Atheists should criticize religion, but how we do it matters

[Jolly_Penguin]

Craig Stephen Hicks killed three people because they were Muslim.

I'm pretty sure that Michael Enright (who slashed a cab driver's throat for saying he was Muslim) is an atheist, but I could be remembering that wrong.

The thing is, the few acts of religiously-motivated violence by atheists seem to involve Muslims as victims.

I think it is important to note here that killing somebody for atheism and killing somebody for anti-muslim sentiment are not the same thing. Anti-Muslims can be any religion or lack thereof, and yes, they can happen to be atheist. But where are the people who kill because of atheism or in the name of it, the way that we have Muslims killing because of and in the name of Islam?

When was the last time you read about some crazed killer screaming "THERE IS NO GOD!" before blowing himself up on the subway?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I agree with all the talk about being kinder, etc., etc. But today I had two religious believers land on my facebook page to carry out their religious programming in response to an article I posted that disputes most of what people believe about the history of Christianity. All they have contributed is snide remarks, tap dancing, moving goal posts, commenting on my personal shortcomings, and generally just being monkeys throwing poop because they can't or won't address the actual article and points. Their comments were starting to look like harassment and nothing more. I could not get any response from them on the actual topic.

It's very hard to be kind with this shit going on all the fucking time. Religion has turned them into fucking trained monkeys, programmed to punish the doubters.

It is a behavior that has been selected for in every biological meaning of the phrase. It was not many generations ago when atheists and doubters were burnt alive, all perfectly legally.

With that practice changed in countries like the U.S. the silliness that is religion can be pointed out without fear of death - again, literally. Religion has lost its grip but it still takes swings.

 

[Angry Floof]

I agree with all the talk about being kinder, etc., etc. But today I had two religious believers land on my facebook page to carry out their religious programming in response to an article I posted that disputes most of what people believe about the history of Christianity. All they have contributed is snide remarks, tap dancing, moving goal posts, commenting on my personal shortcomings, and generally just being monkeys throwing poop because they can't or won't address the actual article and points. Their comments were starting to look like harassment and nothing more. I could not get any response from them on the actual topic.

It's very hard to be kind with this shit going on all the fucking time. Religion has turned them into fucking trained monkeys, programmed to punish the doubters.

It is a behavior that has been selected for in every biological meaning of the phrase. It was not many generations ago when atheists and doubters were burnt alive, all perfectly legally.

With that practice changed in countries like the U.S. the silliness that is religion can be pointed out without fear of death - again, literally. Religion has lost its grip but it still takes swings.

Yeah, true. It adapts and changes like everything else we do. I just wish it could adapt in the direction of courageously looking around the world, and not being afraid of everyone and everything, and calmly addressing problems humanely, and trusting their own humanness a little bit, and be open to challenging their own cultural myopia... instead of in the direction of Trump.

 

[tantric]

one of the things that is most wrong with religion is it infectiousness. do you feel compelled to spread your system of belief? i'm an atheist, and here are some of my guidelines on the subject, via Thich Nhat Hanh

1)Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.
2)Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others’ viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.
3)Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness.

there are eleven others, less germane

 

[Underseer]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...gs-paris-attacks-isis-terrorism-a7111076.html

In case anyone is still in doubt that prejudice against Muslims is a real thing given all the "Prejudice against Muslims isn't real because of political correctness" arguments I keep hearing from right-leaning atheists and those who sympathize with the sentiments of right-leaning atheists, here's a good example. We as a society simply do not value certain lives as much as others based purely on demographics. If that isn't prejudice, I don't know what is.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...gs-paris-attacks-isis-terrorism-a7111076.html

In case anyone is still in doubt that prejudice against Muslims is a real thing given all the "Prejudice against Muslims isn't real because of political correctness" arguments I keep hearing from right-leaning atheists and those who sympathize with the sentiments of right-leaning atheists, here's a good example. We as a society simply do not value certain lives as much as others based purely on demographics. If that isn't prejudice, I don't know what is.

It's true that historically the killing of one man equates with "murderer," while the killing of thousands or millions equates with "conqueror." There's something very human that makes genocide easy for many people. Maybe it's fear, maybe selfishness, maybe just plain old prejudice and natural selection. I've been on boards where "Christians" advocated the nuclear extermination of Muslims. That in itself is sad, but what makes it disgusting is that none of their Christian brothers and sisters would lift a word against it. Unexamined loyalty is intellectual blindness pure and simple.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...gs-paris-attacks-isis-terrorism-a7111076.html

In case anyone is still in doubt that prejudice against Muslims is a real thing given all the "Prejudice against Muslims isn't real because of political correctness" arguments I keep hearing from right-leaning atheists and those who sympathize with the sentiments of right-leaning atheists, here's a good example. We as a society simply do not value certain lives as much as others based purely on demographics. If that isn't prejudice, I don't know what is.

This has nothing to do with atheists criticizing religion. This is simple ingroup/outgroup tribalism.

 

[Underseer]

Craig Stephen Hicks killed three people because they were Muslim.

I'm pretty sure that Michael Enright (who slashed a cab driver's throat for saying he was Muslim) is an atheist, but I could be remembering that wrong.

The thing is, the few acts of religiously-motivated violence by atheists seem to involve Muslims as victims.

I think it is important to note here that killing somebody for atheism and killing somebody for anti-muslim sentiment are not the same thing. Anti-Muslims can be any religion or lack thereof, and yes, they can happen to be atheist. But where are the people who kill because of atheism or in the name of it, the way that we have Muslims killing because of and in the name of Islam?

When was the last time you read about some crazed killer screaming "THERE IS NO GOD!" before blowing himself up on the subway?

I don't think the distinction is all that meaningful.

If you deliberately allow an environment of hate directed at an external population, then you increase the likelihood that the crazy people from your own in-group will target the hated external population when they go crazy. The specific motives for creating an environment of hate are irrelevant to that consideration.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Craig Stephen Hicks killed three people because they were Muslim.

I'm pretty sure that Michael Enright (who slashed a cab driver's throat for saying he was Muslim) is an atheist, but I could be remembering that wrong.

The thing is, the few acts of religiously-motivated violence by atheists seem to involve Muslims as victims.

I think it is important to note here that killing somebody for atheism and killing somebody for anti-muslim sentiment are not the same thing. Anti-Muslims can be any religion or lack thereof, and yes, they can happen to be atheist. But where are the people who kill because of atheism or in the name of it, the way that we have Muslims killing because of and in the name of Islam?

When was the last time you read about some crazed killer screaming "THERE IS NO GOD!" before blowing himself up on the subway?

What we (northern Atheist Europe) are doing to the Syrian refugees, I think is touching on killing people in the name of atheism. The degree of anti-Islamic vitriol pouring out of every conceivable media channel is alarming IMHO. Especially considering how much, otherwise sensible, people are going along with it. Christians hating left and right is just business as usual. But this development is fairly new. The numbers of Syrians dying along the way is not negligible. Not to mention the human cost of lost years and pointless anguish.

So we're no angels. I think we've definitely dropped our gloria this time around.

 

[Underseer]

Alright, some people seem to be hung up on the ideology thing, so let me try to clarify my position.

The thing I am worried about is not people killing in the name of atheism. Let me talk about Islam and the Pulse massacre again to try and illustrate my point better.

Ideology --> environment of hate --> crazy people choosing targets based on hateful rhetoric

In the case of Christianity and Islam, the ideology creates the environment of hate, and the environment of hate influences the target choices of crazy people.

Yes, the ideology is the root cause, but the more immediate cause is the environment of hate and the unhinged, heated rhetoric that goes with it. The thing I'm worried about with atheists is that you don't need an ideology to have an environment of hate. Humans have a natural tendency to develop an "us versus them" mentality that can lead to a hateful environment even without an ideology demanding the mistreatment of a particular external population.

Thus it is possible that even without an ideological imperative to harm a particular group, we could create an environment of hate that influences the target choices of however many crazy people are in our midst. As our numbers grow, the number of crazy people in our in-group will also necessarily increase, thus the likelihood of something ugly happening goes up as our numbers go up.

I think the best way to counter this is to be more careful about our rhetoric. If the crazy people among us see us correcting each other when our rhetoric becomes too heated, then perhaps they will understand that our ire is directed at the ideas, not the people.

 

[Angry Floof]

Alright, some people seem to be hung up on the ideology thing, so let me try to clarify my position.

The thing I am worried about is not people killing in the name of atheism. Let me talk about Islam and the Pulse massacre again to try and illustrate my point better.

Ideology --> environment of hate --> crazy people choosing targets based on hateful rhetoric

In the case of Christianity and Islam, the ideology creates the environment of hate, and the environment of hate influences the target choices of crazy people.

Yes, the ideology is the root cause, but the more immediate cause is the environment of hate and the unhinged, heated rhetoric that goes with it. The thing I'm worried about with atheists is that you don't need an ideology to have an environment of hate. Humans have a natural tendency to develop an "us versus them" mentality that can lead to a hateful environment even without an ideology demanding the mistreatment of a particular external population.

Thus it is possible that even without an ideological imperative to harm a particular group, we could create an environment of hate that influences the target choices of however many crazy people are in our midst. As our numbers grow, the number of crazy people in our in-group will also necessarily increase, thus the likelihood of something ugly happening goes up as our numbers go up.

I think the best way to counter this is to be more careful about our rhetoric. If the crazy people among us see us correcting each other when our rhetoric becomes too heated, then perhaps they will understand that our ire is directed at the ideas, not the people.

You keep making me a nicer person in spite of myself with posts like this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, the ideology is the root cause, but the more immediate cause is the environment of hate and the unhinged, heated rhetoric that goes with it. The thing I'm worried about with atheists is that you don't need an ideology to have an environment of hate. Humans have a natural tendency to develop an "us versus them" mentality that can lead to a hateful environment even without an ideology demanding the mistreatment of a particular external population.

Sure. I agree with that. But that has little if anything to do with atheists criticizing religion. As I said above, that is basic tribalism.

I also agree with you that we should not attack PEOPLE (which would not be us criticizing religion); but that we should attack IDEAS (which would be us criticizing religion). And I strongly oppose any restriction or discouragement on doing the latter. It is vital.

 

[Malintent]

"Craig Stephen Hicks killed three people because they were Muslim"

What? He killed three next door neighbors (who happen to have been Muslim) over a parking space dispute.

Why being Muslim was even mentioned is beyond me. His religion (or lack thereof) was not mentioned, much less considered contributory.

 

[blastula]

"Craig Stephen Hicks killed three people because they were Muslim"

What? He killed three next door neighbors (who happen to have been Muslim) over a parking space dispute.

Why being Muslim was even mentioned is beyond me. His religion (or lack thereof) was not mentioned, much less considered contributory.

Underseer has acknowledged upthread that the issue is disputed.

The factor of religion has been considered by authorities. The DOJ opened an investigation into it, but hasn't released any findings as of yet.

 

[Underseer]

Yes, the ideology is the root cause, but the more immediate cause is the environment of hate and the unhinged, heated rhetoric that goes with it. The thing I'm worried about with atheists is that you don't need an ideology to have an environment of hate. Humans have a natural tendency to develop an "us versus them" mentality that can lead to a hateful environment even without an ideology demanding the mistreatment of a particular external population.

Sure. I agree with that. But that has little if anything to do with atheists criticizing religion. As I said above, that is basic tribalism.

I also agree with you that we should not attack PEOPLE (which would not be us criticizing religion); but that we should attack IDEAS (which would be us criticizing religion). And I strongly oppose any restriction or discouragement on doing the latter. It is vital.

The problem is that when we criticize religion, many of us spill over into criticizing the people practicing religion, not just the ideas of religion. I catch myself doing it far more than I would like to admit.

I think about this specific issue because of differences I've observed between ex-Muslim atheists and ex-Christian atheists here in the West. Ex-Muslim atheists frequently have to deal with the same kind of anti-Muslim prejudice as Muslims just because they have the same last names and look the same. If anti-Muslim bigots are willing to murder Sikhs because they hate Muslims but can't tell Sikhs from Muslims, then you know darned well that ex-Muslim atheists in Western countries are probably dealing with the same prejudices as Muslims. Whatever the explanation, I've noticed that ex-Muslim atheists are the strongest critics of the ideas of Islam, but are careful not to criticize Muslims, and are quick to speak out against anti-Muslim bigotry. Ex-Christian atheists on the other hand are not nearly so careful about making a distinction between criticizing Christian ideas and criticizing Christians.

Heck, I'm not even an ex-Christian and I don't always make a distinction between criticizing Christian ideas or criticizing Christians, nor am I always careful about criticizing Muslim ideas but not Muslims.

I mean, surely you've noticed how "tribal" we can get around here when criticizing religion, especially when we criticize Christianity or Islam. I really think the all-too-human "us versus them" mentality is what drives this, and that caused me to worry about whether or not our behavior/rhetoric might influence the future behavior of crazy people in our midst.

 

[Underseer]

"Craig Stephen Hicks killed three people because they were Muslim"

What? He killed three next door neighbors (who happen to have been Muslim) over a parking space dispute.

Why being Muslim was even mentioned is beyond me. His religion (or lack thereof) was not mentioned, much less considered contributory.

Underseer has acknowledged upthread that the issue is disputed.

The factor of religion has been considered by authorities. The DOJ opened an investigation into it, but hasn't released any findings as of yet.

Yes. In both cases, the facts are in dispute and we really don't know if in one case the murders happened because the victims were Muslim, and in the other case we are not sure if the attacker was atheist. Even if both cases involved atheists attacking Muslims because they were Muslim, we can't really draw strong conclusions from a sample size of two.

Having issued all those caveats, I still think it raises troubling questions about the possibility. Even if neither case involved atheists attacking Muslims because they are Muslim, it is possible that rhetoric in the present could indirectly cause a violent attack in the future, and that's what I'm mostly worried about.

As our numbers increase, the number of crazy people among us also goes up, so the potential for mishap (pardon my euphemism) will keep increasing generation after generation. Thus, if there is an issue with our rhetoric, it would be better to discuss this now rather than later.

 

[Underseer]

Eeep. I already responded to that post. Sorry.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I see your point underseer, but I also see far far less of a problem from the atheist side than from the religionist side. As near as I can tell, there are not droves of atheists out there looking to kill or wishing endless torture on religious people just for being religious.

I would also caution against tiptoeing around religious people and refraining from criticizing them if they merit criticism, beyond the mere religion that they hold. Tribal hatred and attacking people for their view is of course not cool, but failures of logic, wishful thinking, and mistaking obedience for morality are all traits of people themselves that need to be examined and criticized.

 

[iolo]

I see your point underseer, but I also see far far less of a problem from the atheist side than from the religionist side. As near as I can tell, there are not droves of atheists out there looking to kill or wishing endless torture on religious people just for being religious.

I would also caution against tiptoeing around religious people and refraining from criticizing them if they merit criticism, beyond the mere religion that they hold. Tribal hatred and attacking people for their view is of course not cool, but failures of logic, wishful thinking, and mistaking obedience for morality are all traits of people themselves that need to be examined and criticized.

Beliefs in gods and total rejection of gods seem to me to belong in some different world - they are just very unlikely, but very few things are certain or totally false - they just have degrees of probability. In the real world we have to make to with hypotheses that haven't been shown to be obviously false, I think.

 

[Juma]

I see your point underseer, but I also see far far less of a problem from the atheist side than from the religionist side. As near as I can tell, there are not droves of atheists out there looking to kill or wishing endless torture on religious people just for being religious.

I would also caution against tiptoeing around religious people and refraining from criticizing them if they merit criticism, beyond the mere religion that they hold. Tribal hatred and attacking people for their view is of course not cool, but failures of logic, wishful thinking, and mistaking obedience for morality are all traits of people themselves that need to be examined and criticized.

Beliefs in gods and total rejection of gods seem to me to belong in some different world - they are just very unlikely, but very few things are certain or totally false - they just have degrees of probability. In the real world we have to make to with hypotheses that haven't been shown to be obviously false, I think.

Gods (like the abrahamitic god) that hear prayers etc are utterly impossible. To act, to hear prayers etc, they need forces that simply isnt available in this universe.