The Guardian, Sept. 9,2010: Thank God (and Richard Dawkins) I'm no longer an 'angry atheist'

[highplainsdem]

Op-ed piece by Alom Shaha:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/sep/09/god-richard-dawkins-angry-atheist

The front page of guardian.co.uk recently featured a picture of Richard Dawkins with the headline "The Dick Delusion". It saddened me that anyone at the Guardian would think it was appropriate to ridicule Dawkins in this manner and I was further disappointed by the accompanying article by Jonathan Jones which was a weakly argued personal attack on Dawkins, using poorly researched material to deliver the pathetic notion that Dawkins "just wants to be the cleverest kid in the class". The irony of the piece was that it smacked of having been written by someone desperate to prove his own cleverness.

As much as I hated Jones' article, I can understand what might have prompted it. I have in the past criticised Dawkins' approach myself and I'd like to think I'm not part of the "angry atheist" brigade. It can be all too easy to fall into the trap of being perceived as a "dick" when challenging people's beliefs. Many atheists and "skeptics" seem to have a habit of implying, if not directly stating, that people who believe in god/homeopathy/psychics are stupid. They seem to think that tackling such beliefs is a question of dispelling ignorance, of educating people in the "right" way of thinking.

Sadly, it's not that simple. Such atheists and skeptics would do well to remember that we are all capable of holding irrational beliefs and that there are myriad social, economic, cultural and educational factors that determine what and how people think. Heck, I'll go out on a limb and suggest there might even be genetic factors involved in determining the extent to which people may or may not be susceptible to holding religious beliefs.

Atheists and skeptics can feel incredibly frustrated by the beliefs of others and feel that they have to "correct" them, and in doing so they can come across as condescending, patronising and aggressive. It's not always accidental. Several prominent atheists and skeptics have been accused of deliberately behaving like "dicks"; let's face it, calling believers "deluded", as Dawkins famously does, is not exactly diplomatic. The backlash against this kind of behaviour is not just coming from believers but also from within the atheist and skeptic communities – there are various corners of the internet where atheists and skeptics are engaged in heated discussions about whether or not to be a "dick". I have to confess to finding it somewhat amusing that much of this debate seems to have descended into the kind of argument you might hear in a school playground: "You're a dick", "No, you're a dick for calling me a dick".

On a serious note, I have been guilty of being a "dick atheist" myself, albeit unwittingly. I'm hoping this is a thing of the past, and for this I owe thanks to a good friend of mine who confronted me over my attitude by saying "you think I'm stupid because I believe in God". She was incredibly upset at some of the things I had been saying as part of what I thought was just casual banter over a cup of tea. She pointed out that, from her perspective, the views I had been expressing about religion were offensive to people like her. Of course, I don't think this friend of mine is remotely stupid but I had to concede that the things I had been saying might have suggested otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to offend people when the circumstances demand it, but I've got no desire to go around upsetting people I like for no good reason. Seeing my friend upset really made me stop and think about how I was coming across to other religious friends and I have since made much more of a conscious effort to consider where other people might be coming from before spouting off about my atheism. Fanatical atheism can be as ugly as religious fanaticism.

-snip-

[Major Nikon]

1. "Just as ugly"

Seems premature as there's still a few thousand years of catch up.

[Pope George Ringo II]

2. Baby steps.

Buses first, genocide later.

[Major Nikon]

3. How much longer before we get to burn them in the town square?

[Pope George Ringo II]

5. That's the last step before public ads suggesting religion might not have all the answers.

That's when we really turn to the dark side and equal all the horrors of religionists.

[guillaumeb]

11. So atheists need time to "catch up" and do what they condemn theists for doing?

An interesting argument, but it concedes that all humans behave as ……..humans.

[Major Nikon]

15. So you tell me what my argument is and then burn it down

If only there was a word for that.

[guillaumeb]

16. Your comment:

Just as ugly"

Seems premature as there's still a few thousand years of catch up.

If I misinterpreted your comment, explain how.

The phrase "catch up" implies a period of reciprocal behavior.

[Major Nikon]

19. Im not going to argue against your silly fallacies

Bullshit has been called and you have no answer.

[guillaumeb]

20. Translation:

Your words strongly imply exactly what I said they do.

I accept my victory with my usual modesty.

[Major Nikon]

21. Good job, Gil. Follow up your strawman with an even more obvious strawman

Congratulations on your victory! Here's your prize:

[guillaumeb]

22. No awards are necessary.

while I do, of course, merit them, my humility forbids me to accept them.

[Major Nikon]

23. Too late!

The face has been planted and you've been given all the accolades you deserve.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. 0 - 3

Keep 'em coming. Show us how much you "don't have anything against" us.

[guillaumeb]

12. An attempt to discourage dialogue that does not fit the desired narrative?

Understood.

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. Absolutely.

The narrative that atheists should shut the fuck up and remain obeisant and deferrential merely for the benefit of being ignored should be discouraged.

I understand why you would think otherwise.

[guillaumeb]

29. Proof for such an assertion might make your psot better. eom

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. My proof is pretty much everything you've ever posted here. Ever.

Is that up to your exacting standards? I'd hate for you leave this conversation disappointed.

[guillaumeb]

40. Obviously we have differnt interpretations of what constitutes proof.

And obviously, the atheist author of this post has a different view from yours.

And we see the very predictable replies to the poster, using the same memes that are trotted out over and over. And some see this aa productive dialogue.

[Act_of_Reparation]

41. Obviously we do.

You, for example, adopt a more stringent standard of proof for what was said on an internet forum than you for the existence of an all-powerful cosmic being.

But you be you, man.

[highplainsdem]

6. The arguments in the OP are from an atheist author who's been mentioned favorably here:

Earlier DU topics about himL

https://www.democraticunderground.com/121836037

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218126288

[trotsky]

8. rug was banned for being a disruptor.

Not sure you want to hold up his posts as an example.

(And - shockingly to you I'm sure - he WASN'T an atheist.)

[guillaumeb]

18. If you read the links,

you would see that the articles were not written by theists.

If you did not, your misperception is understood.

[trotsky]

26. I never claimed otherwise. Don't be dishonest.

The OP claimed they were "mentioned favorably" here. I noted the person who did so, was banned as a disruptor.

[guillaumeb]

30. Irrelevant.

[trotsky]

31. Caught in a mistake, you wave your hands and pretend no one will notice.

Typical.

Why are you so full of hate? What kind of example are you setting as a Christian?

[MineralMan]

32. Most of the people in those two linked threads are no longer

able to post here. That's telling, I think.

[guillaumeb]

33. It might reflect that what was said made some uncomfortable.

[MineralMan]

34. It also might reflect that those people are no longer

able to post here, due to their behavior on DU. That's my guess.

[trotsky]

35. I felt it was important to note, since the OP claimed the author had been "mentioned favorably."

Yeah, "mentioned favorably" by a banned disruptor.

guillaumeb doesn't want to acknowledge his good friend being banned for disruptive behavior, so of course he posts dishonestly and attacks me. Interestingly, those are behaviors that led to his friend's banning too.

[MineralMan]

36. Well, discussing people who have been sent away from DU

isn't something I normally do. Some of them return, often again and again.

It is important to note, though, when someone links to a thread from 2014 as an example of anything. Then, one can examine that thread to see who the participants were. When I see a thread that is populated mostly with former DUers who can no longer post here, I tend to dismiss that old thread as of no interest at this time.

That particular thread was from a time when I was not participating in this group at all, and before some people who post frequently here arrived at all. I've never seen the utility of linking back to ancient threads in the Religion Group or anywhere else. It always seems like calling up ghosts from the past.

I'll refrain from mentioning any of those people who can no longer reply by name, though.

[MineralMan]

37. Plenty of years old references here.

I prefer more current events, really.

[trotsky]

7. Wow, reaching for almost 9-year-old OpEds now.

You keep identifying atheists as the problem, when they hold literally zero political power in this country. Me, I'd rather fight the religious lunatics who do. But you've got your preferred enemies, I guess.

[highplainsdem]

9. You keep suggesting I'm referring to all atheists in general when I've made it clear I'm talking

about a style of proselytizing by some atheists, one which other atheists have also identified as A problem.

You can't see that? Or do you identify so completely with proselytizers that you believe pointing out how they undercut their own arguments is an attack on all atheists?

It isn't. There are lots of similar comments online and in print, from atheists. Lots of atheists think proselytizing backfires.

[Mariana]

10. Have you given any examples other than the ad on the bus?

'Cause that was pretty weak, as proselytizing goes. Seriously, if reliigionists restricted themselves to buying ads that said stuff like, "Our god is probably real. Why not visit XYZ church?" do you think anyone would object? Would you consider that offensive?

[Pope George Ringo II]

13. If enough people tell you that you haven't made yourself clear as saying something.

You might want to consider the idea that maybe you haven't.

There's a chronically misunderstood poster here who can't articulate a coherent thought to save his life, but it's always everybody else's fault. He's a good example of how not to do it.

[Major Nikon]

14. Interesting you'd say that

After posting no less than three threads in two days trying to present a rift between atheists.

Meanwhile the best part about atheism is there's no right or wrong way to do it. Not having a belief system that some insist exists does that for you. There will never be a rift between us that you and others try and create because literally the only thing that unites us is a common rejection of belief in one or more deities.

So no, I'm pretty sure none of those here who identify as atheists identify with your subliterate use of "proselytizers". Arguments matter to us more than those who may happen to make them. So far yours has been made rather poorly, but obviously you have strong feelings about it. One can certainly guess why, but that's really more for you to say.

[trotsky]

27. Perhaps you could do everyone a favor then.

Explain what kind of speech is acceptable from an atheist, in your opinion.

Point to specific posts and clarify what is wrong about them, and how they could be better expressed.

Because instead, you just come off as attacking every atheist posting less-than-glowing opinions about religion. And that's exactly why you are getting the response you are.

We are allowed to speak too. We are allowed to voice our opinions on religion too. Believers don't get a monopoly on discourse.

And given that the "nones" (those with NO religious affiliation) are now the largest voting bloc in the US, I think we deserve more respect.

So keep judging and blaming and trying to silence critics of religion if you must - but understand that you, too, could be alienating Democrats.

[Eko]

17. Imagine just for a second please.

That you woke up today and a majority of the country believed unicorns were real. They had multiple books about unicorns that were thousands of years old telling us all how to live and used these books as not only their source of morality but passed laws based on it. When you came across such people and talk of unicorns started what would you do? Would you be able to just nod and agree on their thoughts of unicorns and how they expect us to live? Would you celebrate the unicorn day by wearing a horn at the unicorn dinner with your family? Would you not feel like you live in a crazy world? I'm sure at this point you feel like I am being a "dick" and patronizing you, I am not. I am genuinely asking you to place yourself in a position that a lot of us atheists feel like we are living every day. Change unicorn to Zeus or whatever you have to so you can place yourself in this position.

[LongtimeAZDem]

24. +1 /nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. Great suggestion... but we know they're not gonna do that.

Because they never do that.

[MineralMan]

28. The vast majority of atheists almost never even mention their atheism.

Unless asked, I don't, except in places dedicated to the discussion of religious topics. What would be the point of telling someone I am an atheist out of the blue? Most of my acquaintances and friends consider themselves to be Christians, Jews, or Muslims. That is not why they are my friends or acquaintances, though. It's a matter of their own personal beliefs, and isn't relevant to our relationship.

Some of them know that I'm an atheist, but only because they have asked me about my beliefs. Just as I would say, "OK" if someone told me of their Lutheran beliefs, they say "OK" to my atheism.

It's a matter of no consequence, either way, in terms of how I or they behave, which is the only thing either of us cares about, really.

Here in the Religion Group, I am more open about my atheism. That's because religious topics are the order of the day here.

The person who wrote the essay you quoted from is, perhaps, recognizing that atheism isn't really a topic for ordinary relationships. Good for him or her.