Ouroboros Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I don't think there's anything I can add to that, Buddy. Over the years I've grown less and less inclined to use labels, since everyone got their own little spin on what they think it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted November 7, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted November 7, 2009 I think people who promote such things as Blasphemy Day are not even True Atheists. To them, atheism is a religion, or at least a cause. For me, atheism is simply non-belief in gods, and by extension that usually includes anything considered "supernatural." I couldn't care less what a person believes as long as it doesn't impinge on my own freedom. I may think it's a silly and unfounded belief, but so what? Christians may promote National Prayer Days or introduce legislation that would ignore the separation clause, or protest and march against their perceived injustices, and those things are also divisive. However, I think atheists have no excuse to promote their "cause" because there is no "cause" attached to simply not believing in gods. The only thing I actively oppose are attempts to have religion influence secular society by force of law. I don't try to force my philosophy on others, and I wish others would do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 The same question, of course, applies to the way non-believers see Christians. There were many things about my youthful attempts at being a good Christian that were poorly conceived. Had they not been pointed out to me, I'd never have known. I even learned a lot from you guys here. Does such willing self-consideration exist among atheists? Perhaps, but from the offerings so far on this thread, we haven't seen much suggesting that it has crossed anyone's mind. Buddy I've just read the whole thread now, and this sticks in my mind. Most (if not all) atheists here were christians. I don't know of any christians who were atheists. Shedding toxic beliefs that belittled morals required self-reflection and thought for us. A willing self-consideration towards christians? We WERE christians! It can't help but exist! An Ex-christian shedding christian beliefs does not have the same perspective of a life-long atheist. Go ask one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Thanks, Neon. It's an interesting study. It supports what HanSolo said earlier about the connotations of the word 'atheist'. The term carries a lot of baggage that, in most western minds, means a lot more than just 'unbeliever'. Americans may equate 'atheist' with cold war threats of being swallowed by the Soviet menace, and with a cultural change mechanism that will undo centuries of vision and value establishment. It seems to threaten the very definitions of what is good and right and just. This survey was discussed on an episode of the Reasonable Doubts podcast awile back, which is co-hosted by Dr. Luke Galen, who helped conduct the survey. One of the findings they had was that agnostics were percieved by theists as being less threatening than atheists. The idea was that agnostics were seen as still open to the existence of God and the theists felt more comfortable around someone they saw as a potential convert. The survey also found that younger non-believers felt more comfortable using the label atheist to self-identify themselves as while older non-believers felt more comfortable identifying themselves as secular humanists. The idea there was that younger atheists were being "Dawkinsized." The fervent frontal assault, whether it be from a Christian fundamentalist or an aggressive atheist, is likely to be seen as threatening. It passes judgment on all who might disagree. An interesting and fairly recent example is 'Blasphemy Day'. There could hardly be a more deliberately polarizing and divisive activity, yet it was established as such with expectation of some benefit. If atheists were concerned about their acceptance and participation in the cultures of the world, such activities would probably be focused a bit differently. Thoughts? Buddy But the poitn of Blasphemy Day was not to mock religion. The point was about taking a stand for free speech. It was a protest against blasphemy laws in nations like Ireland and not solely for the purpose of mocking religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 But the poitn of Blasphemy Day was not to mock religion. The point was about taking a stand for free speech. It was a protest against blasphemy laws in nations like Ireland and not solely for the purpose of mocking religion. That's right. It was more of a political statement than a religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 But the poitn of Blasphemy Day was not to mock religion. The point was about taking a stand for free speech. It was a protest against blasphemy laws in nations like Ireland and not solely for the purpose of mocking religion. That's right. It was more of a political statement than a religious. How do you figure? What statement is made here that can't be made without denigrating people of faith? I don't get it. Phanta Like Neon Genesis said, it was a statement in regards to the growing trend of blasphemy laws. Laws, last I checked, is a matter of policy and governing a state, not a matter of religion. When the state starts to make religious laws, and a person with the intention to speak up against it, it will be attacking religion, but not because that's the purpose, but because the law, which they protest, is a law regarding religion. If there were a law against blaspheming McDonald's, and someone made a "Blaspheme McDonald's" challenge, would that action be against McDonald's or the crazy law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 How do you figure? What statement is made here that can't be made without denigrating people of faith? I don't get it. Phanta Criticism of religion was the means of protesting a government law that forbid anyone from saying anything offensive about religion, hence it was a political statement and the the criticsm of religion was the means to achieve this statement but not the point of it. But even the people who organized the Blasphemy Day event encouraged people to make well-thought out criticsms of religion and not just making random offensive insults of people. Blasphemy Day was not about mocking or even denigrating people of faith. It was about protesting an immoral law that forbids anyone from saying anything offensive about beliefs. This was about beliefs, not people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 ... But the poitn of Blasphemy Day was not to mock religion. The point was about taking a stand for free speech. It was a protest against blasphemy laws in nations like Ireland and not solely for the purpose of mocking religion. But of course it was. There was no intent to offend anyone or speak ill of any religion. Nonsense. The name 'Blasphemy Day' was chosen for its insult value against the largest swath of religious folks possible. Either that's true, or all of the racial slurs and vicious epithets which we now recognize as 'hate speech' were just exercises in free speech after all. And thus the point of the thread from the beginning. We have an example of deliberately insulting behavior by a somewhat radical subset of the general group. Rather than agree that such folks are a bit of embarrassment, they're defended as though they were normal and as though anyone who might take offense is unreasonable. How do you figure? What statement is made here that can't be made without denigrating people of faith? I don't get it. Thank you Phanta. The choice of name for the day is a fairly blatant insult with the appearance of deliberate intent to do harm. It is difficult to view it as anything less. If that particular subset of atheists were interested in free speech rather than frontal assault, they might be expected to approach the subject in a more reasonable rather than more combative manner. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Nonsense. The name 'Blasphemy Day' was chosen for its insult value against the largest swath of religious folks possible. Either that's true, or all of the racial slurs and vicious epithets which we now recognize as 'hate speech' were just exercises in free speech after all. If there were no blasphemy laws, and religious people never condemned atheists as immoral, would there have been a Blasphemy Day at all? "Hate speech" is ok, coming from the religious, but not from atheists. Hmmm..... My point is, no one should be prosecuted for hateful talk. It's uncouth, but not a crime. And thus the point of the thread from the beginning. We have an example of deliberately insulting behavior by a somewhat radical subset of the general group. Rather than agree that such folks are a bit of embarrassment, they're defended as though they were normal and as though anyone who might take offense is unreasonable. I agree, but extreme and unreasonable laws bring about extreme reactions, such as offensive language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sixidahos Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Maybe they mistrust us because we're the folks pointing out that the Emperor's not wearing any clothes while everyone else is pretending everything is status quo. To admit there is no God scares the hell out of people. Anthony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 ... But the poitn of Blasphemy Day was not to mock religion. The point was about taking a stand for free speech. It was a protest against blasphemy laws in nations like Ireland and not solely for the purpose of mocking religion. But of course it was. There was no intent to offend anyone or speak ill of any religion. Nonsense. The name 'Blasphemy Day' was chosen for its insult value against the largest swath of religious folks possible. Either that's true, or all of the racial slurs and vicious epithets which we now recognize as 'hate speech' were just exercises in free speech after all. http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/09/30/should-we-blaspheme-not-always/ Blasphemy Day International is a campaign seeking to establish September 30th as a day to promote free speech and stand up in a show of solidarity for the freedom to challenge, criticize, and satirize religion without fear of murder, litigation, and reprisal. Blasphemy Day takes place September 30th to commemorate the publishing of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. The purpose of Blasphemy Day is not to promote hate or violence; it is to support free speech, support the right to criticize and satirize religion, and to oppose any resolutions or laws, binding or otherwise, that discourage or inhibit free speech of any kind. I'd like to see your proof now that the day was created for the sole purpose of being insulting to believers and that you somehow know better what the day was started for than the people who started it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Blasphemy Day takes place September 30th to commemorate the publishing of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. I think this part proves it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 http://friendlyathei...eme-not-always/ ...I'd like to see your proof now that the day was created for the sole purpose of being insulting to believers and that you somehow know better what the day was started for than the people who started it. I think this part proves it too. You might read the article you quote, fellows. The article was written to disprove the paragraph you quoted. Both the founder of CFI and the author of the article disagree with the quoted claim of, "...not to promote hate or violence." They offer reasons, some of which we've discussed here. See for yourself: ________________________________________________________ "Blasphemy Day International is a campaign seeking to establish September 30th as a day to promote free speech and stand up in a show of solidarity for the freedom to challenge, criticize, and satirize religion without fear of murder, litigation, and reprisal. Blasphemy Day takes place September 30th to commemorate the publishing of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. The purpose of Blasphemy Day is not to promote hate or violence; it is to support free speech, support the right to criticize and satirize religion, and to oppose any resolutions or laws, binding or otherwise, that discourage or inhibit free speech of any kind. The Center For Inquiry is running a blasphemy contest through next week to mark the occasion. All you have to do is “create a phrase, poem, or statement that would be or would have been considered blasphemous.” Paul Kurtz is the founder and former Chairman of CFI and he thinks the contest is in the wrong spirit. I have to say I agree with him. It is one thing to examine the claims of religion in a responsible way by calling attention to Biblical, Koranic or scientific criticisms, it is quite another to violate the key humanistic principle of tolerance.One may disagree with contending religious beliefs, but to denigrate them by rude caricatures borders on hate speech. What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way? It’s not just the contest that’s the problem. It’s the idea of blasphemy, used in the wrong way." _______________________________________________________ The inadvertent misquote ('sole purpose') further encourages the question; why defend the deliberately insulting behavior of an unrepresentative minority? Do they speak for you? Are we so insecure that we must defend the ridiculous for fear that we are somehow at risk if we don't? Or can we simply note the inappropriateness of their behavior, hope to do better ourselves, and move on. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 You might read the article you quote, fellows. The article was written to disprove the paragraph you quoted. Both the founder of CFI and the author of the article disagree with the quoted claim of, "...not to promote hate or violence." They offer reasons, some of which we've discussed here. See for yourself: So, what if one random atheist thinks the day is about spreading hate? That doesn't magically change it so that the people who created it are now saying it is about hate. What it says is that this guy is being overly-paranoid and no, the Friendly Atheist webmaster is not against Blasphemy Day. He's against certain kinds of blasphemy but he specifically says That’s what the day should be about: opening peoples’ minds, not simply offending them for the sake of it. which is what we've been saying all along that Blasphemy Day is about. But if one atheist thinks it's a conspiracy plot to mock believers, you're latching onto that as proof that we're somehow lying about this day. And even if this group who started this day did intend for it to be about mocking believers, so what? People are going to mock believers whether there's a day for it or not. I'm with Florduh that I don't get what your point has been in this thread. You seem to want to try and turn atheism into a quasi-religion and are acting like if this one group makes fun of believers, then if Christians mistrust atheists, we all deserve to be mistrusted because of the actions of one group. Is that what you're saying that atheists deserve what we have coming to us? Or are you saying you support blasphemy laws? What are you trying to say in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiverDale Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 I think the reason Atheists are not trusted, is we do not have the "Heavenly Shepard" guiding us. In other words we are not sheep and might be able to think for ourselves. Brings to mind the expression, "like herding cats" --- do you think the government wants THAT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 I've just read the whole thread now, and this sticks in my mind. Most (if not all) atheists here were christians. I don't know of any christians who were atheists. I would always hear stories and anecdotes about them, but I never remember actually meeting one! Although sometimes you'd come across someone who had immigrated from a highly atheistic country (like in Eastern Europe or something) who had never really been exposed to Christianity, and then they got hit with the born again spiel and fell for it. I may have met two or three of those, but my memory is foggy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 So, what if one random atheist thinks the day is about spreading hate? That doesn't magically change it so that the people who created it are now saying it is about hate. The 'random atheist' to whom you refer is the founder of the day's sponsoring organization (CFI), so yes, at least from my point of view, what he has to say carries weight by virtue of his formative contribution to the organization and its initiating vision. You needn't agree, of course. And even if this group who started this day did intend for it to be about mocking believers, so what? I shared your cavalier attitude myself, Neon. My first career was a pretty rough-and-tumble world, a no quarter, no prisoners kind of environment. I had an interesting encounter with an older fellow about 10 years my senior. He asked me if I thought the occasional conflicts in my business life were the result of my demanding professionalism and high standards. I did, and said so. He laughed and said, "Actually, it's because you're an @#*!!%." Then for the better part of an hour, he gave me examples of my narrow-minded, blame others attitude that obscured whatever insight and clarity I might bring to an issue. It was a useful encounter. Thirty years later, I remember it as one of more useful conversations of my life. The particular truths conveyed? You learn less from those alongside you than from the one who challenges your premise. People who agree may reinforce your error; those who think differently may illuminate. Your critics are valuable; many people agree with them. ... especially when you're being an @#*!!%. Best of luck, my friend. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 I would always hear stories and anecdotes about them, but I never remember actually meeting one! Maybe Buddy could find one to learn from. It might be illuminating, exposing the error of his ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 The particular truths conveyed? You learn less from those alongside you than from the one who challenges your premise. People who agree may reinforce your error; those who think differently may illuminate. Your critics are valuable; many people agree with them. This applies well to christians. Former christians were challenged and enlightened, becoming EX-CHRISTIANS. I suggest finding a lifelong atheist to challenge your premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 I think he means me. The "vocal minority". P Ah, perhaps so. Then again, it's worth noting who speaks for us. If a blasphemy contest is how we'd like the rest of humanity to think of us, that's somewhat revealing perhaps. And if the more reasoned approach expresses our heart and thought, perhaps that's revealing as well. Good morning, by the way. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 You learn less from those alongside you than from the one who challenges your premise. People who agree may reinforce your error; those who think differently may illuminate. Your critics are valuable; many people agree with them. This applies well to christians. Former christians were challenged and enlightened, becoming EX-CHRISTIANS. I suggest finding a lifelong atheist to challenge your premise. But of course it does; thus the reason for my conversations here over the last couple of years. It's been a profitable and enlightening exchange. I appreciate the thoughtful, honest discussions several here have provided. As I've said, the knife cuts both ways. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 The 'random atheist' to whom you refer is the founder of the day's sponsoring organization (CFI), so yes, at least from my point of view, what he has to say carries weight by virtue of his formative contribution to the organization and its initiating vision. You needn't agree, of course. Again, you're treating atheism like a quasi-religion and acting like he's somehow the pope of atheism. Whether he's the founder of the organization or not, that does not change the fact he did not start the day and that unless you and him are somehow psychics, what the people who did start the day still stands and that they did not intend for the day to be about insulting believers. I don't know how much more clearer you want them to be. The particular truths conveyed? You learn less from those alongside you than from the one who challenges your premise. People who agree may reinforce your error; those who think differently may illuminate. Your critics are valuable; many people agree with them. ... especially when you're being an @#*!!%. You are missing my point. My point is that whatever these other atheists has nothing to do with me or what any other atheists do. Atheism is not a religion and the only thing we have in common is our non-belief in gods. The actions of a liberal atheist has nothing at all to do with the actions of a conservative atheist because the only thing they have in common is their non-belief in gods and the two different atheists should not be judged because of the actions of the others. I'll be perfectly blunt that if you are suggesting that all atheists deserve to be mistrusted because of the actions of others, including the atheists who are not behaving in an immoral way, that is nothing more than stereotyping and judgmentalism and I thought Christians were supposed to turn the other cheek and stuff. But according to you, Christians should judge people for the actions of others and all atheists should be treated like crap even if they did nothing to deserve it unless you want to clarify you do not think all atheists should be treated like crap. In which case, I would appreciate it if you explained what your point is instead of beating around the bush when we ask you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted November 8, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted November 8, 2009 I would appreciate it if you explained what your point is instead of beating around the bush when we ask you. Good luck with that. He fancies himself an expert at passive-aggressive technique, friend. It's standard issue apologist obfuscation tactics. He says he doesn't believe the polls are valid, then asks (innocently) if there might not be reasons we really ARE mistrusted. Of course he already has his reasons in mind, but nothing to back them up with so he won't answer questions. He's waiting for someone like me to lose patience so he can point to how rude, critical, etc., etc., atheists really are and how it's no wonder people hate us. I remember now why I don't talk in depth to religious people. They are disingenuous and always have their agenda brewing in the background of any discussion. Yes, that's a generalization from experience, not a prejudice stemming from ignorance of the Christian culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 I'm glad I'm not the only one to have gotten that impression. I didn't want to say anything about it before now because I couldn't be sure whether it was just me, but I've been thinking for the past several pages of this discussion that Buddy wants to have his cake and eat it too. He doesn't buy that atheists are discriminated against by our overwhelmingly theistic society, then goes on to speculate as to why we might be discriminated against with a very strong undercurrent of "it's really your own fault for being Satanic baby-eaters." There also seems to be a "subtle" implication that any atheist who expresses displeasure over the perception of being mistreated because of that just has a persecution complex. That's some world-class irony, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 The actions of a liberal atheist has nothing at all to do with the actions of a conservative atheist because the only thing they have in common is their non-belief in gods and the two different atheists should not be judged because of the actions of the others. You're absolutely right, Neon. The actions of a liberal atheist have nothing at all to do with the actions of a conservative atheist. Similarly liberal and conservative religious folks have little in common. The actions of one in either case should not reflect on another. I'll be perfectly blunt that if you are suggesting that all atheistsdeserve to be mistrusted because of the actions of others, includingthe atheists who are not behaving in an immoral way, that is nothingmore than stereotyping and judgmentalism and I thought Christians weresupposed to turn the other cheek and stuff. Deserve to be? No. Unfortunately, atheists are often perceived as a class rather than as individuals, with narrowly justifiable distrust being inappropriately applied to the class as a whole. Much like Christians are often perceived and described as a class with all individuals being presumed to carry the worst traits actually only exhibited by some. You're correct, that is stereotyping and judgmentalism. In both cases. But according to you,Christians should judge people for the actions of others and allatheists should be treated like crap ... No, no, no. ... even if they did nothing todeserve it unless you want to clarify you do not think all atheistsshould be treated like crap. In which case, I would appreciate it ifyou explained what your point is instead of beating around the bushwhen we ask you. The thread's question where we started was regarding why are atheists mistrusted in our culture? Among the reasons, the one being that it's deserved is credible only if the few public figures speak for the whole group. That's an obvious injustice; we've talked about how atheists are not a homogeneous group. (When I point out egregious examples like the 'blasphemy contest', we discover that the sponsor doesn't speak for all, only some.) We've talked about how there are many fine individuals among non-believers, folks who share a common vision with the general population. We've made room for there to be a variety of opinions from reasonable to ridiculous within the spectrum of atheism and non-belief. So, we've noted that the observed distrust may have a basis in fact even though that distrust might be inappropriately applied to non-believers as a whole when it is actually appropriate only for a subset of the group. It happens; it helps to understand why so that we might avoid being part of the problem. Carrying the same reasoning to the general attitude among non-believers toward Christians, we have pointed out that there are many reasons for mistrusting the motives of Christians on the basis of the behavior and expressed opinions of a subset of the group. We've noted that the general annoyance unbelievers might feel toward Christians are justified but perhaps only toward a subset of the whole. It happens; it helps to understand why so that we might avoid being part of the problem. It was perhaps a surprise to arrive in conversation at the point where there were actually two visibly valid viewpoints with credible supporting elements and no particularly animosity on either side. We managed it, or at least some of us did, with comfortable acknowledgments on both sides. It was a fairly non-threatening exchange of ideas and insights. Do atheists in general deserve the bad reputation they have in American culture. No. Do some atheists by their public behavior encourage the general distaste Americans might express toward non-believers? Yes. Do Christians in general deserve the verbal acrimony expressed by (some) atheists? No. Do some Christians by their public behavior encourage the general distaste non-believers might express toward Christians? Yes. This was the sum and substance of a conversation among friends. No disrespect or insult intended, friend. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts