If you must exist, do it in private
Greta Christina points out what I’m always noticing – that there’s a mob of people out there calling atheists every kind of name and it’s pretty much always just for existing. The mob says it’s for being shrill strident mean fundamentalist rude zealous you can finish the song, but in fact by “shrill strident mean fundamentalist rude zealous” they really just mean atheist, period. Don’t ask don’t tell, know what I mean? The only decent atheist is a secret atheist.
And if these op-ed pieces and whatnot were all you knew about the atheist movement and the critiques of it, you might think that atheists were simply being asked to be reasonable, civil, and polite.But if you follow atheism in the news, you begin to see a very different story.
You begin to see that atheists are regularly criticized — vilified, even — simply for existing.
Or, to be more accurate, for existing in the open. For declining to hide our atheism. For coming out.
Quite. Mind you, some of the people who go in for this here vilification like to say that they have masses of examples of atheist evilness, but also that they don’t want to provide it, because the ferret ate their homework. But their lack of desire to provide examples doesn’t make them at all shy about smearing people. I find this fascinating.
Reminds me of the pressure put on gay people in the 80s and 90s. Yes, we know you are gay, but we would rather not think about it thank you very much. Just keep quiet, and don’t ‘shove it down our throats’. Of course, heterosexuality was everywhere, in every TV programme, in every book, every advert. There were also stories about evil gay people “converting others”. Of course, there was never any evidence. The way we dealt with that was by being even more obvious, by being more out, until familarity led to increased acceptance. That there is this fuss about public overt atheism is a very positive sign, I think.
Most, if not all of the people whom bash, and ostracise atheists (simply for speaking their minds – regardless of the manor in which it is done) are simply being intellectually, and even morally dishonest. They don’t like being challenged and so they go on the defensive (or they are always on the defensive?).
They are also being ridiculously hypocritical – I think it all comes back to this cartoon: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_11-nzoYFuQU/S82CyJjJJ_I/AAAAAAAAG4s/UzE6XZMWpwo/s1600/atheist-cartoon.gif
@Steve
Well, I know this has nothing to do with Atheism but many people still hold the view that homosexuality should not be even acknowledged (aka ‘promoted’) in any public sphere…Or perhaps this does have something to do with it. Hmmm.
A growing difference between believer and non-believer seems to be a lack of self-awareness. Believers seem to do an awful lot of projecting without realising they’re talking about themselves. I read their comments and can’t help thinking that they’re parodying themselves. Can’t they see their own irony? No they can’t, they can’t criticise themselves, because their critical part of the brain is switched off.
When they get upset, all those horrible dogmatic illiberal beliefs come bursting out of their mouths or fingers. It’s always us that are the haters, or us that won’t shutup. It’s not allowed to work the other way, Christians are always so nice, never force their views on others. Beliefs must be respected of course but not atheist unbeliefs. Yes, respect works only one way again. But NONE of this ever enters in their hypocritical minds,
Greta’s post on angry atheists this morning is a classic.
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html
Maybe we just haven’t tried hard enough to understand their justified outrage. I’d recommend less confrontation. From us, of course. Not from them.
I actually had this conversation this week with a respected colleague, over the Lincoln Tunnel billboard. You know, why is it necessary to… All I could do is remind her that billboards challenging belief are vastly outnumbered by billboards meant to remind nonbelievers that good Christians look forward to their eternal torment.
Next thing you know christian soldiers will have to shower with openly atheist soldiers
I dont think this is completely accurate. Some religious people do call atheists all kinds of names just for being atheists – but they dont bring in the shrill , strident, fundamnetalist complaints.
A lot of the people who complain about the shrillness are atheists themselves who also publicly state they are atheists.
Reading this makes me think of just about every time I have seen a video of anything related to atheism being discussed on Fox, whether it’s O’Reilly or Megyn Kelly or whoever. If there’s no atheist present in the studio, they just contrive to laugh at it and make fun of it, but if there’s an actual person around defending a non-religious viewpoint, there always seems to be at least one moment that gives the whole game away. A moment in which something will be said by the host/ess that just screams “But you’re an ATHEIST! We don’t want to know that you exist! Can’t you understand that not shutting up about not believing is the very definition of wrong, immoral and evil?!”
I followed the link. Greta’s post is about the stuff we all notice all the time. But some of the comments are terrifying… and not just the paranoid delusional ones.
It’s acceptable, even fashionable, to be openly bigoted toward atheists. The analog to the lgbt movement is apt (and one that Greta Christina has used herself) in many ways: Today, in polite company, it is simply not acceptable to demean the character/morals/existence of lgbt people—even if there are no lgbt persons around. These days, if someone says something homophobic, both gay and straight people will admonish the offending party. But, alas, only atheists stick up for atheists. (At least, I cannot think of a non-atheist public figure who routinely defends atheists against such slanders. And if anyone else can think of one, then, well, that’s precisely the point: one.) The lgbt movement benefits a good deal from what are called “allies” (like myself)—that is, people who may not themselves belong to the lgbt community, but make it a point to help out where they can: we defend lgbt folks against slanders, donate money, participate in rallies, write our congresspersons, raise our kids to have proper respect for people of all orientations, etc. There is no atheist equivalent of “allies” yet, but we’re getting there. Slowly but surely. The gnu atheism has helped immensely in getting that kind of conscious-raising off the ground.
It’s obvious from this post that the true evil that needs to be repressed is the ferrets. The ferrets that eat homework. Damn their eyes!
The term ‘shril’l always seems to have connotations of effeminancy to it that chimes well with religion’s misogyny and homophobia.
I think a lot of this criticism of atheists is just bravado. It probably indicates some insecurity, such that they feel the need to attack atheism as a way of trying to reassure themselves about their own beliefs.
Who on Earth can you be thinking of?
Deepak – right – but I think Greta wasn’t limiting the description to believers. She didn’t choose the title of her piece. There was a whole mini-brawl about that on her Facebook page yesterday, and she pointed out that she hadn’t chosen the title.
And not even all of them! To put it mildly. As we’ve noticed, lots of atheists are making a cottage industry out of ostentatiously not sticking up for atheists – out of in fact ostentatiously slandering atheists every chance they get.
I went through this conversation on Kiva, one of the members of Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious Lending Team called the atheists in the parade “unnecessary and completely tasteless”.
I politely disagreed…
Yes, the anti-atheist atheists. There is no more popular kind of atheist than that kind.
An anti-atheist atheist obviously doesn’t object to atheism. No, these folks are not so much anti-atheist as anti-gnu atheism. They object to the fact that we’re speaking up, that we’re calling a spade a spade vis-a-vis religion, that we’re not kowtowing to nonsense.
Of course,
It’s much easier and more comforting,psychologically, to believe than to not believe,so, to much of the population, atheists,loud or ‘discrete’, are just extremely irritating and somewhat incomprehensible. Get over it,atheism will never be accepted by the majority. However,we’ve made progress, some countries actually have atheist prime ministers.
I don’t know how we will ever explain to the faithful that atheism is not just another belief system,the confusion seems almost calculated.
I’m really not sure it is much more comforting to believe than to not believe. I think it’s at least a toss-up.
It’s more comforting to not have to change beliefs. Atheism, just by existing, suggests that change is possible. That’s very scary to many people, I am sure.
Ophelia,
“I’m not really sure if it is much more comforting to believe than to not believe.” That really depends on the personality of the individual and not necessarily on intelligence or education as we atheists would like to believe.
There’s some research that indicates that a tendency to accept higher authority confers an evolutionary advantage and that the majority of the population ‘believe’, so for them, it is indeed more comfortable to have some kind of religious faith.
The relevant question is “Why don’t some people have the ‘gene’ for religion?”
I have a question.
I’ve often thought that atheists who bash gnu atheists could be compared to hypothetical gay people complaining about those other gay people who “act all fruity and everything.” The goal of both groups then being to blend in with the majority and avoid making anyone feel uncomfortable with difference.
It just occurred to me to wonder — is there such a group? Is there a noted and vocal part of the homosexual community which routinely bewails those gay activists who are “aggressively” gay — effeminate males, masculine females, holding hands in public, demanding the right to marry, “shoving it down people’s throats?” Does this subgroup rush to reassure the straight majority that they hate the in-your-face homosexual as much as they do? That the campy gay pride parade “isn’t helping?” The important thing is to emphasize and then build from similarities, not get all obvious about differences … we so agree. Now you can like us, we’re not a threat.
I guess I don’t know the gay activist community very well. Is this the case? Was it? I’d been assuming not, but perhaps they have or have had their own version of gnu vs. accomodationist.
Heh. The folks who best fit that description are, in my view, the closeted, self-hating gays who publicly either bash the gay community or work against their interests. Some are in congress. Some are phonies like Bishop Eddie Long and Pastor Ted Haggard (don’t worry folks, he’s “cured” of his gayness now!). To get the lowdown on this actually-pretty-common phenomenon, watch Kirby Dick’s well-done documentary called “Outrage.” Here’s the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaTsmXaw5NQ
Sastra, there used to be, at least. Josh S has a scarifying story about one (one “member” of that “community”) who denounced him in a loathsome way when he (Josh) was a teenager. And I can remember some of that kind of thing, albeit vaguely.
Plus, come to think of it, there’s a more legitimate (I think) branch of that (or at least there was) that didn’t want to make sexual orientation part of their “identity.” I think there’s a difference between that and being closeted and, especially, wanting to closet other people. But then that branch seems to have faded out, so maybe there wasn’t much difference after all, maybe that was just a slightly politer version of the same thing.
Dykes to Watch Out For dealt (and probably still deals) with this issue. (Alison Bechtel is my main source for gay culture!) Calling themselves “dykes” in the first place was a political statement about the issue.
I’ll say this though: I don’t think that faction was nearly as energetic and hostile as the atheist-hating atheist faction is.
Cross-post!
I meant to add to Josh’s story that he posted it here. Probably in a similar context.
I’ve had gay friends who couldn’t for the life of them understand why so many others felt the need to affect high-pitched voices, flamboyant outfits, and so on. They didn’t tell anyone else to stop — figured everyone was entitled to their own thing, I guess — but at the same time were quite adamant that “gay” is not automatically “flaming.” These were typically also guys who didn’t walk in much fear of homophobia — I pity the bigot who tried to give them a hard time.
Sure, so have I. But the not telling others to stop is a key difference! I’ve acknowledged plenty of times that I can easily understand atheists who don’t want to make a point of their atheism and those who are bored/irritated/puzzled by atheists who do. I have a much harder time understanding atheists who go out of their way to heap opprobrium on atheists who do.
It’s the funniest thing—I really don’t want to “make a point of” my atheism either. That’s yet another key difference between outspoken atheists and religious zealots. Most outspoken atheists sincerely wish they didn’t have to speak out. We wish religious silliness and immorality wasn’t rampant; we wish theocrats weren’t trying to have garbage taught to children as science. Hitchens has said (and Sam Harris has said something similar) that it would be jolly-jack-splendid if he didn’t have to go around refuting the stupid arguments of apologists. He’d rather cuddle up with a good book, or walk the dog. And so would I. So would most of us, I think. But it’s necessary to refute them. It’s necessary to push back.
Hitchens has said he would rather walk the dog?! (Is there a dog?) I don’t believe that for a second. Hitch would rather argue than almost anything. He might prefer to argue about other things instead of about theism, but not argue at all? Never.
Well, Hitchens has said that his beef is not with people’s beliefs, as much as it is with those beliefs invading his life and that of his family, children etc., due to their being to permitted to invade public life in general.
I haven’t seen the whole of “Collision,” but here’s an interesting clip from it, which is not irrelevant to the above discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDJ9BL38PrI
Hitchens’ stated position, as articulated in the “four horsemen” dvd discussion and elsewhere, is that he couldn’t imagine not taking part in “the dialectic”; in that context, he was responding to the question of whether or not he’d like to see religion/god belief altogether eradicated. No, says Hitchens, he thinks the very debate is at the heart of philosophy itself (I would differ, but that’s his view). So, yeah, Ophelia’s entirely correct (as usual). He wants to argue about it.
But in a different context—one of his D’Souza debates, I think—he has said (paraphrasing from memory here) that it would be nice if we (meaning sensible people, I presume) didn’t have to waste so much time refuting the most silly forms of apologetics and creationism. It would be nice, he said, if eminent evolutionary biologists could just go about their work without having to take time out to refute the creationists.
So I think he wants the argument, but he also wants it to be a worthwhile and intelligent argument. (Therefore, Hovind, Comfort & company must leave the room.) He’s said that the real debate to be had is among atheists, agnostics, and deists (theists, having all the information they need, can’t really debate the key questions—they can only baldly assert or play the Faith Card).
(Sorry. I’m kind of a Hitch-o-phile at this point. His illness has compelled me to reread/rewatch much of his oeuvre.)
Confess to the same current occupation as Andy, and for the same reason. I try to squeeze in a Hitchens video per day and there’s so much out there. Some of the late 80s/early 90s stuff is particularly funny, too. Makes you realise that he didn’t acquire his current status just by being good at what he does; he got it from having been so good at it for so long.
Interestingly, in the Collision clip Stewart kindly links to, Hitchens is actually slightly mis-remembering the exchange between he and Dawkins (I’m 99% sure he’s talking about the four horsemen dvd). He remembers himself responding to Richard somewhat differently (and more comprehensively!) than he actually did on camera. This is of no significance, of course, except perhaps to a psychologist.