No, atheism does not need a moment of reckoning

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/13/no-atheism-does-not-need-a-moment-of-reckoning/

Neither does Christianity, Islam, or any other group

By Nathan J. Robinson February 13 at 6:00 AM
Nathan J. Robinson is a PhD student in Sociology and Social Policy at Harvard University.


A vigil for three people who were killed Wednesday in Chapel Hill, N.C. (AP Photo/The News & Observer, Al Drago)

After the discovery that the man who murdered three Muslim students in North Carolina on Wednesday was an atheist, it was a matter of hours before the media conversation shifted from simple horror and mourning to a discussion of the attack’s implication for atheism.

Vox reported that atheists faced an “uncomfortable conversation,” and The Washington Post immediately called on “End of Faith” author Sam Harris for an explanation. On Twitter, historian Vijay Prishad did not hesitate to say the killer was “inspired” by so-called New Atheist writers, and the author CJ Werelman hoped the tragedy would awaken America to “threat” of atheism. The American Humanist Association felt compelled to put out a statement condemning the attack.

But connecting the killings in any way to atheism rests on a dangerous underlying principle. To begin with, the link between the religious or political persuasions of criminals and their criminal behavior should always be approached cautiously. While the “parking dispute” narrative pushed by Richard Dawkins is thoroughly discreditable, the violently insane have all manner of obsessions and can crib any set of principles to rationalize their acts. To suggest that the atheistic beliefs of Craig Hicks turned him murderous is akin to saying that Jodie Foster caused Reagan to be shot, or that Judaism caused the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.

Despite this, the attacks were used by some to revive preexisting complaints against atheism. Writing in the New Republic, Christian writer Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig demanded a reckoning, framing the murders as a wake-up call to atheists about dangerous tendencies among them. She argued that the cocksureness that comes with atheistic certitude has allowed more-rational-than-thou young white men to blind themselves to a growing strand of hatefulness. Atheists, she said, need to consider the possibility that such violence is an “outgrowth of a system” that fails to sufficiently question its moral commitments.

more at link

[trotsky]

1. The notion that anyone can determine what a god wants, or be confident that they know...

is what needs a moment of reckoning. Religion isn't just "another way of knowing" and continuing to treat it like one will bring nothing but pain and suffering.

[rug]

3. What needs a reckoning is acting based on strawmen.

[pinto]

4. Really good response by Robinson, imo.

Bruenig's assertion that the murders "demanded a reckoning, framing the murders as a wake-up call to atheists about dangerous tendencies among them" is way over the top to put it mildly.

And the killer, fwiw, appears to be all over the map. I remain in the let the investigations and legal process run their course camp.

[cbayer]

5. Agree. I think we have to take all aspects of this man's identity

into consideration, but using this to frame atheists in a certain light is wrong.

Islamophobia is rampant. Whether it contributed to this or not is still up in the air.

However, I think it presents an opportunity to take a look at Islamophobia. I hope those that promote it will take a look at this and reconsider their approach.

[pinto]

6. And it presents an opportunity to look at the media's role in it all. Across the spectrum of media.

Print, broadcast, internet, etc. "Framing" an issue has been on my mind. How much does that play into public perception or opinion. Political opinion? Political actions? Etc. And what responsibility do we media consumers have? Should journalism reconsider its approach?

(aside) The local university's Philosophy Department is hosting a series of religious talks - Perspectives on Religion and Society. I missed the first one, a look at mysticism and it's relationships with the Jewish traditions, but hope to catch the last two. One is focused on homosexuality and its relationships with Christian churches and the other on the relationships among American society, at large, with Islamic churches.

[cbayer]

7. That lecture series sounds great.

How fortunate you are to live in a university town.

It's hard to see an upside to this, but sometimes it does change the tone and degree of rhetoric. I fear for my middle eastern friends and family.

[edhopper]

8. This may be true

of some atheist:

"Writing in the New Republic, Christian writer Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig demanded a reckoning, framing the murders as a wake-up call to atheists about dangerous tendencies among them. She argued that the cocksureness that comes with atheistic certitude has allowed more-rational-than-thou young white men to blind themselves to a growing strand of hatefulness."

But it is more true of many Christians,Jews, Muslims... who have the added benefit of not only being sure, but being sure that God agrees with them.

I suggest she examine the beam in her own eye.

[cbayer]

9. I don't think you can say more with any certainty.

I reject her broadbrush description and I reject yours as well.

There are those that define themselves as believers and others who define themselves as non-believers who promote attitudes that are prejudiced at best and bigoted at worst.

All should be taken to task. They do not represent or speak for those that wear the same labels.

This isn't a contest to see who is worse, or at least it shouldn't be.

[edhopper]

10. What broadbrush

I was pointing out the sillyness of her broadbushing atheist to say it can apply to a portion of religious groups as well.

[cbayer]

13. You criticized her statement then immediately said it was "more true"

of religious believers.

That broad brush. It's wrong to do it either way.

[edhopper]

15. You're

Parsing it to closely.
We'll just leave it at we both disagree with her.

[cbayer]

18. Perhaps I am, but I often wonder if you can see that what you

often complain of in others seems to be just fine if you apply it to religious people.

[arcane1]

11. Amazing, isn't it, how they're stretching this to discredit nonbelief.

And using dead people as props in the process. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[edhopper]

12. But she's

A good Christian.

[cbayer]

14. Yes, but you apply what she has said to believers. I guess that

makes you a good Atheist.

[edhopper]

17. To point out

The inanity of her statement.

I can't type with a tone of irony.

[cbayer]

16. Yes, and it's equally amazing how some people stretch heinous acts

done by some believer to discredit belief and use dead people as props in the process.

Agree - they should be ashamed of themselves.

[TM99]

19. I strongly disagree. The New Atheist movement can and

should use this as a wake up call. Why?

Because the most often purported belief of the anti-theist, anti-religion, New Atheist is that if only religion disappeared replaced by a universal atheism then humanity would be rational, enlightened, grounded in science, and all of the atrocities done in the name of religion would stop. We have seen thread after thread over the years here stating this belief. Religious believers are more likely to be delusional. If there was no 'psychopathic god' then ISIS would not behead non-believers. No one who believes in God or follows the Catholic church teachings is able to accept science and denounce homophobia. In the bluntest of terms, get rid of religion, get rid of most if not all of humanities' 'evils'.

This tragic incident shows that this is just not true. Atheists are no more likely to be rational, sane, or non-violent than a religious person. Humans will do sad, shocking, and horrible acts in the name of all kinds of beliefs, non-beliefs, philosophical stances, or ideologies. Why? Because humans are just that way. Some of us have severe issues. Some of us have mental diseases that can and do lead to violence. Some of us are still bigots and racists and homophobes and sadly likely always will be.

Is this man's atheism the reason for the killings? No. It may have influenced him given other factors and other issues. I do not believe it can be separated out from who he is and what he did.

However, if we completely separate it out and say that religious people who also perpetrate such heinous acts can not (their religion is a part of the problem!), then hypocrisy is thy name. That is what I am seeing here from the usual suspects.

Any ideology can and will fuel human rage and murderous aggression. The more rigid, militant, and close-minded, the great the possibility. Not all Muslims. Not all Christians. Not all Atheists. Because not all are following that type of 'fundamentalist minded' ideology.

[cbayer]

20. While I agree with much of what you say, I think the author is making

a different point.

He is objecting to those who are making a link between atheism and this act. He is saying pretty much what you are - that the violently insane will use whatever they have at hand to justify their acts, whether those be shrouded in religious belief of religious non-belief.

He objects to blaming "religion" for the acts of individuals who may identify as religious.

And he very much takes the position that there is a lot of room for criticism of "New Atheism", particularly when it comes to anti-muslim rhetoric.

That this has triggered some defensiveness among some atheists is not surprising and it's actually not bad. I would like to see islamophobia repudiated by all.

The bottom line is that it is wrong to blame the bigger group for the actions of outliers, which ever direction it goes.

Now some here are trying to say there is a distinction because believers have a book and dogma and share a creed. But that is a flat out bullshit argument.

[TM99]

21. Indeed.

The bottom line is that it is wrong to blame the bigger group for the actions of outliers, which ever direction it goes.

Yes, exactly.

Now some here are trying to say there is a distinction because believers have a book and dogma and share a creed. But that is a flat out bullshit argument.

And it is these who do need a 'reckoning' moment to hopefully, but doubtfully, to the reality & hypocrisy. Obviously some will not so push back is going to occur. It would be good to see prominent atheists disavow this man and his actions. I would like see national atheist groups do the same. Shared experiences remove projections and instill empathy.

Will it happen?

[skepticscott]

23. Why should atheists disavow this man?

Last edited Sat Feb 14, 2015, 08:23 AM - Edit history (1)

If a stamp collector kills someone, should philatelist associations disavow the killer? If a golfer kills someone, should the USGA feel obligated to "disavow" him?

What moral responsibility do atheists share for the actions of any other atheists? How does ANY of this have one fucking thing to do with whether any gods exist? (Hint...it doesn't).

[Lordquinton]

26. philatelists everywhere would need to re-evaluate their

hobby.

[cbayer]

28. Agree. That is the "reckoning" I hoped for from the beginning

and it may have been the case for some. At any rate, I think it will be harder to post some BS story about a psychotic person with religious delusions who does something horrible.

I think a number of people and organizations have spoken up and have denounced this individual. What I would like to see is some acknowledgment that there may be a need tone down the anti-islam rhetoric, even if it becomes clear that it played little or no role.

[TM99]

31. Yes, on all points.

I sadly expect the anti-Islam rhetoric and violence to get worse before it gets better.

Our team-sport political mentality today leads inevitably to an us versus them experience. Too often this is leading to rage and then violence.

Very tragic indeed.

[cbayer]

32. The article that rug just posted is really good and I hope it is

widely read ("Mere Atheism Isn't Enough&quot

The author sees the opportunity here and is willing to grab it. He is seeing it elsewhere and I hope we will see more of it here.

[skepticscott]

36. And it could just be that if so many people weren't being killed

tortured and oppressed by terrorists motivated by their religious "faith", the tendency towards rhetoric denouncing that would be less. But you and your cohorts seem to regard the harsh rhetoric as a greater evil for some reason. Otherwise, why would your statement be calling for that to be toned down, and not say anything about the actual violence and murder?

[skepticscott]

24. When you keep trying to dismiss a simple fact

that blows your agenda out of the water with nothing more than hand-waving bullshit, that tells us all we need to know.

"A bullshit argument"? Prove it. The explicit tenets of religion in their sacred texts command and motivate people to hatred, bigotry and violence. The tenets of atheism don't, because there are none. Zip. Zero. NADA.

[Nay]

27. I agree with you, Scott. Atheists don't have any texts to follow that motivate them to hatred and

violence against other people; atheism is simply the assertion that there is no proof of the existence of god(s). Period. Although atheists may gather in groups, it's simply for support and friendship in the great sea of religious belief around them, not to talk about beating up Muslims, Christians, or anybody. The whole idea that simply not believing in god(s) makes you violent against religious people is nuts.

Religious people are pretty famous for combing through their religious texts for reasons to hate/oppress/destroy those not of their faith. Or, frankly, even those of their faith whom they think are 'bad.'

[skepticscott]

22. Except that there is no "New Atheist Movement"

It's just something that faitheists and "Thank god I'm not like those OTHER atheists" atheists have ginned up as some sort of bogey man, aided by an atheist-hating media that loves to look clever with catch phrases..

I defy you to point to any group, any meeting, any conference of people who self-identify as "New Atheists". Prove to us that it's anything but a label used in scare quotes by people like you.

[skepticscott]

25. Are you really, truly arguing

That ONE incident proves that atheists in general are as likely to be violent, irrational and insane as religious people? Would you also argue that 9-11 showed that Muslims as a group are more likely to be mass murdering terrorists than Christians? Seriously? That is so intellectually bankrupt that I can't even get my head around it. As is the claim that people commit violence in the name of non-belief. I defy you to show us even ONE such example.

[Starboard Tack]

29. And you wonder why you have marginalized yourself?

[rug]

30. But his antitheism doesn't have a thing to do with his marginalization.

Could not possibly motivate this spectacle.

[Starboard Tack]

33. More his intolerance than his antitheism

I think one can be an antitheist without being an intolerant bigot.

[rug]

35. Agreed. And very easily.

That's why I said "his".

[Starboard Tack]

38. Gotcha! Good point.

What should we call our "gang"?

[skepticscott]

34. Says the man with no substantive reply

Says the man with nothing but snark and personal attacks.

Says the man who imagines I care if he and his little gang "marginalize" me.

Feel free to respond to the actual point that nothing can be concluded about likelihood or probabilities from a single incident, only bare possibility. If you can.

[Starboard Tack]

37. The incident is about intolerance, nothing else.

Intolerance is what demands a moment of reckoning. You, of all people should be aware of that. My snark, as you call it, is directed at those who display their intolerance and bigotry toward those who do not share their religious or spiritual beliefs.

The fact that the killer/executioner of these three Muslims was an atheist or even an antitheist, is irrelevant. He was an intolerant asshole, regardless of anyone's beliefs, and regardless of whether he was motivated by his hatred of religion or his anger over a parking space. His intolerance has now resulted in his marginalization. He did it all by himself. This has been explained to you time and again, regarding your own behavior, that you are not being marginalized by others. That is not how it works in this world.

[skepticscott]

39. Yes, you're so "tolerant" that you need to compare me to a killer of three people

To try to score some pathetic little point in front of your clan.

That's a new low, even for you.

[Starboard Tack]

40. Do you disagree with what I said?

Do you think the killer was an intolerant bigot or not? It is not a complicated question.

Regarding any comparison between you and the killer, I wouldn't know. That's for you to decide. Apparently he is an atheist and a white guy. I share those traits, but I don't compare myself to him. Those are not the traits that resulted in his self marginalization, but his intolerance, which is obviously extreme. I very much doubt that you would go to such extremes. I sincerely hope not. But remember, words can be hurtful too.

[skepticscott]

41. For someone who claims to be so "tolerant"

You're very quick and very eager to pass such an ugly judgement on someone you've never met, never spoken to, never even heard of before a week ago, and even now know anything about only through the filter of a biased news media and your (allegedly) terrible internet connection. But that's just you. Based on what I actually know about both of you, you're as likely to be an intolerant bigot as he is. How likely that is is for you to decide.

And it seems to have escaped you completely, in your obsessive need to apply the label of "intolerant" to everyone who gets your goat, that hating does not equal "intolerance". Just the opposite…tolerance ONLY comes into play when you dislike or are offended by something or think it's foolish, but allow it to go on anyway (like the practice of religion). Things and people that you like don't require "toleration". Simple, but apparently not to all.

And since you're unable or unwilling to answer the question I actually posed and instead have chosen to drag this discussion through your own bile, we're done here. The failure of either you or your buddy to address the issue I raised is duly noted and taken for what it is.

[Starboard Tack]

42. You presume a lot

Where do I claim to be so tolerant? I strive to be more tolerant, but the more bigotry I encounter, the harder it gets. Aspiring to something is quite different to claiming it. Making an observation about a person and their actions is not "passing judgement" . Do you think Hicks was motivated by something other than intolerance and bigotry?
What on earth do you mean by my "allegedly terrible internet connection"? My connection is fine right now, thank you. And who do you mean by "both of you"?

I didn't see any question from you to me, but feel free to ask one.

[rug]

43. I didn't see him provide an answer in there. Did you?

[Starboard Tack]

44. Nope!

[LTX]

45. "Says the man with nothing but snark and personal attacks."

Now would be a good time for some self-reflection.

[skepticscott]

46. I raised the substantive point

that making conclusions about likelihood and probabilities based on ONE incident was seriously flawed thinking. Do you agree with that or not?

Was that purely, entirely snark and personal attacks, and nothing else? Yes or no?

Reflect on that and get back to me.

[gcomeau]

47. Oh what a gigantic load of bullshit.

"Because the most often purported belief of the anti-theist, anti-religion, New Atheist is that if only religion disappeared replaced by a universal atheism then humanity would be rational, enlightened, grounded in science, and all of the atrocities done in the name of religion would stop."

Ummm, no. Except that last part of course, without religion obviously atrocities in the name of religion would stop by definition.

For the rest? It is the general atheist position that religion is a barrier to, not the ONE SINGLE ONLY THING BETWEEN, humans living rational enlightened peaceful lives.


Go play with your strawman elsewhere.