guess who comes off as more angry (and more insulting)? November 29, 2006 2:28 PM Subscribe
Jewcy asks The Big Question-- Why Are Atheists So Angry? with Sam Harris and Dennis Prager. Email exchanges on the topic--and if you can get past the incredibly loaded and one-sided question, really interesting.
posted by amberglow (246 comments total)
5 users marked this as a favorite
from Tuesday's exchange: ... No one knows why the universe came into being. Most scientists readily admit their ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not. One of the extraordinary ironies of religious discourse can be seen in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while condemning scientists and other nonbelievers for their intellectual arrogance. ... posted by amberglow at 2:30 PM on November 29, 2006
So they ask "why are atheists so angry" and then immediately produce an honest to nogod Angry Atheist to answer the question, thereby making sure we never look at it too closely.
I think the opening email by Harris' is one of the better written things I've read in a long time. I'm looking forward to reading the whole exchange. For the record, I'm pretty sure amberglow was implying the non-Atheist comes across as the insulting one. Harris certainly doesn't across as "angry" in his opening email. posted by mcstayinskool at 2:38 PM on November 29, 2006
...waits for the MeFi Fundamentalist Atheist Corps to descend... posted by eustacescrubb at 2:41 PM on November 29, 2006 [2 favorites]
I'm not angry, and if someone tells me one more time that I am I will explode in rage! posted by clevershark at 3:15 PM on November 29, 2006
Why Are Atheists So Angry? well I am all jittery and kinda sleepy, a little stuffy, and hungry... guess I gotta fit angry in there somewhere, then go see a shrink and find out WHY I feel that way, or just accept that I have no control... oh, perhaps I'm suppose to be angry because not believing in god implies that I have more control of my life than others who do, but they at least get somewhere to place all the blame and whatnot...
sigh, now I'm just all sophomoric, pass the towelettes please posted by edgeways at 3:16 PM on November 29, 2006
*tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick* posted by nola at 3:18 PM on November 29, 2006
I wish people like Sam Harris and Dawkins would shut their traps. Like all ideologues, they think being smug and derisive is a good way of making their point, which implies they are more interested in themselves, than their supposed cause (see also 90% of modern protesters). At least Harris has the good sense to bring up Bertrand Russell, the only atheist whose writing on atheism I find worth reading. Here is the "teapot argument" from the article, which for me is the final word on this whole tedious debate:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. posted by Falconetti at 3:22 PM on November 29, 2006
Because they are more reasonable than emotional and they resent everyone else for it.
Well, call me when being reasonable rather than emotional doesn't get you marginalized half to death in this culture, and then we'll talk.
For me, the anger started when I realized that I could never join the Elks/Lions/etc, or hold office, or climb far on the corporate ladder, or fit in at my school -- not without pretending to believe in a religion that, quite frankly, offends the hell out of me. As an atheist in America, people do not trust me, through no fault of my own.
After 30 years or so you do, indeed, become more than a little resentful of people who don't know what it's like to be stuck on the outside looking in. I mean, I have actually had people tell me out of the blue and to my face that I possess no morals, because morality comes from God. I've had people tell me, as if it were a foregone conclusion, "well, someone like you could never be a Senator, anyway". Sorry, but when your society turns its back on you in an explicit, point-blank manner, I think a little (or even a lot of) resentment and anger is to be expected! posted by vorfeed at 3:24 PM on November 29, 2006 [3 favorites]
Prager makes the same logical mistakes after Harris corrects him that he did beforehand. I'm not angry, I'm amazed! There are much smarted theists available than this schmuck. posted by anotherpanacea at 3:24 PM on November 29, 2006
You write: “If humanity can’t survive without a belief in God, this would only mean that a belief in God exists. It wouldn’t, even remotely, suggest that God exists.” This statement is as novel as the one suggesting that Stalin was produced by Judeo-Christian values. It is hard for me to imagine that any fair-minded reader would reach the same conclusion. If we both acknowledge that without belief in God humanity would self-destruct, it is quite a stretch to say that this fact does not “even remotely suggest that God exists.” Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival? posted by anotherpanacea at 3:26 PM on November 29, 2006
Also, Prager is really, really rude. posted by anotherpanacea at 3:26 PM on November 29, 2006
Actually, Falconetti, I think Harris does a great deal more than "being smug and divisive" here. He's far more confrontational than I would ever care to be, but then he was asked to debate and I haven't been.
I think he phrases a few things just about perfectly, e.g.: "If the beauty of nature can mean that Jesus is the son of God, then it can mean anything at all." I almost gasped when I read how perfectly Harris hit this particular nail on the head, for instance:
I should also point out that you sealed your last missive with a fallacy. You wrote:
“You are right that this moral clarity and courage among the predominantly religious does not prove the existence of the biblical God. Nothing can prove God’s existence. But it sure is a powerful argument. If society cannot survive without x, there is a good chance x exists.”
No, Dennis, this moral clarity is not a “powerful argument,” or even an argument at all; please keep your x’s straight. If humanity can’t survive without a belief in God, this would only mean that a belief in God exists. It wouldn’t, even remotely, suggest that God exists.
Exactly. Prager's response amounted to: "Well that's such dumb argument I can't believe it, and neither will my readers." posted by argybarg at 3:27 PM on November 29, 2006 [1 favorite]
atheist does not mean "simply someone who thinks that the God of Abraham should be buried with the rest of these imaginary friends. "
It has nothing to do with the God of Abraham. It is all encompassing, not focal, and not judgemental. posted by Espoo2 at 3:30 PM on November 29, 2006
argybargy: Harris wins the argument hands down, Prager is an idiot, Harris is very smart and a eloquent and convincing writer, &c., &c. All that is very true. But Harris, if he constantly calls believers idiots, cretins, and morons, has very little chance of convincing anyone not already predisposed to being convinced. If he really and truly is worried about the impending collapse of society because of rampant religiosity, then his goal should be to do whatever is necessary to affect actual change in society, which includes making his message more palatable. I personally don't care if he is a giant dick, but he is working against his professed goals. posted by Falconetti at 3:35 PM on November 29, 2006
Espoo2writes"It has nothing to do with the God of Abraham. It is all encompassing, not focal, and not judgemental."
Yeah, but Harris has this rather charming way of putting it, saying something along the lines of "religious believers choose to dismiss countless conceptions of the divine as unrealistic, rejecting all religions but their own; athiests reject only one more of these many religions." It really goes to what is for me the sticking point of religious belief: how can I possibly pick one? posted by mr_roboto at 3:37 PM on November 29, 2006
it's not anger as much as frustration; there are many barriers to logical discussion and compromise, but most frustrating is that which falls back, inevitably and conveniently, upon carefully selected, self-contradictory, and self-servingly interpreted mythology based on centuries-old texts stripped of any relevant cultural context; and that such is invoked as if it were self-evident and immune from challenge. human civilization has grown too big for us to advance without some form of honest debate and compromise, and faith is too often called upon as a get-out-of-intelligent-debate-free card--a card that masks the real issue, which is that some people just can't be happy unless they can tell everybody else what to do.
the conversation there moves really quickly into the atheist-versus-agnostic labeling thing, which is itself infuriating in that it attempts to force one to assert or defend a position within an argument that one finds invalid in the first place. 'atheist' is pretty much the closest convenient term for a position that more accurately says 'i'm not buying into any of this shit.' posted by troybob at 3:41 PM on November 29, 2006 [1 favorite]
marginalized half to death in this culture
Um, vorfeed, far be it from me to make assumptions, but it seems to me that if you feel that your atheism is your biggest problem in dealing with mainstream society, you might want to talk to the transgendered, the queer, the mentally ill, the disabled, some illegal immigrants, etcetera. In other words, people who suffer real, daily consequences of their marginalization which can be measured in access to services, in their rights before American law, in institutionalized discrimination and so on. I don't want to go so far as to say that you might want to talk to some women, too, as I only have a hunch that you are male. I might be wrong. I note, though, from your website, that you're a devoted follower of metal, and chosen marginalization tends to be kind of part of that scene, you know.
Again, not to make assumptions about you personally, but the tone of some of the angry atheist stuff makes me think that you're not alone in this notion of your victimhood. posted by jokeefe at 3:41 PM on November 29, 2006
I AM NOT ANGRY! posted by DigDugDag at 3:41 PM on November 29, 2006
Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?
Hope. Like god, it is solely a creation of the human mind. posted by InfidelZombie at 3:41 PM on November 29, 2006 [3 favorites]
argybarg, that struck me also--i do think that it's the belief in a God rather than the fact or not of a God's existence that matters, because it's all in what we do with that belief and what it leads to--Prager talks of deeds more than Harris too, so i thought that Harris' point was especially valid. It all comes down to us, and why and how we act the way we do, maybe.
Also, perhaps these threads might go better if, in the case of America, atheism was identified as a political issue rather than a theological one. Which it is, for obvious reasons, in the States. posted by jokeefe at 3:49 PM on November 29, 2006
argybargy: Harris wins the argument hands down, Prager is an idiot, Harris is very smart and a eloquent and convincing writer, &c., &c. All that is very true. But Harris, if he constantly calls believers idiots, cretins, and morons, has very little chance of convincing anyone not already predisposed to being convinced. If he really and truly is worried about the impending collapse of society because of rampant religiosity, then his goal should be to do whatever is necessary to affect actual change in society, which includes making his message more palatable. I personally don't care if he is a giant dick, but he is working against his professed goals.
I'm a bit busy right now and can't write as much as I'd like, but I'm not sure I agree with you for several reasons. First, there are two types of "activism": the kind that seeks to convert the majority, and the type that rallies the base, so to speak. It's entirely possible he's more interested in the second than the first, and that's not necessarily a negative thing, as you suggest it is. It can be viewed as a stoking of his teams fires, an effort to keep people fired up and fighting the good fight (so to speak, of course). It's like if one were to attend a rally for any pet cause, be it anti-war or anti-fur. The intent of the speakers at such a place isn't to convert new people so much as to motivate those that already exist.
Secondly, regardless of how "palatable" he makes his argument, he's not really going to win many people to his side--they're far too entrenched. You can't really be suggesting with a straight face that, if he was nicer, and signifcant number people that have been raised since birth to take for hard truth a fantastical moral fairy tale are going to be swayed from their beliefs? It seems like a dubious suggestion, if that is in fact what you are suggesting.
It seems to me that the real battle here is the battle for young minds more than any other. It's far more likely that people between the ages of, say, sixteen and twenty-four, are far more likely to be swayed to a more secular viewpoint (or, for that matter, a more religious one) than someone older. Perhaps this is a gross generalization, and perhaps I'm way off the mark, but this is always the impression that I've had. And I'm not sure a palatable argument has to play softball--it only has to be compelling, which Harris, who I hadn't read before this, seems to be. posted by The God Complex at 3:50 PM on November 29, 2006
I'm a theist (kinda), and i am angry
I'm a Deist .... and I just shake my head and chuckle. posted by elendil71 at 3:53 PM on November 29, 2006
I agree with people who say that figures like Dawkins probably don't win many converts with their writings; although he seems to be a likeable guy in person.
I don't really care. Books by Dawkins and Harris make good comfort reading for me. I'm glad somebody is spending their time agressively combatting religious hegemony.
If those two figures are the most offensive and outspoken major players in public atheism, then we're doing pretty good.
In regards to the link, I can't believe that Prager didn't even bother to research who Harris is. Every single blurb I've seen about Harris mentions that he's about to get his PhD in neuroscience.
Also, are religious apologists cogniscant of their gross intellectual dishonesty? If I were to write an undergrad paper taking historical figures' statements completely out of context, often to contradict their actual meaning, I'd earn an F. Some of these guys like Behe are supposed to be educated. What academic institution allows you to intentially miscontrue a citation in such a way that you can draw the opposite conclusion the source was trying to make?
It's funny how when you read the entire bible, you see how immoral/incoherent/petty it is. When you read all of The Origin of Species, you see how complete Darwin's vision was. These theologists/IDers want to cherry pick and choose short/isolated passages in order to frame their arguments. When you look at the entire picture, scientific sources make more sense and religious texts become less and less relevant.
So much of the ID/theological argument is made up of misrepresentation and fallacious techniques. How can the people making these arguments not feel petty when they're presenting them? posted by Telf at 4:02 PM on November 29, 2006 [1 favorite]
I was sitting at a blackjack table in Vegas once, and guy sat down who had obviously never played (or even seen) blackjack before. When his turn came around he said "I raise." Debates like this remind me of that. posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 4:02 PM on November 29, 2006
I'm sorry, I know about confirmation bias and all that, but by this (third paragraph of Prager's first rebuttal) :
Is it really reason and common sense that lead atheists to their certitude that everything, all existence, came about by sheer chance?
My response to anyone who misconstrues science that badly, let alone reason, is simply to turn off. posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 4:03 PM on November 29, 2006
My anger burnt out around the age of 19. Now I'm just bitter. posted by Target Practice at 4:04 PM on November 29, 2006
(excuse the clumsy formulation of the previous--I am, as I said, in a bit of a rush)
One other thing I forgot to add. As troybob notes, it's an anger borne of frustration more than anything else. I worked with someone a copule years ago who would be classified as some form of fundamentalist (earth is six thousand years old, etc.). He was a year or two younger than me, and I was twenty-two at the time. At first I attempted reasoned debate, what you would term "palatable". Toward the end, our "debates", which started to take on a slightly more comical bent as time progressed, looked something like this:
"The earth is six thousand years old."
"What about all of the fossils and artifacts we've discovered in the past century or two? What about carbon dating?"
"Carbon dating doesn't work. It's only accurate 2% of the time."
"So you're suggesting that dinosaur bones are inaccurately gauged to be sixty million years old--that they are, in fact, less than six thousand years old?"
"Yes. They may have existed at the same time as man."
"That would be rad if it was true. I've always thought it would be fuckin' cool if people fought dinosaurs. Unfortunately, there really isn't much cave art to suggest this is true, whereas paintings of men fighting any other number of wild beast exist in multitudes all over the world."
"The other option is that God put those dinosaur bones there to test our faith."
"Uh. What?"
"A true believer would discount it as false, since it contradicts the bible. Therefore God is testing our faith."
"Uh.. Two things: first, if that's true, God sounds like a bit of a prick. Second, if that's honestly your argument, I don't see any point in debating with you about this. You could essentially utilize the same logical fallacy to 'counter' any point I could ever make, rendering this nothing more than a facile attempt to conver me to your faith, which will never happen."
A few days later he sent me an absurd link to someone terming himself "Dr. Dino" who claimed to discredit carbon dating and all sorts of other nonsense. I informed him that, in the future, I would appreciate that any scientific proof he forwarded my way come from a scientist without a stage moniker.
Now, do I think my born-again co-worker is a bad person? No. He's actually a nice guy, but horribly misguided when it comes to these matters. I don't think any palatable form of argument will appeal to this person. And, to be perfectly honest, those are the only kind of people that it would be useful to convert, as they're the only ones that make policy that adversely effects the world we live in. I know many religious or spiritual people who are left-leaning or moderate in their politics and I can't think of any reason I'd feel the need to convert them. The anger in question is, as I mentioned, borne from a frustration about the first type of religious person that I described. There's nothing more frustrating--and, indeed, frightening--than that type of fanatical believer, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or from any other dominant world religion.
ugh, I'm late! I'll come back later;) posted by The God Complex at 4:07 PM on November 29, 2006
I've interviewed Sam Harris, he's not angry. His interview in the Sun Magazine (Sy Safransky, publisher) a month or so ago was excellent and his book published last year was very well received.
I wonder if Jewcy (which was co-founded by my religion journo hero Jeff Sharlet of The Revealer) got its head together to get Dennis Prager, who comes off most times as a numbskull, to write the response to the academic Harris.
Had my own show, which covers religion on public radio chose to have this debate I would have placed him with at least someone who understood theology as well as Sam does. Perhaps [Newark, NJ] Bishop John Shelby Spong or Rev. Barbara Brown Taylor or Rabbi Arthur Waskow.
It springs to mind that no one is really having this debate. What I keep getting calls about is whether Atheism is a religion in itself, and whether having no belief in God is in itself a spiritual aim. I got a very funny phone call about this just a month ago from a publicist.
In other news, the American Humanist Association is filing a lawsuit in Florida to stop houses of worship from being polling places in future elections. Anyone following that? posted by parmanparman at 4:07 PM on November 29, 2006
Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?
Hope. Like god, it is solely a creation of the human mind.
Amen. Whoops. Uh. I mean... Fuckin' A! posted by hal9k at 4:17 PM on November 29, 2006
Why do all Jews have hook-noses and are only concerned with making more money? posted by bardic at 4:39 PM on November 29, 2006
I think the opening email by Harris' is one of the better written things I've read in a long time.
I think he phrases a few things just about perfectly
Etc. MeFi atheists love atheist rant! I'm shocked! Wake me up when they can tell the difference between ranting and discussing things sensibly (i.e., with an eye towards possibly affecting people who don't already share their beleaguered little certainties). posted by languagehat at 4:51 PM on November 29, 2006 [2 favorites]
...if you can get past the incredibly loaded and one-sided question...
Yeah, good luck with that. posted by darkstar at 4:52 PM on November 29, 2006
Never having heard of Pragar I followed the 'about' link:
Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show live Monday through Friday mornings from Los Angeles. Widely sought after by television shows for his opinions, he’s appeared on "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Hannity & Colmes," "CBS Evening News," "The Today Show" and many others.
Phew - for a minute there I was worried I'd have to take him seriously. Just another tosser with Rove's hand up his butt making his teeth jiggle. Christianity led to the abolition of slavery....riiiiiiight.
His website tells me he has books and tapes available about male sexuality (4cds! 80 bucks! - Young Person's edition available!). Bet those are absolute winners. Nothing does it for me like grey haired old conservatives telling me what to do with my willy. posted by Sparx at 4:52 PM on November 29, 2006
I'm an agnostic...
... and darned horney.
Can we start a thread for me? posted by tkchrist at 4:56 PM on November 29, 2006
DAAAAWKINS! posted by Artw at 4:57 PM on November 29, 2006
In other news, the American Humanist Association is filing a lawsuit in Florida to stop houses of worship from being polling places in future elections. Anyone following that?
Yup--just heard about it--they're right--it should be public buildings only.
I think because Harris is--or is becoming--pop-culture-ish that's why they picked Prager (who certainly is pop-culture-ish)--your publicist comment was funny parman--there are tons of new books about religion or against religion, and about the intersection with politics, out now. posted by amberglow at 4:59 PM on November 29, 2006
Well, I'm fucking angry. They read me like a book. posted by fungible at 5:00 PM on November 29, 2006
Let's face it -- god, love, and fucking are always going to be hot topics. Get used to it. posted by bardic at 5:00 PM on November 29, 2006
"Also, are religious apologists cogniscant of their gross intellectual dishonesty?"
Cognizant of it? Why, it's the foundation of all their arguments! They can't function without it! :)
I invite you to Thread #56002 to see it in action. However, I warn you that it's a huuuuuuge thread, it will take you days to read, and it will seriously make your head spin. posted by zoogleplex at 5:03 PM on November 29, 2006
More importantly, what is it about atheism that seems to attract complete pricks? posted by nightchrome at 5:06 PM on November 29, 2006
More importantly, what is it about atheism religion that seems to attract complete pricks ignorant and delusional homicidal lunatics? posted by tkchrist at 5:10 PM on November 29, 2006
It's probably analogous to the thing about being head of your own church that attracts manipulative, hypocritical weasels who shamelessly exploit their credulous congregations for egotistical and material rewards, nightcrome. posted by zoogleplex at 5:13 PM on November 29, 2006
Can't speak for fellow skeptics, but what gets my blood up is how this country considers someone who doesn't think the assumed opinions of an invisible man in the sky ought to be weighed in affairs of state is someone that the greater portion of the country considers halfway to insane. I enjoyed Harris's point about Poseidon - if the God of Abraham gets such representation, then why the hell can't I bring up how Thor & Baldur would feel about the latest movements of my local PTA? Just how the hell are my children to reach Valhalla when their gym teacher won't show them how to swing an axe? Huh?
When we can't establish a worthwhile environmental policy because three-quarters of the country thinks they'll be heading to Heaven in Christ's magic Cadillac well before the consequences of global warming come a'calling, we get pretty mad. When folks with the temerity to call themselves "pro-life" block potentially life-saving stem-cell research to protect embryos that were bound for destruction anyway, yeah, we get a little steamed.
When folks who base their existence on mythology insist that the world would be 100% better if everyone would just get with the program already and join the fanclub, then turn around and prove they don't quite grasp the character they would have us center our lives upon, then I think anger is a wholly appropriate reaction. posted by EatTheWeak at 5:16 PM on November 29, 2006
More importantly, what is it about atheism that seems to attract complete pricks?
It has its exact analogue in the thing about religion that seems to attract people with really horrifying halitosis. posted by gurple at 5:19 PM on November 29, 2006
I was shocked, shocked, I tell you, to learn that Harris thinks that he and people who see the world the way he does are rational and sane while those who see it differently are irrational or delusional.
The whole "religion causes human suffering" card is a bad one to play, though, because in every thought-group, there is a minority of oppotunistic, greedy bastards that runs things and makes the world a miserable place.
For example, religion didn't convince American farmers that going into debt to transform their farms from self-sufficient, family-owned enterprises powered largely by solar power and manual labor into fossil-fuel-guzzling, government subsidy-reliant tax deductions was a good idea. If I recall, it was the university scientists doing the bidding of their industrial paymasters.
I don't think nuclear bombs came from fundamentalists, nor the hole in the ozone layer nor mustard gas nor the idea that travelling the moon was more important than feeding the poor.
The point here isn't that science isn't all bad, it's that Harris's argument is flawed because certainly there are religious assholes with bad motives. But if you take away religion, all you'll do is take away one set of excuses to do both good and bad, not change human nature, which is the real problem with why humans act badly. posted by eustacescrubb at 5:21 PM on November 29, 2006 [3 favorites]
Every so often I hear the term "atheist fundamentalist" used. I'm just wondering, what are the fundamentals to which these fundamentalists seek to return? posted by Andrew Brinton at 5:26 PM on November 29, 2006
In other news, the American Humanist Association is filing a lawsuit in Florida to stop houses of worship from being polling places in future elections. Anyone following that?
Great use of their money. Really getting to the heart of the issue with that one.
When bringing such a law suit the first question is always, is the problem we are trying to fix fundamentally something that should be fixed? The second question is, how big of an issue is it? The third question is, what are the extra-legal consequences of bring suit? Someone forgot to think about two and three! posted by Falconetti at 5:29 PM on November 29, 2006
I grew out of my obnoxious angry brand of atheism (but not out of my atheism!) around the time I entered college. Life's too short to antagonize one another over religious beliefs or lack thereof, something my ultra-religious friends have also come to realize -- some of them were just as obnoxious in their piety as I was in my rationality. posted by mistermoore at 5:29 PM on November 29, 2006 [1 favorite]
"But if you take away religion, all you'll do is take away one set of excuses to do both good and bad, not change human nature, which is the real problem with why humans act badly."
eustacescrubb, your point is excellent, but then again, removing a set of excuses isn't a bad thing. Forcing us to actually look at ourselves and take both individual and collective responsibility for our mistakes and horrors is the first step to working toward a better humanity.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, and it's usually the hardest step. All too often, religions offer an easy way to stay in denial.
Obviously there are other things that need addressing besides religion, but let's not leave it out. posted by zoogleplex at 5:32 PM on November 29, 2006
Actually, you don't even have to abolish religion, as churches do contribute societal benefits; you only have to disallow people to justify their bad behavior with religious arguments.
Anybody who treats other people badly or actively infringes on their rights while using "God said so" as their excuse should be stripped of political (in the sense of interrelations between groups of humans) influence immediately. posted by zoogleplex at 5:36 PM on November 29, 2006 [1 favorite]
Believers intuitively feel that atheists must think them to be simple or deranged. Believers preconceive this as hostility, therefore concluding that atheists must be angry. posted by Brian B. at 5:36 PM on November 29, 2006
More importantly, what is it about religion that seems to attract ignorant and delusional homicidal lunatics?
Lots of things. The hierarchy of organized religion, the power of group-think over marginalized groups, the us-vs-them mentality allowing for outright hatred and condemnation, affirmation of culturally-learned biases and prejudices. I could go on.
You gonna answer mine yet?
It's probably analogous to the thing about being head of your own church that attracts manipulative, hypocritical weasels who shamelessly exploit their credulous congregations for egotistical and material rewards, nightcrome.
I'm not really sure if this response is sincere, or just an attempt at lashing out at what you think I must be to have asked the question I did.
It has its exact analogue in the thing about religion that seems to attract people with really horrifying halitosis.
You appear to have had a fascinating series of experiences with religious people. Please tell more. posted by nightchrome at 5:38 PM on November 29, 2006
"Carbon dating doesn't work. It's only accurate 2% of the time."
Next time, tell him that carbon dating only works with materials younger than about 60,000 years if I understand it correctly, making its usefulness in dating Dinosaurs, er, limited.
A few days later he sent me an absurd link to someone terming himself "Dr. Dino" who claimed to discredit carbon dating and all sorts of other nonsense. I informed him that, in the future, I would appreciate that any scientific proof he forwarded my way come from a scientist without a stage moniker.
Or a criminal record. Not that that affects his credibility. His "theories" do that for him. posted by brundlefly at 5:39 PM on November 29, 2006
"I'm not really sure if this response is sincere, or just an attempt at lashing out at what you think I must be to have asked the question I did."
I wasn't implying anything toward you specifically, nightchrome, just offering an opinion. Sorry if it seemed like an attack. Your response re the "homicidal maniac" post is spot on. posted by zoogleplex at 5:42 PM on November 29, 2006
Eusacecrubb - Humans acting badly is one thing. Yep we do that.
In every scientific example you named the larger society responsible is 90% believers. The vast majority of individuals involved in every technological leap that has had negative consequences are believers themselves. Often it is the individuals belief that justifies and assuages the consequence of their actions as manifest from God. Most often the negative consequences are attributed to God and acts thereof and are left for Him to fix. There is no Atheistic vacuum for these problems to exist in. It is a believers world.
To my knowledge there has never been a major scientific leap driven exclusively by an open atheistic ideal (even in the former Soviet Union, which by the way replaced God with the State as far as faith goes) with the full assumption of responsibility by a larger humanistic centered society. That society has never existed. Nor will it ever.
I ask: Must we make "belief" and "faith" in God a requirement for assuming the reigns of power? Must we automatically ghettoize and exclude from mainstream society any thinker who espouses a non-god centered universe? posted by tkchrist at 5:46 PM on November 29, 2006
zoogleplex: Okay. I made my original comment mostly because it seems a lot of atheists, especially here on mefi, don't seem to understand how they sound when they say the things they say. If you call someone you don't know a "moron", "deluded", "ignorant hick", etc. If you judge someone solely on one piece of information you have about their worldview. If you not only assume someone is "stupid" but call them that, directly. If you actively seek opportunities to deride and mock and attack people of one specific type. Those are the actions of a complete prick. Even if you are right.
And many, many, many atheists (especially here) don't hesitate to do any or all of these things. posted by nightchrome at 5:51 PM on November 29, 2006
You gonna answer mine yet?
No. First because the question was fucking stupid.
And second, even if I accepted the premise (which I don't), when it comes to my personal interactions with Atheists I have only experienced the best humanity has to offer. The smartest and kindest people on the planet. Sadly the same cannot be said for my experiences with religious persons - the majority of whom have been dull-witted, reactionary, ignorant and cruel.
Besides. There are FAR more religious dicks on this planet simply as a matter of population. posted by tkchrist at 5:54 PM on November 29, 2006
And second, even if I accepted the premise (which I don't), when it comes to my personal interactions with Atheists I have only experienced the best humanity has to offer. The smartest and kindest people on the planet.
Do we read the same mefi? Seriously?
And since when has "The other guys are WAY worse!" ever been a valid excuse for behaving badly? posted by nightchrome at 5:57 PM on November 29, 2006
nightcrome I will not engage you in this. Look elsewhere if you want to fling shit. Your personal grudges against mefites are yours. posted by tkchrist at 5:59 PM on November 29, 2006
Wake me up when they can tell the difference between ranting and discussing things sensibly (i.e., with an eye towards possibly affecting people who don't already share their beleaguered little certainties).
In a debate, the goal is not to persuade your opponent or determine the truth, but rather to demonstrate to the audience that you have defended your position better than your opponent has defended his position. This competition serves as a test of skill, not reality. In a discussion, the goal is just as often an exposition of differences as an attempt to achieve consensus. Such encounters can be enjoyable, but rarely particularly persuasive. As for a 'dialogue,' I have a professional disposition towards the belief that their goal is to orient the soul of the interlocutor, or perhaps the audience, towards the Good. Attention to the best arguments for each position can sometimes perform this reorientation, and this was clearly the goal of this 'dialogue.'
Atheism doesn't need a propaganda wing. It doesn't need a good ad blitz. It doesn't need a charismatic ecumenicist. It doesn't need a memorable bedtime story. It just needs to be true, and to attract those who are also concerned with truth. Insofar as rhetoricians and sophists find it unattractive, all the better for atheism! posted by anotherpanacea at 6:08 PM on November 29, 2006 [4 favorites]
Personal grudges? Flinging shit?
I have no idea what you're so upset about, and I think there must be some kind of serious miscommunication here for you to have gotten so bent out of shape over this. You seem to be implying I have some kind of axe to grind against specific people or something, and I am not even remotely sure why you've come to this conclusion.
I'm sorry if you (for reasons I cannot comprehend) think I was talking directly about you, or even anyone else specifically. I assure you I was not. posted by nightchrome at 6:11 PM on November 29, 2006
I'm with ya, nightchrome. There are a lot of smart people who come off as pricks when they talk to everyone else. Some of them really are pricks, but having interacted with people on both ends of the scale, I'd like to give benefit of the doubt that with most smart people it stems from frustration with the communication process. Smart people often get impatient with people who aren't grasping what they're trying to get across.
However, I've noticed that even when very smart people who do not assume their audiences are "stupid," or use any such words to them directly, talk to your average group of regular people, the audience still seems to see them as arrogant - especially if they're telling them something they don't want to hear, no matter how dispassionate the delivery.
There's a communication problem, to be sure. As you say, nobody likes to be told they're stupid, but nobody likes being made to feel like they're stupid, no matter how positive or reasonable the information presented.
jokeefe: In other words, people who suffer real, daily consequences of their marginalization which can be measured in access to services, in their rights before American law, in institutionalized discrimination and so on.
First of all, it's funny that you assume I'm not a member of any of your examples of marginalized peoples. Especially in light of your (incorrect) "hunch" about what I have in my pants! Also, please feel free to enlighten me as to what other people's problems have to do with my problems. Sorry, but I don't buy the "you don't get to complain unless you're a black lesbian in a wheelchair" argument. Especially in light of the poll I linked to above, which indicates that any given American is more likely to trust a black lesbian in a wheelchair than he or she is to trust me.
As for "access to services, in their rights before American law, in institutionalized discrimination", I've personally had a few (admittedly not life-threatening, but certainly very disenheartening) problems with both the former and the latter, and the middle one keeps me from holding office in several states.
I note, though, from your website, that you're a devoted follower of metal, and chosen marginalization tends to be kind of part of that scene, you know.
Oh, good call. I chose to be treated like shit over this issue throughout my childhood, years before I ever heard heavy metal, all because I wanted to be cool twenty years later. The kids whose parents wouldn't let them play with me when I was seven because I was "going to hell" must have seen an Iron Maiden record cover shining in my eyes, eh? I think you have your cause and effect slightly confused, here. I've got more than my share of "chosen marginalization", these days, but that only started after I realized that trying to fit in didn't work, because I wasn't able to fake it well enough. Oddly enough, I've had fewer problems since embracing marginalization...
the tone of some of the angry atheist stuff makes me think that you're not alone in this notion of your victimhood.
This is not about "victimhood". Somebody asked why atheists are pissed off, and I gave a reason why I, as an atheist, am pissed off. And your post is a great example of a second reason -- this kind of treatment gets such a pass from our society that you can laugh me off in a public forum without incurring disapproval. You try doing the same to the black lady in the wheelchair, and then perhaps you'll understand why living life as an atheist can lead to resentment -- not only do you take shit for it, it's socially A-OK for people to give you shit for it!
I mean, there are two possibilities, here: either a great number of atheists have a totally unsupported belief that life in America can be tough for atheists, or life in America can be tough for atheists. Don't cut yourself on Occam's Razor or anything. posted by vorfeed at 6:14 PM on November 29, 2006 [6 favorites]
I'm surrounded by people who thought we should absolutely go into Iraq because they were sure Mr. Bush was a good Christian man that should be trusted.
Hundreds of thousands of people are paying for this even as we speak. It appears my young children will be paying for it throughout their lives, though I don't know yet how heavily a price.
Nothing appears to have changed; very few of these people are currently reevaluating their decision-making/belief-assenting process that's so stunningly obviously flawed.
So, yes, I'm really, really god-damned angry. I've had enough of this bullshit. When you're an adult living in a democracy, your beliefs have consequences and you thus have a responsibility to the rest of us to form those beliefs through the best methods available. I'm tried of saying I respect methods of forming beliefs that are more likely to lead to falsehood than truth. posted by BaxterG4 at 6:14 PM on November 29, 2006
I like the idea of justifying belief in a particular diety by listing various social gifts He has bestowed upon our society. Emancipation? The Scientific Method? Huzzah for Yahweh! Huzzah for Jesus! But seriously folks, can't we stop this? Is this not more than a little silly? This is a debate about the existence of something whose primary criterion for accepting its existence is that you don't ask for proof. Am I the only one who thinks we're using two separate (but equally important) vocabularies? As the band from which I draw my username says: "Get your study hall outa my recess." posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 6:16 PM on November 29, 2006
zoogleplex: Absolutely. I think that goes a long way towards explaining why fundamentalist types feel that atheists are so hostile. In the majority of cases it is likely that the atheist is not trying to be harsh or mean, but is simply saying things that the fundamentalist cannot or will not understand, and that comes across to them as condescending and/or hurtful. As you said, nobody likes to feel dumb, and nobody likes to be told they are wrong no matter how politely it is worded.
As well, I think that may explain why many atheists actually become angry, as the responses they get from fundamentalists are strongly emotional out of proportion to what was said and so the entire discussion escalates in tone. Over time, numerous exchanges like that are bound to cause someone to harden their words and tone beforehand, simply out of habit/reflex. posted by nightchrome at 6:22 PM on November 29, 2006
then you must be lumped with Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung and all the other atheists who butchered more innocents than all the religious crackpots in history.
Surely Prager is leaving out the Inquisition and the Crusades and, if he considers the Bible literal truth, God himself here, isn't he? posted by EatTheWeak at 6:24 PM on November 29, 2006
Competence study previously discussed on MeFi here. Link to actual study materials (I think, includes PDF) here.
"But seriously folks, can't we stop this?"
Just as soon as people stop using religion as an excuse to oppress other people, sometimes brutally. We've never seen atheists use their belief as an excuse. Which leads to, of course...
"then you must be lumped with Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung and all the other atheists who butchered more innocents than all the religious crackpots in history."
Excuse me, no, these horrible despots never said "There is no God, and thus you all need to die," although it might seem that way since they did slaughter some of their victims for their religious beliefs - but not all, they weren't really that discriminatory. They never offered their atheism as an excuse, they gave the reason "for the good of the State, which is just as bad as "God said so," when you're talking about genocide. Plus, no religious crackpot ever had a modern industrial state with which to apply their violence, and it's a damn good thing, too. And no, GWB doesn't count.
For the record, I'm not an atheist. I firmly believe in what I call a God, because of personal experiences which are deeply meaningful to me, but probably don't apply to anyone else, so I don't try to push them on anyone.
"As well, I think that may explain why many atheists actually become angry, as the responses they get from fundamentalists are strongly emotional out of proportion to what was said and so the entire discussion escalates in tone. Over time, numerous exchanges like that are bound to cause someone to harden their words and tone beforehand, simply out of habit/reflex."
I quite agree. This is a very difficult problem to circumvent. Perhaps some progress could be made by first establishing the similarities between the opposing groups, before approaching the differences. People mostly want the exact same stuff out of life, so maybe finding common ground first is a good way to start.
Starting from "you're going to hell" and "you're a pack of morons" isn't going to be productive. posted by zoogleplex at 6:34 PM on November 29, 2006
tkchrist: there is no "religion" vacuum either -- that was my point. it is not a "believer's world", it's a greedy rich person's world. My point was that just as the worst Christians rose to the top and dominated Christianity and still do, so too do the worst people in any discipline/group take over. Religion is typically beholden to outside interests. In the middle ages, it was to landowning kings, whose second sons often became bishops. Today it's market forces and unethical corporations. Not surprisingly, you'll find that science is beholden to the same forces, and possbily even more so. The current grant/federal subsidy-based university system that funds scientific research ensures that science will spend more time making horrible things that make like worse, like mustard gas, atomic bombs, botox treatments, viragra, etc, and will indoctrinate its students to accept the system's status quo as normal and reasonable so that well-intentioned people will work together to make possible technological hell on earth, albiet a very profitable hell on earth.
In short, the problem, whether Harris wants to admit it or not, is that there are power-hungry demogogues, and greedy rich people, and they are always at the root of the problem, be it religious or otherwise. James Dobson, bin Laden, Stalin, and Rupert Murdoch all have one thing in common: they have or had a lot of money/power, a lot more than most os us will see. Their stated goals may be different, but in the end, one must suspec that their real goals are to get more power and/or money. That is the real problem, and it's why Sam Harris's rhetorical approach is so distasteful -- because, in the end, he sounds like just another self-important windbag like Dobson or bin Laden -- replace his language about believers with references to "Jews" or "Hollywood liberals" and it all sounds the same. posted by eustacescrubb at 6:35 PM on November 29, 2006 [1 favorite]
Starting from "you're going to hell" and "you're a pack of morons" isn't going to be productive.
zoogleplex: Nothing to add, I just think that line needed to be posted again for emphasis. posted by nightchrome at 6:36 PM on November 29, 2006
Not reading all the responses, but 80% or more of Sam Harris' initial email is taken word for word from his book. posted by T.D. Strange at 6:43 PM on November 29, 2006
My point was that just as the worst Christians rose to the top ... the worst people in any discipline/group take over.
The world is like a cesspool, there's floaters, sinkers and a bunch of used condoms in between? posted by IronLizard at 6:45 PM on November 29, 2006
In short, the problem, whether Harris wants to admit it or not, is that there are power-hungry demogogues, and greedy rich people, and they are always at the root of the problem, be it religious or otherwise.
not only that but any argument can be used for the purpose of demogoguery, including his ... (not that it's real likely to in our society, but he should be wary of being co-opted)
of course, some might say that the fact that the prominent, "best selling" atheist viewpoints are provocative and "angry", is a form of co-optation
controversy sells and all that ... posted by pyramid termite at 6:46 PM on November 29, 2006
Hardcore athiests annoy me for the same reason that religious fundamentalists do: They're so damn SURE of everything (or at least act like it). I'm an agnostic, and I firmly hold the belief that I don't know a damn thing about the true nature of the universe, and either do you. When either side tries to convince me of their beliefs, it comes off as very aggressive and pompous to me.
I think it may be the same for a large number of americans, who aren't sure and just want to live their lives. Because of upringing and social standards, they do tend to be closer to religion than I am, so the fundamentalists are slightly less annoying than the athiests. But they're both still annoying.
I understand why many athiests gravitate towards this aggressive (which is easily misinterpreted as angry) position: it's easier to argue from a position of strength and logic than one of doubt. It seems like it would be more effective to talk of fire and brimstone, or about theocracies, but it isn't. One of the main reasons that the fundamentalists have been successful in america is that they've learned to change their rhetoric. Slowly building up a framework of belief through small steps is a much more effective technique at influencing the doubting majority than throwing out a series of logical arguments.
Belieiving something illogical, if that belief opens up doors and encourages needed social relationships, is a COMPLETELY reasonable thing to do. It doesn't make someone stupid or insane, it's just evidence that we live in the real world, not in an abstract realm of logic. If people had a reason to reject religion, they would. posted by JZig at 6:48 PM on November 29, 2006 [1 favorite]
This year I reconnected on Myspace with an old friend from high school who was an all-around nice guy. The only black kid in my high school class. Honor council member, Battle of the Brains team member, campus newspaper editor, super friendly, super brilliant. Jefferson scholar at UVA, even.
Now? He's completely out of his tree, a born-again Christian. Impossible to hold a conversation with on a subject other than the invisible sky wizard. Every third sentence he'd write me in an e-mail would be punctuated with biblical citations. I had some interesting debates with him—about sin, in particular—but once I told him I hoped he wasn't taking me on as a project, he stopped talking to me.
Thanks for posting this. Interesting reading. And I wouldn't describe myself as an angry atheist. Apatheism all the way. posted by emelenjr at 6:49 PM on November 29, 2006
Say, why is it all you assholes are so angry and defensive anyways?
We’re not
Why are you being defensive?
I’m not!
See there you go, getting angry.
“Nearly half of the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world.”
heh, there are some days. posted by Smedleyman at 7:03 PM on November 29, 2006
viragra, etc,
So what's wrong with Viagra exactly? The worst part about it is it makes me think of old people having sex, and the best part is that it'll allow me to still have sex when I get old. I'd say that's a more than fair trade. posted by boaz at 7:35 PM on November 29, 2006
science will spend more time making horrible things that make like worse, like mustard gas, atomic bombs, botox treatments, viragra, etc
In what possibly way does viagra make life worse?
I'm an agnostic, and I firmly hold the belief that I don't know a damn thing about the true nature of the universe, and either do you.
I'm reasonably sure it wasn't created by a leprechaun or any other fictional character. Just because you don't know what it was doesn't mean you can't know what it wasn't. I can't remember how I got home last night, but I can guarantee it wasn't by submarine. Hoorah for knowledge! posted by Sparx at 7:49 PM on November 29, 2006 [2 favorites]
Why are we so angry? As frankly as I can put it, because we are choking and suffocating on rhetoric, we're surrounded by the clueless, and we're ruled by the insane. posted by tehloki at 7:54 PM on November 29, 2006 [5 favorites]
If you scratch an Xter hard, you'll generally find he's an xter because he's afraid if he stops, he'll be a useless drunk like his uncle fred, or a whore like aunt olivia, or some such thing.
Extreme beliefs most often require extreme fears. Not unfounded fears, but extreme ones. posted by hexatron at 8:09 PM on November 29, 2006
If you scratch an Xter hard, you'll generally find he's an xter because he's afraid if he stops, he'll be a useless drunk like his uncle fred, or a whore like aunt olivia, or some such thing.
Extreme beliefs most often require extreme fears. Not unfounded fears, but extreme ones. posted by hexatron at 8:09 PM on November 29, 2006
Sparx,
I'm also reasonably sure it wasn't created by a leprechaun. I'm also reasonably sure it wasn't created by anything that particularly resembles the description given by any religion in an even vaguely literal way. The christian god doesn't really make any more sense than leprechauns, which is why, you'll note, I'm not a christian.
But, that doesn't mean it was created by nothing. Just because we can't come up with an answer doesn't mean there isn't one. We just don't know what happened before what we know of as the universe (and have no way of knowing), so we should just go with whatever is the most useful. In terms of science, the most useful assumption is that the universe has rules, and things follow them. Those rules could have been designed by some sort of higher being, or be the result of some sort of guiding process like evolution, or have no cause at all. We don't know and can't know. And judging the likelihood of these by using some perversion of Occam's razor just doesn't make sense.
Yes, under the weak definition I am an atheist, but that isn't really the way it's being used here, I think. posted by JZig at 8:12 PM on November 29, 2006
There are plenty of calm, reasonable, quiet Atheists. Most Atheists are quiet about it. However, these people are ignored. You have to be passionate about it to go and make much noise. That's about all there is for atheists. It's pretty remarkable that the number of atheists keeps increasing despite having no organisation to convert people. It must annoy the bejesus out of religious types.
JZig - you may be interested in an essay by Douglas Adams on his atheism and why he is not agnostic. It makes for an interesting read.
Note, this is another area of US exceptionalism. Outside of the US in the developed world there is far less antipathy toward atheists. posted by sien at 8:15 PM on November 29, 2006
I'm an atheist and I'm not angry. I'm perfectly happy being among the 80-95% of Americans who are atheists.
My definition of a religious person is someone who truly believes in their religion- truly believes they are going to heaven or hell when they die. Truly believes they will spend eternity with a big man with a beard or big red dude with a pitchfork (or their religion's equivalent)
I'm not sure I have ever met one person like this in my life (granted I have lived on the coasts, but still) The vast vast majority of "religious" people I have known, the ones who keep a bible on the shelf and maybe go to church a couple of times a year as social ritual, I consider them just as much atheists as me. There's a big difference between real, literal religious belief, as it exists in many (frankly, less developed) parts of the world, and what we have here and in western Europe. The Europeans are just less into lip service. posted by drjimmy11 at 8:20 PM on November 29, 2006
I'm angry because of all the Sundays I wasted being forcefed religious BS when I was a kid. Thanks Mum. posted by Joeforking at 8:24 PM on November 29, 2006
Maybe if the title had been "Why are people who call themselves Athiest so angry?" this discussion would have been over by now :) posted by JZig at 8:31 PM on November 29, 2006
What I don't get is this: Why, in so many of these posts where atheists go head-to-head with various religious people, don't atheists ever actually give any reasons why they're atheist?
All they ever seem to do is give reasons why they don't subscribe to the very specific denominational beliefs of whatever religious person they think they're going up against. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you reject the specific god concept of modern christianity. It means you reject all conceivable concepts of god that ever have been or ever could be. Arguing that specific beliefs are dumb does absolutely nothing to support an atheist point of view.
If you want to defend atheism, you have to argue persuasively that every possible version of a god, deity, supreme being, etc. is inherently flawed, no matter what its characteristics are. Rejecting a god-concept who allegedly created everything in existence anywhere 8000 years ago because that contradicts science has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. That's just rejection of a specific religious belief.
But coming up with a logical or rational argument to support the assertion that it's impossible that any god of any kind exists, no matter what the dogma, is pretty hard to do. posted by JekPorkins at 8:35 PM on November 29, 2006
I'm also reasonably sure it wasn't created by a leprechaun.
Don't say that aloud! You'll be booted out of art school!
JekPorkins: see Bertrand Russell's teapot argument above. posted by Falconetti at 8:46 PM on November 29, 2006
See, that's the one part of Harris's argument I found compelling. Atheists don't have to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God any more than believers have to demonstrate there is. They're both faith-based decisions. Some people are comforted, or even spurred to righteous action, by the idea that there is an entity beyond that is coming to settle accounts. That very idea makes a great many other people profoundly uncomfortable, and they refuse to accept it. And that's both their perogotives, provided they don't fuck up anybody else's shit. There is an ammendment that says, if I may paraphrase, "don't start none, won't be none." It seems like this sort of pissing contest serves precicely no one. It gives everyone a bad name. posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 8:47 PM on November 29, 2006
It means you reject all conceivable concepts of god that ever have been or ever could be.
Methinks the magic underwear's fastened a bit tight around the neck there, Jek. After all, it's believing in one god concept that actually involves an explicit rejection of all those untold possible god concepts (with your one cherished exception). Me, I can imagine lots of god concepts I don't reject: For example, maybe my cabbie last week was God. He doesn't have any magic powers, he doesn't philosophize, he didn't create the universe or anything; he just drives a cab. But see, he's God. Maybe God's my neighbor's dog or my cup of tea here. See, I don't have to reject any of those. posted by boaz at 8:59 PM on November 29, 2006
JZig: I think you're ascribing belief systems to atheists that really aren't there. I'll probably step on some toes, but as far as I know, most atheists don't claim that the universe was "created by nothing." If they don't know, they say so. If they ascribe to (not believe in) the current big-bang scientific theory, they say so. Note the use of the word theory, and understand its scientific definition. If a new theory comes along and seems more reasonable, that one will replace the big-bang theory, and nobody gets upset about it or starts a new "science," because that isn't how science works. posted by odinsdream at 8:59 PM on November 29, 2006
JekPorkins: see Bertrand Russell's teapot argument above.
Falconetti, rejecting the premise that there's a teapot in orbit is like rejecting the premise that a bearded guy made dinosaur bones and buried them 8000 years ago just to trick us. Atheism isn't the rejection of the belief in the teapot. It's the rejection of the mere possibility that there could be any crockery of any kind anywhere in the universe other than Earth.
An atheist doesn't say "I see no reason to believe that there's a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars." He says "it is impossible that there is anything even remotely resembling a teapot anywhere in the universe."
Or am I mistaken? Are atheists just actually saying that there might be a god, but there's no persuasive evidence that Christians have the details right?
DoublewhiskeycokenoiceAtheists don't have to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God any more than believers have to demonstrate there is.
That's absolutely right. When an atheist is asked why he's an atheist, though, it would be nice if he could come up with a reason other than "because traditional modern Christianity clearly has the creation story wrong." You don't become an atheist by taking sharp potshots at specific beliefs. If you're really an atheist, it's because you dismiss the whole shooting match. And if that's the case, there ought to be some reason for the dismissal, right?
Just as many Christians believe in Christianity just because their momma told them the Bible was true, I suspect that many atheists profess atheism just because they think the particular sects or religious ideas they've been exposed to are dumb. Or because they're pissed at their parents, or any number of other reasons other than actually being atheist.
On preview: Me, I can imagine lots of god concepts I don't reject
Then you're not an atheist.
After all, it's believing in one god concept that actually involves an explicit rejection of all those untold possible god concepts (with your one cherished exception)
Yep. Actually believing that one is correct is the only logical way to reject all of the others out of hand, including the ones I don't know about.. You can disagree with what I believe all day long, but you won't likely disagree with my rejection of the others, will you? But how can you logically dismiss something that you don't even know about? posted by JekPorkins at 9:11 PM on November 29, 2006
JekPorkins: not all atheists, but many (weak atheists, or implicit atheists), would state their belief not as "There definitely isn't God anywhere in the universe - that's impossible", but as "There's no reason to believe there is a god, and my default position is that I don't think there is. With no evidence to the contrary, who cares?" That default position is just sort of a 'gut feeling', I guess. In other words, we don't have faith that God exists; thus, we'd need proof. Since proof of God is generally accepted as ludicrous (God being a matter of faith and all that), we don't believe. Does that help? posted by spaceman_spiff at 9:20 PM on November 29, 2006
Then you're not an atheist.
Then you're not an English speaker. The idea that theism involves God is merely part of the Judeo-Christian god-concept.
You can disagree with what I believe all day long, but you won't likely disagree with my rejection of the others, will you?
Well, in point of fact, your God-concept is wrong, and even all the other theists agree with me about that. ;) posted by boaz at 9:22 PM on November 29, 2006
Note, this is another area of US exceptionalism. Outside of the US in the developed world there is far less antipathy toward atheists.
sien: Yes, that's definitely part of it too. It's primarily because outside of the US, there aren't many places that take fundamentalist Christianity seriously at all. The whole "religious" vs "atheist" battle is better described as "american fundamentalist christians" vs "atheists". posted by nightchrome at 9:25 PM on November 29, 2006
The idea that theism involves God is merely part of the Judeo-Christian god-concept.
That's the funniest thing I've ever read. Ever.
Well, in point of fact, your God-concept is wrong, and even all the other theists agree with me about that. ;)
Of course they do. If they didn't think mine was wrong, they'd have the same beliefs as me. By definition. If a Catholic doesn't believe that a Baptist is wrong, then he's a Baptist, not a Catholic. And if he thinks that neither of them is wrong, then he's just an idiot.
"There's no reason to believe there is a god, and my default position is that I don't think there is. With no evidence to the contrary, who cares?"
Then the real question is, why are there all these high profile atheists who pretend to care? posted by JekPorkins at 9:29 PM on November 29, 2006
boaz: Well, in point of fact, your God-concept is wrong
That's a pretty strong affirmative belief you've got there. Much stronger than "With no evidence to the contrary, who cares?" What is the rational reason that you believe that? posted by JekPorkins at 9:31 PM on November 29, 2006
But how can you logically dismiss something that you don't even know about?
I dunno, Jek, but you sure to a good job of it here.
What, exactly, do you think I don't know about in that thread? posted by JekPorkins at 9:40 PM on November 29, 2006
If they didn't think mine was wrong, they'd have the same beliefs as me. By definition.
So you are one of those guys who explains jokes to the tellers: 'Yes, I understand. The guy in the video thought he was going to catch the football, but instead got hit in the balls.' posted by boaz at 9:42 PM on November 29, 2006
Honestly, part of the issue is that the semantical argument about the meaning of "agnosticism" and "atheism" is muddy. Agnosticism is defined usually as the concept that we cannot know if a higher power exists or does not exist. Atheism is defined as a disbelief in God, which doesn't necessarily preclude the existence of God or Gods (should it be empircally proven), only that there is no proof right now.
Now, essentially, both of those definitions are saying the exact same thing. The differences arise mostly in how each are perceived by the culture at large. Agnosticism is often--I think wrongly--represented as a sort of "meh" position. It's viewed as a position that maintains only that the ultimate truth is unknowable and thus all possibilities are equally plausible, where, in point of fact, agnosticism maintains at its core that only observable phenomena are points of exact knowledge.
Atheism, on the other hand, is often viewed as a position wherein the believer ardently rails against the non-existence of a God. This is, of course, a logically untenable position, as it is well known that proving non-existence is empirically impossible. What most atheists believe is that we cannot know if a God exists but that, without proof, operating on the principle that one does not exist is the most logical thing to do. The burden of proof lies on the prover, not the disprover, after all.
As I said, the two viewpoints are almost identical, but they are portrayed--and subsequently perceived--in western media culture as being somewhat different things. As such, calling yourself an atheist is a much simpler way to get your position across. The connotations it carries with it are stronger and more to the point, and thus appeal to me in that they portray my actual (dis)beliefs. posted by The God Complex at 9:51 PM on November 29, 2006
What most atheists believe is that we cannot know if a God exists but that, without proof, operating on the principle that one does not exist is the most logical thing to do.
I don't think that's accurate.
But discussing the subtle differences between different people's definitions of atheist and agnostic is pointless, and it's been done here before. posted by JekPorkins at 9:59 PM on November 29, 2006
Hot DAMN! I believe this threat has converted me. I'm now a meh-theist. posted by anotherpanacea at 10:03 PM on November 29, 2006
No? If someone asked me "Do you believe in God?", I would say "No." Because I don't. If someone asked me "Do you think there's a chance that a supreme or higher power exists?", I would say "I don't believe that one exists, no, but do I think there's a chance? Sure. Nothing can be disproven."
I'm sure there are atheists whose ardent belief is that God does not exist, but if they enter the area of not acknowledging that we can't disprove God, then, empirically and logically, they're incorrect.
Now, the odds that the Christian God exists is so close to zero that I feel quite comfortable in my assertion. It's a mark of essentially every culture ever that they have some fairy tale about the how and the why of life, perhaps as a necessity from an evolutionary perspective (culturally speaking). The suggestion that one of them magically got it right after several million years is... unlikely. Not impossible, but fairly close to it. All other evidence rests in the accounts of people from thousands of years ago. Numerous studies have shown the inaccuracy of human eyewitness reports, to the point that I feel very comfortable in my disbelief about these matters, based on a number of factors (including the two I just detailed).
But, as I said, I think the real distinction is a simple cultural one. Our cultural understanding of atheism is a more accurate portrayal of my position than "meh" would be. And so on. But I'm repeating myself now, so I will relent! ;) posted by The God Complex at 10:09 PM on November 29, 2006
TGC, your position is very reasonable, and if I didn't have an affirmative belief in God based on concrete experiences, I would likely agree with you wholeheartedly.
Now, the odds that the Christian God exists is so close to zero that I feel quite comfortable in my assertion.
I wonder, though, 1) how you calculate those odde; and 2) how you decide what, exactly, the "Christian God" is. It's a pretty broad term. I agree that the odds are close to zero. That's why Christians hold so tightly to the Bible, which they (I think) see as physical evidence of God's existence. posted by JekPorkins at 10:13 PM on November 29, 2006
Angry, frustrated, disappointed, saddened, resentful, cynical - hard to explain why when you're so tired. posted by Chuckly at 11:27 PM on November 29, 2006
Jek, the calculations are pretty simple. Just take infinity and subtract 1.
Secondly, I'm an agnostic, for most of the reasons that TGC describged above, but I won't call myself an athiest because there are simply too many things in this universe, this world, this country, this city, this neighborhood that I can't begin to explain. I am small and the universe is big and, for me, the only logical position is to admit that I don't know, and that even if I did know I'd misinterpret it.
Thankfully, most religious people that I know tend to see things the same way, and while their faith isn't in doubt, they use it as guidelines for how to live a better life, though they know it isn't the only way to do so.
The problem with discussions such as this is that they spend the whole time futily arguing the premises, because they're inevitably talks between ideological opposites. A discussion about the necessary conditions for a moral system, between Harris, Prager, and a humble Agnostic, would be far more illuminating, or at least a good read. posted by Navelgazer at 11:39 PM on November 29, 2006
Thankfully, most religious people that I know tend to see things the same way, and while their faith isn't in doubt, they use it as guidelines for how to live a better life, though they know it isn't the only way to do so.
See, this is, I think, reasonable. Some people to whom God's existence has not been proved have faith. If their faith pays off, then it's at least somewhat rational. Others do not have faith. That is also rational.
But then you have those without faith who go on and on about how anyone who does have faith is an idiot, and those with faith who say the same (or worse) about those without faith. The whole "religious people are stupid/bad/harmful/obviously wrong" thing has nothing to do with being an atheist or agnostic, and everything to do with just being rude. Same goes for those religious people who preoccupy themselves with proclaiming the damnation of unbelievers -- they're not being particularly religious, they're just being jerks.
So the answer to the question: Why are atheists so angry? Is that most of them aren't, and the ones who are aren't angry because they're atheists, they're just angry people. They might even be angry because some jerk who happens to be religious said that they're stupid for being atheist. And if an atheist is angry because someone said that he's going to hell, well, that's just funny. posted by JekPorkins at 11:54 PM on November 29, 2006
And if an atheist is angry because someone said that he's going to hell, well, that's just funny.
Not really. Implicit in the statement 'you are going to Hell' is the unspoken 'and I agree that you should', always.
It's more rude and more hateful than if someone told me that they were glad that I broke my leg. posted by solid-one-love at 12:00 AM on November 30, 2006
Here's my reasoning for calling myself an atheist. If anyone's still reading.
I don't believe in any absolute or objective standards of morality. Sure, there are moral rules which make human society function better, but 'thou shalt not kill' had no meaning 10 million years ago when nothing capable of understanding the concept of a moral rule existed. It is also meaningless 15 parsecs north of planet Earth.
This doesn't rule out the idea of a creator. But in the absence of absolute right and wrong (or, to put it another way, purpose), the creator is essentially equivalent to a scientist who creates life in a petri dish - super-powerful in comparison to the life s/he creates, but not a 'god'. Worshipping such a creature may be pragmatic but it is ultimately meaningless.
Even if it was provable that the Christian 'god' existed, it would be no more than another part of the universe. It might enforce its idea of morality by punishing or rewarding the entities it had created, but it would not provide its creations with an ultimate purpose. It has no more special status than the scientist.
This is why I'm an atheist and not an agnostic. Have I put this well? I assume someone smarter than myself has made this argument before, and much better. posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 12:02 AM on November 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
solid-one-loveIt's more rude and more hateful than if someone told me that they were glad that I broke my leg.
That analogy only works if your leg isn't actually broken, but the other person was only imagining that you broke it. Would you be mad at someone who tells you your leg is broken, when it's not?
A Thousand Baited Hooksbut 'thou shalt not kill' had no meaning 10 million years ago when nothing capable of understanding the concept of a moral rule existed.
But that's only because at that time (we assume for the sake of argument) the "thou" didn't exist. It's just the tree falling in the forest thing.
Even if it was provable that the Christian 'god' existed, it would be no more than another part of the universe. It might enforce its idea of morality by punishing or rewarding the entities it had created, but it would not provide its creations with an ultimate purpose. It has no more special status than the scientist.
Why, if we're assuming for the moment that God does exist, are we assuming that God isn't subject to immutable moral principles? Why are we assuming that if God exists, that he makes the rules and decides whether or not to punish or reward? What if he's just been around so long that he's figured out how all the rules of the universe work?
It looks to me like you're not actually atheist -- you don't appear to reject the concept of God entirely, but only the generalized Christian version.
That just makes you not a christian. posted by JekPorkins
Subscribe
posted by amberglow at 2:30 PM on November 29, 2006