all out and sing praises to the world of faith as they demand that atheists either become milquetoasts or shut up and go away altogether.
Eww dude what a stupid image to apply to a stupid thought.
The premise of the writing on NonProphet Status is not kowtowing, or accommodating, or bowing out of the discourse – it’s strengthening the discourse. Look, believe what you want, I will too, but shouldn’t we be able to talk about it? Shouldn’t there be a kind of humility that pervades us and says Even Though I right now would go to the grave for what I believe, I want to hear your uniquely defined subjective experience of the world, want to hear you as a person and not a dogma and set of prejudices (I say ‘dogma and set of prejudices’ not pejoratively but matter-of-factly)?
The point of Steadman’s article is mutual conversation. The point of yours is us vs. them binaries. You are behind the times.
Hey folks! I posted a reply to this piece at my blog. You can read it here: http://nonprophetstatus.com/2010/03/30/what-are-we-fighting-for/
That’s okay Greg, you’re still an awright guy in my book, even though you’re a hard-headed empiricist!
Look, believe what you want, I will too, but shouldn’t we be able to talk about it?
Did I say that we shouldn’t be talking about something? Did I try to censor anyone or deny their right to free speech? Why is there such a passion to go down as a martyr for the cause of religious pluralism after someone points out that while rushing to a bright, new, secular tomorrow, you’re leaving atheists behind by treating them as the problem and the faithful as the solution?
The point of Steadman’s article is mutual conversation.
Right. With nice religious people with who he feels so much more at home than with those loudmouth atheists and secularists who say that they don’t want anything to do with theism and are quite content with being atheists and agnostics. These are his words, not mine, and he’s the one holding them up as an example of how to be the “right kind” of secularist. How exactly do you propose we have a mutual conversation if one side is constantly being browbeaten and ostracized?
I get it. Chris is on a very different page than you and me, Greg. Humanism, secularism and atheism/agnosticism are actually three very different things. Not to say they can’t all be rolled into one in specific cases, but there is no imperative to do so. If you regard secularism as an overiding goal, you might seek to further that goal by not offending people who are not otherwise ready to jump onto your wagon with both feet, but might see the wisdom of secularism, nevertheless.
I’m an old timey original self-made hard-ass atheist. I don’t recall ever going out of my way to attack anyone else’s religion, but I’ve sure paid the price for my position. I’ve been attacked, snubbed, threatened, and routinely discriminated against. Makes you mean.
But, I see Chris’s position, and I can’t really see anything wrong with his idea, in the broadest sense. I really want secular government; everything else is negotiable. I don’t care what you choose to worship as long as you don’t impose your theocracy on me. I’m not evangelical, and neither are you. But can we afford to fall to squabbling among ourselves? I say, let this go, Greg. Give Chris his due.
I will not shut up or make nice for people who show me no respect!
If you have a problem with this, grow some skin!
@Proud Kuffar: Yeah, that’s pretty much where I started, and my experience with religionists has not been very damned encouraging, but we are in a different place now. There may be a lot of people in urban areas who are seeking, not yet willing to make bold pronouncements, but nervous about the apparent domination of the MSM by the lunatic fundamentalist fringe.
The fact that you and I don’t want to cozy up to them should not lead us to savage Chris for his choices. I can’t say that he’s doing more harm than good or vice versa, but I’m pretty sure we don’t need to be shooting at each other when there is some much to do, and so little time to do it.
This is a sadomasochistic howl! You guys are thinking much too hard. Beliefs are irrelevant. There’s two stage modality in human learning, well known to tennis players, golf enthusiasts, and trained musicians. The affective learning centers empower mimickry, yearning for likeness, and the eventual burying of learned behaviors below conscious level.
When Oog, the Homo Habilis avatar, wanted to educate his crew to kill Mammoths, he painted a Mammoth on a wall, made up a cool “Kill the Mammoth” hip hop beat, and mimed the hunt, pulling each follower into the dance, until everyone “got it”. This is religion. Totem-focused affective togetherness.
When Oog wanted to teach his artisan to make Mammoth-worthy stone points, he sat with him, and visually compared good points with bad points, discriminating finer details, separating out craft from bumble.
This is discrimination, elimination of poor thought & image, always substituting new improved craft skills. This is skeptical science.
The two are yinyang subsets of an integrated totality, and are mutual aids, rather than opposites.
When not making watches, or programming nuclear control systems, the affective mode is the more human mode. Religion, even dumb ass religion worshipping noodle monsters really brings a holy ghost visitation. Just sit in Fenway park on opening night, and see whether I’m right or what.
On the other hand, smartypants schadenfruede contests negatively comparing mod memes are nasty, puerile, disaffective and isolating, but OK, if unearthing a cancer cure.
Everybody is both.
No gay, no straight.
All mutts.
@Gerald Murphy: What are you smoking?
we are animals trapped in a community of cowards.
we are taught to fear the “wild”, living in nature is “survival” . your home is your cage. land and its vegetation is controlled so is water. my outlook is negative but true. groups of people seperated to wage war and by the way GOD is only a word it means “choice” the sumarians used the word in science and dective work. for example, when investigating a meteor, the dammage is there but no testimony witnessing the event. a second investigater inquires the fist investigater, from looking at the evidence its your choice hence GOD.