Not all atheists are alike

[TexasTowelie]

[font size=4]Not all atheists use their disbelief to excuse imperialism and oppression, writes veteran socialist Eamonn McCann, in an article for the Irish Times.[/font]

It's as wrong to lump all atheists together as it is to associate all Muslims with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or all Jews with Zionism. There are 50 shades of godlessness. The community includes dour and humorless dogmatists such as Richard Dawkins and genial chaps like Stephen Fry. True, there are some who will have been hurt by Fry's recent description of God as a maniacal monster. But he'd been sorely provoked by Gay Byrne.

Another thing in Fry's favor is that he gives the lie to the rote-learned answer once expected of us, at risk of a rap on the knuckles from a ruler, when Sister Xavier paused in her patrolling of the passage between the desks and snapped, "Where is God?"

"As he is God, he is everywhere," we'd chorus. Fry may not be literally everywhere, but he is everywhere on television, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, which these days amounts to much the same thing. Which, in turn, reminds me of the wider role of the Derry Diocesan Catechism in propelling me on to the atheist path.

Read more: http://socialistworker.org/2015/02/19/not-all-atheists-are-alike

[skepticscott]

1. So how hard did you have to search the internet

to find an assholish strawman like this? Not to mention a host of other "thank god, I'm not like those other atheists" crap.

THE QUESTION which immediately arises, but which isn't faced by celebrity atheists such as Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett is not whether God exists, but how intelligent people can have come to believe that he exists. The self-regard and shallowness of mind of the "New Atheists" is indicated in the fact that it seems not to occur to them that there is a conundrum here

http://socialistworker.org/2015/02/19/not-all-atheists-are-alike

Wow…he's right..NONE of those guys has EVER even considered THE QUESTION..it whizzed right by all of them and right into this guy's head.

If you want your stay in this room to be a short one, keep up the trolling.

[TexasTowelie]

2. I did not have to search at all and I am not trolling this group.

I regularly post articles from socialistworker.org and posted a different article from that Website a few minutes before this post.

Seeing that the article is about atheism and that it also concerns the effect of religion on politics, I believe that it meets the SOP of the group.

I can understand if you don't like the article and you are free to discuss it at length, but if you look at post #5 by LostOne4Ever at the thread pinned at the top of the group at least one member of this group be noted:

"I think there should be an exemption for threads about atheism or posts from there that are overtly bigoted statements made against non-believers. If the thread is about Agnostics or Atheists doesn't it kind of fall under the umbrella of this group?"

And while you decided to post an excerpt from the actual article that was not even a complete paragraph, I will post the final paragraph of the socialistworker.org article:

Religion is a distorted reflection of social relations, emanating from the material world, to be eradicated only by transformation of the circumstances of life. If Stephen Fry has encouraged rumination along these lines, he, and Gay Byrne for provoking him, has done the country a considerable favor.

The hosts of this group are free to lock the thread if they believe that it violates the SOP or you can alert to see if the thread is locked. However, this is a discussion board and all atheists are not alike which is why I posted the article.

[Rainforestgoddess]

8. So what's your view on the article? n/t

[TexasTowelie]

10. I am not familiar with the atheists that are mentioned in this article

so my perspective about their character attributes is uninformed.

My personal background includes being raised in a religious family, then becoming a doubting Thomas. I do cling to some of my religious beliefs with the hope that there is something more to be offered in an afterlife, yet I also question the literal truth of the Bible and the concepts of heaven and hell. In light of those considerations I believe that puts me into the category of being agnostic even though when asked I say that I am a Christian.

I do see the negative aspects of religion and how they play into the issues that cause persecution and war. I recognize the follies and paradoxes that occur because of religious indoctrination. However, I am not intelligent enough to offer a proof that "there is a God" or "there is not a God" and I believe that it would be inappropriate for me to discuss it in this forum. It is not my place to force my beliefs on anyone else nor is it my place to impugn or mock the beliefs (or lack thereof) of anyone else.

I also believe that there are different types of atheist just like there are different types of people (hopefully that statement will not cause an uproar). Some people are adamant about their point of view while others are nonchalant. I have only made a few atheist acquaintances in my life and found that they treated others with more respect and compassion than some of their Christian counterparts. I'm not perfect, but I try to respect people regardless of religion and hope that I am treated with respect in reciprocation.

I do agree with the first sentence of the final paragraph (excerpt above). Religion is a social construct used relegate, subjugate and control people. It is because of these factors and many others that make me question the value of religion.

I hope that answers your question. It is difficult to convey all of my thoughts due to the SOP constraints within this thread.

[Rainforestgoddess]

26. You certainly won't raise hackles by saying atheists are all different

That's one of the concepts we constantly run across. The only unifying thing we have in common is a lack of belief in god(s). On this board, we generally are leftish politically as well, but that's not universal.

Very few people who claim the title atheist are what we call hard atheists. Making a positive claim that there is no god. Most of us are soft (agnostic) atheists and say that we don't believe in god(s) until there is verifiable evidence of one.

Even the pope/devil of atheism (this is a joke) Richard Dawkins, does not claim hard atheism.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. We can be a touchy bunch, because of past experience.

[skepticscott]

16. Since this is the second time in a week

that you’ve dropped in here with what look suspiciously like disruptive posts, and then thrown up your hands and said “Me?? I never!!” that sounds more than a little disingenuous. Following it up with a challenge to try to get you hidden does nothing to allay that. That’s not how someone who understands and actually respects a safe haven behaves.

If you want to post articles bashing unthinking, “narrow-minded” atheists, they’re very popular over in the Religion Group, so I’m sure you’ll find plenty of company and support over there. You’ll find them less welcome here.

[TexasTowelie]

33. I have posted in this group before.

A Debate on School Prayer Between an Expert and an Idiot (featuring Mr. Conservative from Lubbock)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/123029156

Atheists to city of Rowlett: Let us give council invocations, too
http://www.democraticunderground.com/123024212

Texas, 6 other states have bans on atheists holding office
http://www.democraticunderground.com/123032331

I've made a total of seven OPs in the Religion Group on DU3 over about a two year period. Here are the headlines to those threads:
Robert Jeffress: Gay Sex is Like Plugging a TV in the Wrong Socket, Making it Explode
Mormons to use technology in missionary work
It's Debatable: Religion's influence on government
How LGBT activism is changing religion
A Handy Guide To Christian Outrage
Joel Osteen gets his own SiriusXM channel
Dallas researchers are out to scientifically prove the biblical version of creation

The previous three threads that I posted in the A&A group were either neutral news articles or vilified a religious person (the idiot, Mr. Conservative). The articles I posted in the Religion Group fit the same pattern. I don't believe that any of those articles are going to boost my bona fides within the Religion Group and I'm not concerned whether they do or don't.

Just because someone asks a question (which is what I did in the post you referred to) or posts an OP that doesn't meet with your approval does not mean they are out to get you, have a sinister motive or question your belief system. I've declared that I have inclinations towards agnosticism; however, the skepticism that you and a few other members of this group have shown makes newcomers feel unwelcome.

From the top of the pinned thread:

4. The hosts want to discourage negativity and encourage the promotion of the positive aspects of non-belief. If you read a good thread in A&A, rec it. If you encounter an atheist or agnostic in other areas of DU that you don't see in A&A, invite them over.

Despite your skepticism about me, I believe that the article I posted meets the SOP of the group. I don't expect a hearty welcome from everyone within the group, but calling someone disingenuous. While you take the pessimistic view that it bashes atheists, I take a more positive view that it recognizes that someone who does not believe in a deity can be accepted and regarded as someone who deserves respect.

Respectively,

TxT

[skepticscott]

36. You'd be more convincing

if you weren't protesting QUITE so much. Posting so many links to things you posted ages ago, and going on at such length about something like this is a sign of needing to make your case just a bit too badly. Which makes me doubt your stated motives.

And I'll just point out again that the very first line of your OP, which you took the touble to make very prominent, was an atheist-bashing strawman:

Not all atheists use their disbelief to excuse imperialism and oppression

Absent any evidence that a lot of atheists are doing that, there's not much justification for posting crap like that in an atheist safe haven, other than to disrupt.

[TexasTowelie]

44. I enlarged the first line

because it was the sub-title of the article that I posted and it was not part of the main body of the article. Click on the link for verification.

As far as protesting is concerned, the only thing that I have done is to respond to comments--it is a discussion board after all. When asked on how I viewed the article, I responded and was honest with my beliefs. I don't believe that amounts to "protesting."

I'm not the person who is questioning the motives of others. I provided information that I could hardly be considered as a religious zealot and you dismissed that information because I did not post those articles within an arbitrary timeframe that you created? FWIW, the three prior posts that I made in A&A were in July, October and December of 2014. Is that considered ages ago? The OPs in the Religion Group that I listed were within the past two years.

I know that there is nothing that I can do to alleviate your skepticism. However, other members of this group are willing to discuss the article and share their views. I don't see the point of taking it to the "meta" level and making accusations that my intentions were to disrupt this group. It is an article with which you can either agree or disagree and for some people it is possible to do both. You've stated that you disagree with the article vehemently and I have stated my opinion about it while trying to show respect for the members of this group.

Thank you,

TxT

[Silent3]

3. Dawkins can be a bit tone deaf now and then, and I don't agree with him on everything, but how...

...and when has Dawkins been dogmatic? If he's dogmatic, what dogma is he pushing?

Hint: Being forceful and confident in stating opinions that you've worked hard on formulating, and have documented and explained over hundreds of pages of careful exposition, is not "dogmatic".

[Fumesucker]

4. Not suffering fools gladly is the new dogmatic

I'm of the "Jane, you ignorant slut" school a bit too much myself..

[onager]

6. Not only that, but a DOUR and HUMORLESS dogmatist!

That's one of the funniest things I've read all week. Anybody else agree with me?

[Rainforestgoddess]

7. I actually think he's really funny

And he was kind of hot when he was younger. Hem. But that's a little off topic.

[LostOne4Ever]

15. Every time I have seen him on TV he has been one of the wittiest and compelling speakers I have seen

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]But to listen to his detractors he is some mean nasty bore...

I guess anything goes to build their strawman?[/font]

[trotsky]

22. Well it's not enough that he says things they disagree with.

I haven't ever seen anyone actually respond to his points about religion; instead they just make him out to be such a horrible person that no one NEEDS to respond to him. A sleazy, dishonest way to dismiss valid points.

[AlbertCat]

29. some mean nasty bore...

That's because they've never read one of his books on his chosen field: Biology.

He's like written 2(?) books about religion and over a dozen on evolution and biology. But all these people who "know him" so well don't seem to have picked up "The Selfish Gene".

[jeff47]

49. You don't have to discredit the unlikeable. (nt)

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. Right. Osama bin Laden's problem is that he didn't have any opportunities growing up.

Must have been tough being the son of the Saudi Bill Gates.

[LiberalAndProud]

9. He lost me at dour and humorless.

I have to think that McCann has never actually listened to Dawkins, but rather has listened to what others have to say about him. Dawkins is many things, but dour and humorless or dogmatic he is not. Anyone at all familiar with his body of work would know this. I am utterly exhausted with "friendly" atheists mischaracterization and misrepresentation. Fed up to the gills already!

[TexasTowelie]

11. I am not familiar with any of the people mentioned in this article

so I can believe that Dawkins is being mischaracterized and misrepresented with the descriptions of "dour and humorless." As I mentioned above, I believe that not all atheists are alike (although they all agree that there is not a supreme deity or deities). However, the differences can be characterized more with words such as "adamant" or "nonchalant."

Religion, agnosticism and atheism are not topics that I consider myself as being "learned" and I do make mistakes when discussing those topics. However, I can understand your despair with how people are portrayed in your final sentence.

I saw the article and thought that I would post it so that it could be discussed. Some people will agree and some people will not agree with what is written. Thanks for sharing your POV.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. You posted a hit piece on prominent atheists in the atheist and agnostic forum.

"not all atheists are assholes like dawkins" would be the reader's digest version of the crap you posted.

Posting crap and then claiming innocence through ignorance is sort of a transparent ploy.

[trotsky]

21. "I believe that not all atheists are alike"

Has anyone ever claimed that they are? That's the weird thing, who is the author responding to? Who has said all atheists are alike?

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. It's an obviously-loaded statement.

"Not all atheists are assholes" implies, ipso facto, that a significant number of them are. Take note how the author doesn't engage anything these "New Atheists" have said in any meaningful way, and he doesn't go into terrible detail differentiating himself from "them". They're imperialists, he's not. That's it.

You know, there was a time when Socialists considered religion a vile tool of oppression, deployed by the haves to keep the have-nots peaceful and complacent. Guess that's changed.

[LiberalAndProud]

32. You know, I sort of get it. Sort of.

McCann is described as a "veteran socialist." It seems to me that he will first evaluate world events in the context of evil capitalist imperialism, casting religious doctrines in no more than a supporting role. Having said that, his view of "new atheism" is obtuse and uninformed.

The self-regard and shallowness of mind of the "New Atheists" is indicated in the fact that it seems not to occur to them that there is a conundrum here, and in the adoption by some of "Bright" as a collective noun.

Dawkins thought "Bright" was a good idea. Which just goes to show that no one can be right all of the time.

[AlbertCat]

30. I am not familiar with any of the people mentioned in this article

May I suggest some of ol' Poopy-head Dawkins' excellent books on evolution:

The Selfish Gene
Unweaving the Rainbow
The Blind Watchmaker
The Greatest Show on Earth

*********


Daniel Dennett has written some interesting books too but the only one I've read is

Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking

But it's not as easy a read as the Dawkins stuff...because it's more philosophy not biology I guess.

Also interesting-looking by Dennett:

Consciousness Explained
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

And the book he's most known for

Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life

[TexasTowelie]

35. Thanks for the reading recommendations.

I don't know how soon I will be able to get to them. My finances are very tight so I don't read any eBooks.

I don't know if the library has those books because I live in a conservative small town. I'm also having trouble reading material that is printed on hard copy because of nearsightedness. I know that I need to get an eye exam, but I'm surviving on a limited budget.

[Rainforestgoddess]

39. There's stuff on YouTube too

I'll try to put together a watch list for you when I'm not on mobile. I get the limited budget thing.

[Rainforestgoddess]

41. you tube stuff

The enemies of reason - more woo related than religion (dowsing, astrology etc)

The blind watchmaker - evolution and religion (1987)

The root of all evil (the god delusion) fundamentalist christianity

The four horsemen (Dawkins [evolutionary biologist], Harris [neuroscientist], Dennet [philosopher], Hitchins,[author, debater])

There are also debates with Dawkins and various others.

[AlbertCat]

42. I don't know how soon I will be able to get to them.

Hurry!

There's a test next Friday!







BTW, I've been nearsighted from birth. It's the developing farsightedness that is making it hard to focus on things up close. I now just take my glasses off and stick the book up to my nose.
(Yes, nearsighted AND farsighted. One has to do with the shape of my eyeball, and the other has to do with the lens getting less flexible with age.)

[TexasTowelie]

43. Oh crap, I'm going to have anxiety attacks for the next week.

I have not written this much about topics concerning religion (or lack thereof) since the world religion course I had during my first semester of college. The worst part is that because I'm the only one taking the test it will be impossible to curve the grade!

[Goblinmonger]

34. You're not familiar with Dawkins?

Then why did you even read this article? And what rock do you live under?

[TexasTowelie]

40. Goblinmonger,

My special areas of interest are in math, chemistry and computer programming. I was raised as a Christian and had an intro level course on World Religions when I was in college, but actually consider myself as non-religious and nonchalant in my beliefs.

I saw the article and read it because of the headline because I'm trying to develop more understanding about atheism due to the admonishment I received for posting the question about why a Muslim topic was included in the A&A group. As I've grown older I have tried to branch out and learn more about a number of subjects that I only barely scraped upon as a student including political ideology such as Marxism. From the time I graduated from college at 22 to now I mostly concentrated on subjects related to work (insurance topics), obtained a professional associate's degree and worked such long hours. While I kept up with current events, I rarely read articles related to religion or atheism.

I've heard the name Dawkins before, but I have not read any of his works (at least as far as I recall). While Dawkins is a prominent atheist, I don't believe that he is a household name in most residences.

As far as your comment as to what rock do I live under, that is uncalled for. Would you or the general populace be able to discuss the details of the personal life or the professional accomplishments of a famous mathematician such as Karl Guass?

[LiberalAndProud]

38. There was a time that I

simply took the common public caricature of Dawkins at face value. I managed to absorb the critics' opinions through a process strangely akin to osmosis. After I happily forfeited my religious bias, I actually watched his debates on YouTube and read some of his books. McCann can't have taken the time or made the effort to familiarize himself. He's borrowing someone else's opinion and calling it his own, I'm almost certain.

[LostOne4Ever]

12. ...

[TexasTowelie]

13. Did I give you a great setup or what?

[LostOne4Ever]

14. I couldn't resist

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Here is a fine example of the humorless dour atheist dogmatist Dawkins at his worst

[trotsky]

20. D'oh! Should have read to the end of the thread before posting.

Thanks, Warren.

[trotsky]

19. LMAO

Jeez, if you're gonna publish a hit piece on the "New Atheists" at least make it believable. "Dour and humorless" to describe Richard Dawkins? Hasn't that author seen him read his hate mail?

[mr blur]

23. Do you get some kind of prize for doing this?

I mean it's very cute and all that but, frankly, we've seen it before. I'd give up if I were you, there are experts at trolling around here so it's hardly radical or even new.

[skepticscott]

31. Apparently they got their prize

and the desired effect of pissing in the punchbowl, and have now retired.

[deucemagnet]

25. "Not all atheists use their disbelief to excuse imperialism and oppression"?

Where in the hell does he even make that connection? In other news: Not all birdwatchers beat their wives, not all LARPers are communists, and not all Canadians are complete bastards.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. Well in all fairness, all the atheists we know of are complete assholes,

as per this article, posted here in order to establish credentials elsewhere, but the author concedes that there might exist an atheist somewhere at some point in time who wasn't a complete asshole.

[TexasTowelie]

37. Warren,

Please read post #33. I'm not concerned about establishing credentials elsewhere. If you search my posts in that group since DU3 came online you will find that I've only posted 21 times (7 OPs) in about two years. I don't believe that anyone would classify me as a religious zealot.

As for calling all atheists "assholes", those are your words--not mine. I believe that if you review my posting history you will find that I have been respectful to others, even if I disagree with them.

I regret that your perception is that I am bashing atheists because I am not.

Thanks,

TxT

[AlbertCat]

28. dour and humorless dogmatists such as Richard Dawkins

Hmmmm.... must be another Richard Dawkins.... because this sounds nothing like the one who writes science books.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

45. Even if you don't think so, this is a hit piece

There are some atheists who are part of a larger effort to silence what they term "new atheists" - people like Richard Dawkins that have had the audacity to proclaim their atheism and to argue against religion. They attempt to conflate passion and outspokenness with "dogma", "fundamentalism", and "militancy", making a false equivalency between religious zealots and atheists. The entire article is insulting, and filled with fallacies - just being a socialist doesn't automatically make one intelligent enough to write a logically coherent article on atheism.

For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I truly think you posted in naivety rather than as a malicious attack. But we've had enough people violate our safe haven that few will take you seriously if this is the sort of thing you post.

[TexasTowelie]

46. Evolve,

The article is about atheists, so I believed that the article belonged in the A&A Group. While some have suggested that I should have posted it in the Religion Group instead of this one, it would have definitely been considered a hit piece if I posted it there instead of this group. If anything, by posting it in the A&A Group it provided members of this group the ability to comment on the article without the distraction of whether or not there is a deity. The members of this group provided their responses as to why the article is insulting and where it was incorrect.

I am not aware of the author's (McCann) credentials or background regarding matters of religion. However, the article was posted on a Website that has its own audience and they are not necessarily the most informed about atheism or religion. Occasionally, some people will post an article on DU from a right wing Website in order to keep our members informed as to what others are saying. By bringing the article here to read the comments from those in the A&A group I've learned more about atheism and even received "homework assignments."

I rarely participate in the religion or A&A groups (less than 0.3% of my posts are in those groups) so in the future I'll most likely limit myself to factual pieces and news items. It is not my intention to violate any of the safe haven groups and I attempt to get along with everyone on DU and to learn. I realize that there is diversity and disagreement in this group as there is in all groups so thank you for providing me the benefit of the doubt regarding this OP.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

47. I gave you the benefit of the doubt

because I haven't had a negative interaction with you on DU, and I think you mean well. And please, don't get me wrong - I don't at all want to discourage you from participating in the A&A group (although I can't say the same about the Religion group). Just understand that there may be nuances to some stories or articles (even the straight up just-the-facts-ma'am type of stories) that go beyond what they appear to be on the surface.

I truly hope you'll stick around and learn more about atheism - it wouldn't hurt our feelings if you asked questions. We battle the misconceptions every day so to have someone make an attempt to understand us rather than marginalize us would be a huge win in my opinion.

[skepticscott]

48. Sorry, but you don't conceal

disingenuousness and passive-aggressiveness very well. Especially when you keep doubling down on them.

Trying to argue with feigned innocence that just because an article is about atheists that you naturally thought it should be posted here? Sorry, not buying. This is a safe haven. Articles and commentary that bash atheists and portray them in the way that this author does are NOT welcome.