Agree Or Disagree?

[stromboli]

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/20/cut_it_out_atheists_why_its_time_to_stop_behaving_like_bill_maher_and_richard_dawkins/

If you’re at all familiar with atheism in America, then the following two scenes should probably come as no surprise: Biologist Richard Dawkins exhorting his followers to mock and ridicule believers with contempt, Bill Maher telling MSNBC host Joe Scarborough that “religion is a neurological disorder.” As an atheist who grew up in a fundamentalist Christian milieu, I admit that this rhetoric is not without its appeal. But the atmosphere this kind of animus creates has become as pungent and disagreeable as the stale bread and cheap wine of the church I grew up in.

So I got to thinking: First there was the Ice Bucket Challenge, then there was the Positivity Challenge (wherein you have to write 3 or 4 positive things as your Facebook status every day for 7 days). So why not get into the act and start my own?

I’d like to challenge all atheists, myself included, to refrain from posting disparaging commentary about Christian newsmakers on Facebook and other social media sites â€" including blogs â€" for one month. Let’s call it The Atheist Positivity Challenge, or the APC for short. The purpose of this challenge is to draw attention to two things: The fact that gloating about the lunacy and misdeeds of specific Christians is not only unnecessary, but probably counterproductive; and the need to rehabilitate the reputation of atheism in America.

The idea for the APC came to me when I read a post last week from atheist blogger Libby Anne, who wrote about the continued downhill slide of mega-church pastor Mark Driscoll. In this post, Libby Anne draws our attention to something Driscoll had said on a message board in 2001, where he opined about the relationship between men and women from an allegedly biblical perspective. He wrote: “Knowing that His penis would need a home, God created a woman to be your wife and when you marry her and look down you will notice that your wife is shaped differently than you and makes a very nice home.” I don’t doubt that Driscoll wrote that, or even that he sincerely believes it. But the problem with focusing on clowns like Driscoll is that it’s much too easy to single out for righteous indignation the most visibly disgraceful member of a group. And the unavoidable implication that others get from this is that the entire group must hold those beliefs as well.
In the parlance of philosophers, the temptation to view an individual as representative of a group is called a “hasty generalization.” It’s a weak analogy and a type of informal fallacy. It’s basically guilt by association. But I don’t want to live in a Fallacious Fool’s Paradise, however emotionally satisfying and cathartic it may be. The simple fact is that Driscoll is an outlier in the Christian world. Like atheism, Christianity is an incredibly heterogenous movement â€" from biblical literalists to liberal believers whom the literalists wouldn’t mind seeing burn at the stake for heresy. And though Libby Anne incorporates an important caveat when she says that she’s not surprised that this is the viewpoint taken by at least some evangelical men and not all evangelical men â€" the implication is still there, and it will be taken that way by Christians nonetheless.

Refusing to indulge our desire to vilify the easy targets will make us look less arrogant and therefore less aversive. Not only should this make us less susceptible to open animosity, but it should help accomplish atheist goals which, as author and blogger Greta Christina put it, are about “reducing anti-atheist bigotry and discrimination, and to work towards more complete separation of church and state.” I know it seems like blasphemy to refrain from criticizing loonies like Driscoll, but we need to have “faith” that the cultural forces currently in play will accomplish what we want.

Polls have generally shown a decrease in the importance of religion in America. And with regard to evangelicalism in particular, The Pew Forum Religious Landscape Survey from 2008 “confirms that the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country; the number of Americans who report that they are members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51%.” The Pew Forum also noted that in “the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults.” So the bigots we upbraid simply aren’t having the influence they’d like to have â€" and that we’re scared they might have.

Furthermore, the religiously unaffiliated already say that “religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics.” And things are even worse for Christians like Driscoll when it comes to the Millennial Generation, who see traditional evangelicalism as being too judgmental. To them, Christianity “feels stifling, fear-based and risk-averse.” And they see that “churches are afraid of the beliefs of other faiths” as well as unfriendly to those who doubt the faith. The important thing to note here is that their opinion of modern Christianity isn’t based on the vitriol of atheist bloggers or the disparaging posts of their Facebook friends. It’s based on their own experience of Christian culture. This has led millennials to simply view evangelical Christianity as “too political, too exclusive, old-fashioned, unconcerned with social justice and hostile to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”And this is why I think the APC can be successful. The work is already largely done for us. Religion literally speaks for itself, even in the mainstream media â€" and, increasingly, it’s not what people want to hear.

While many millennials are de facto atheists or agnostics â€" or at least politically secular and socially tolerant â€" atheism still doesn’t enjoy a very good reputation in America. In a 2011 survey, for example, atheists were distrusted as much as rapists; and even this year atheists and Muslims are in a statistical tie for most disliked. This is the main impetus for the APC. I think that we outspoken atheists, the ones who actively contribute to the culture wars by blogging, writing articles and engaging in public debates, have to ask ourselves: Are we sincere when we say we have a positive worldview? I mean, it’s not enough to just have positive beliefs â€" that is, beliefs in something, as opposed to not believing in God â€" what is needed is an emphasis on positivity itself.

I said before that atheism, like Christianity, is also a heterogenous movement. When a sub-movement that calls itself Atheism Plus (A+) came on the scene, many thought that it would be a good place to start in the rehabilitation of the atheist image. But for this branch of the atheism community, it means atheism plus social justice â€" a noble and needful cause, no doubt â€" so it’s a little misleading. A+ believes that it can “incite curiosity among the actively and passively religious, perhaps ultimately driving more people away from religion and toward the methods of secular humanism.” But A+ still just tells us what its proponents believe in, not how they conduct themselves in the culture wars. Merely stating that I’m an atheist who believes in the value of feminism, for example, doesn’t guarantee that I will be viewed with favor by Christians â€" or that they will be motivated to change their own beliefs about the value of feminism. And what many of us want is to change their beliefs â€" that’s why we blog, tweet, and share other atheists’ articles on Facebook.

For the record on balance I disagree, because in most instances the atheist action is more often a reaction to something or a condition that exists because of religion. I think it is necessary to challenge on the one hand and defend on the other, because the playbook to this point is largely written by the religious. We have the right to create our own playbook. Just because the circle the wagons mentality exists among the religious, it doesn't mean we can't challenge them on their beliefs or even ridicule it. They ridicule us and demean us, and I see no reason not to do it in return.

The statement that Christianity in particular is heterogeneous is misleading. in its outset it was never "widely accepted by a vast multitude of different peoples" it was in fact put in place largely by force or by political power. Although now it encompasses a very heterogeneous group, it didn't begin that way. No one is forcing someone to make the choice to become an atheist. It is an individual choice made from knowledge and experience.

[josephpalazzo]

More or less along the same line. I have no problems with those who keep their beliefs privately. But this is not the case for many who chanel their beliefs into political actions - closing of abortion clinics, lobbying to get creationism/IntelligentDesign into the science curriculum, putting barriers to stem cell research, etc. This is where I draw the line, and if ridicule is necessary to stop this unwelcomed political activism, then so be it.

[SGOS]

Atheists speaking out are relatively new.  Some people don't like it.  I think that's where this guy is at.  I guess he's an atheist.  He says he is, but that's irrelevant.  Dawkins, Harris, and Maher are better advocates for atheism than he is, in my opinion.  In fact, he doesn't appear to be an advocate at all.  He just wants others to refrain from speaking out.   He wants to be the voice of moderation, compromise, and ultimately that status quo, which amounts to continued submission.  I strongly disagree with his position.

[PickelledEggs]

I don't agree with people telling other people how to live their lives, if that answers your question.

[Mike Cl]

The problem with the point of that blog is that the guy seems to think that when one talks of the religious, especially religious groups, that you are addressing rational people.  That is not the case.  You cannot expect that using reason will change the religious way of thinking or being.  It will not.  And they are used to deflecting reasoning directed toward them.  So, ridicule and laughter is the best weapon in many cases.  Why is the Daley Show and Cobert so popular?  They have honed ridicule to a fine point.  Maybe one can get an individual who is religious, one who is open to discussing, to change their mind on particular points.  But as a group, reason falls flat.  They just do not reason and teach that reasoning is of the devil.

[Solitary]

I'm a freethinker. period. Religion is a personal thing I have no problem with, but when it gets organized and forces people to agree, or they force you to believe their delusions by getting political, or loping your head off if you don't, I draw the line. They are not a sacred cow no matter how much they think they are. How can anyone know what a god or God wants? It's what they want, to control others, by any means possible. If it wasn't that we are a secular country even the Christians would want sharia law that is from God.  Solitary

[PickelledEggs]

The problem with the point of that blog is that the guy seems to think that when one talks of the religious, especially religious groups, that you are addressing rational people.  That is not the case.  You cannot expect that using reason will change the religious way of thinking or being.  It will not.  And they are used to deflecting reasoning directed toward them.  So, ridicule and laughter is the best weapon in many cases.  Why is the Daley Show and Cobert so popular?  They have honed ridicule to a fine point.  Maybe one can get an individual who is religious, one who is open to discussing, to change their mind on particular points.  But as a group, reason falls flat.  They just do not reason and teach that reasoning is of the devil.

Ridicule and comedy is similarly used by comedians to get their point across. While it will upset and offend a huge population, for the people that laugh (even the ones that are offended that laugh) get their guard lowered and are open to thinking. I find that comedy and ridicule is the best weapon against ignorance, and while I don't necessarily agree with Dawkins' approach to sway the hardcore religious folk, he definitely is a wealth of knowledge and his approach comes in handy for other reasons.... i.e. motivating other nonbelievers to take action in ways they are able to.

That being said. Assuming atheists should or shouldn't do something like this guy in the blog is suggesting is ignorance also. And it doesn't help us get away from the common misconceptions that theists make that we are all lumped in to one group like a religion.

[Mr.Obvious]

 I'll voice my own opinions on religion and any other matter in the way that I deem fit and when I deem it fit, thank you very much mister blogposter. And I don't think the way I or many other people on this forum for that matter, post in a fundamentally counterproductive way. Yes, I think I've voiced before why I don't think being religious means having a mental deficiency or insanity as I've heard Maher or some others put it. And yes, I've called that particular instance counterproductive, but it's not really. Because it shows, if nothing else, the religious how and why those of that opinion are reminded of said parallel.
As long as it's the honest opinion of the one putting forward the statement, it can only be productive. At least if accepted by a willing and open mind. We can only provide the voice for the statements we utter. If the accepting mind finds it derrogatory or immature or crude, then they should try to understand why our communication comes across to them as such.
Terms as 'skydaddy', 'myths written down by bronze-age goatherders', 'zombie-god'... these are not unfair terms. They are despcriptions that are, when looked at from a rational rather than an emotional point of view, perfect equivalents.
And I don't often see atheïsts claim that one particular christian's folly is automatically believed by many others. The problem however is that these members hardly ever get called on their bullshit by their own team, rather they stay in the same power and put on the same pedestal by the same people that grovelled at their feet before they said those stupid things.

P.S. I'll agree to the challenge if christians at the same time take a Christian Positivity Challenge in which they go an entire week without using any of the same media we wouldn't be able to use to spread the word of their religion. I actually think that if both sides did that for a week, then it COULD be something positive. If for nothing else it would be an interesting experience.

[stromboli]

I'll voice my own opinions on religion and any other matter in the way that I deem fit and when I deem it fit, thank you very much mister blogposter. And I don't think the way I or many other people on this forum for that matter, post in a fundamentally counterproductive way. Yes, I think I've voiced before why I don't think being religious means having a mental deficiency or insanity as I've heard Maher or some others put it. And yes, I've called that particular instance counterproductive, but it's not really. Because it shows, if nothing else, the religious how and why those of that opinion are reminded of said parallel.
As long as it's the honest opinion of the one putting forward the statement, it can only be productive. At least if accepted by a willing and open mind. We can only provide the voice for the statements we utter. If the accepting mind finds it derrogatory or immature or crude, then they should try to understand why our communication comes across to them as such.
Terms as 'skydaddy', 'myths written down by bronze-age goatherders', 'zombie-god'... these are not unfair terms. They are despcriptions that are, when looked at from a rational rather than an emotional point of view, perfect equivalents.
And I don't often see atheïsts claim that one particular christian's folly is automatically believed by many others. The problem however is that these members hardly ever get called on their bullshit by their own team, rather they stay in the same power and put on the same pedestal by the same people that grovelled at their feet before they said those stupid things.

P.S. I'll agree to the challenge if christians at the same time take a Christian Positivity Challenge in which they go an entire week without using any of the same media we wouldn't be able to use to spread the word of their religion. I actually think that if both sides did that for a week, then it COULD be something positive. If for nothing else it would be an interesting experience.

Well said. the problem I have with the article is he makes it a one sided problem, which it definitely is not. And any dissension that was started wasn't started by us. Speaking out against it is not wrong.

[Hydra009]

Refusing to disillusion the faithful by pointing out the zealous insanity of some of their big shots won't earn us any brownie points, either.  Theists complain of tone when they can't complain about content.  But either way, we're still bad old atheists because the Good Book says that we are and no PR campaign from us is going to change that.  That's just something theists are going to have to figure out on their own.

But on a positive note, the recent surge in atheist numbers and definitely the increased visibility makes it more likely that they'll bump into one in the meatspace and definitely online.  A little diplomacy helps, but whether their preconceived notions get tossed aside is more their choice than ours.  Personally, I've run into my share of pious bigotry but also some fairly levelheaded people who didn't react quite as badly.  One step at a time.

[Hydra009]

Terms as 'skydaddy', 'myths written down by bronze-age goatherders', 'zombie-god'... these are not unfair terms. They are despcriptions that are, when looked at from a rational rather than an emotional point of view, perfect equivalents.

I'm kinda torn about those terms.  On one hand, there's definitely some truth to them.  YHWH literally dwells in the heavens, these books were put together by ancient peoples who were mostly farmers and goat herders, and a dead guy coming back to life definitely lends itself to the z word (but since zombies are mindless undead, technically Jesus is a lich :P)

But on the other hand, these terms are a surefire way to piss off a theist and lead directly to an angry departure, which is usually but isn't always an unwelcome turn of events.  It's pretty much guaranteed that they won't listen to you after you say something like that, assuming they were even trying before.  I try to avoid using those terms in mixed company.

P.S. I'll agree to the challenge if christians at the same time take a Christian Positivity Challenge in which they go an entire week without using any of the same media we wouldn't be able to use to spread the word of their religion. I actually think that if both sides did that for a week, then it COULD be something positive. If for nothing else it would be an interesting experience.

I think we should just stop using Facebook/Twitter altogether.  :P

[stromboli]

I'm kinda torn about those terms.  On one hand, there's definitely some truth to them.  YHWH literally dwells in the heavens, these books were put together by ancient peoples who were mostly farmers and goat herders, and a dead guy coming back to life definitely lends itself to the z word (but since zombies are mindless undead, technically Jesus is a lich :P)

But on the other hand, these terms are a surefire way to piss off a theist and lead directly to an angry departure, which is usually but isn't always an unwelcome turn of events.  It's pretty much guaranteed that they won't listen to you after you say something like that, assuming they were even trying before.  I try to avoid using those terms in mixed company.
I think we should just stop using Facebook/Twitter altogether.  :P

There is a difference between ridicule and informed discussion. I don't see that Harris or Dawkins is ridiculing anyone, and I personally don't use terms like skydaddy and zombie jesus because they are inflammatory. Comics like Ricky Gervais aren't out right ridiculing anyone but rather holding them up for scrutiny, which is a very good approach.

And I don't have anything to do with Facebook or Twitter, so you got me there.