Ask an atheist

[ciphergoth]

In a discussion about religion in wildeabandon's journal, meihua writes: "this seems to have turned into me interrogating you. [...] Is there anything you'd like to challenge me on, instead?"

I think it's only fair enough to open up my own beliefs to the challenges of others, since I'm always keen to respond when theists invite me to give my perspective on some aspect of their beliefs as wildeabandon has in a series of recent posts. So, is there anything you'd like me to respond to?

Rules:

• You don't have to read this thread. This post is an invitation, not a challenge; if you don't like to read me talking about this then feel free to skip this.
• Be honest. Please don't advance arguments you don't personally buy, unless you're also an atheist and you want to discuss how best to counter it.
• If you come to change your mind about the validity of an argument, think about how you can generalise the lesson learned so as not to misassess similar arguments in future.
• Don't just match the politeness of what you reply to, but try to exceed it - see Postel's Law. Otherwise it is very easy to end up with a thread where each contributor thinks they are merely matching the snark level of the other, and yet the thread starts with the very slightest suggestion of rudeness and finishes with "please choke on a bucket of cocks".

Comments

[mskala.livejournal.com]

I think the biggest form of special treatment I see being demanded is the "my beliefs aren't beliefs, they are something else" thing, shown for instance in Paul's repeated use of the word "believers" as his term for the people he distinguishes from himself. That is a distinction I don't see. I don't see why atheism is different. I don't see this discussion as being about belief yes/no, but as about belief what kind.

Then from that point of view, atheism doesn't look like an alternative to religion, it just looks like a crappy substandard religion with a lot of bugs and few features compared to other religions. I imagine that most atheists don't want atheism to be judged by the standards that I apply to religions, but in that case, they need, hey, let's call it evidence, that there is a useful difference, and I'm seeing an utter lack of that. And that's why I asked - why is atheism different?

Another example would be shown in this statement of Paul's:

"I think that atheists do show less respect towards belief than believers show each other, and that's quite on purpose."

There's the "I'm something other than a believer" claim again, but there's also a claim that atheists deserve an exemption from a basic rule ("treat people with respect") that everyone else routinely follows. No atheist in the thread above has acknowledged respect as a core value; it always, always has to be qualified with "But not if it means I can't challenge..."

If you think "I challenge you!" is so important as to be worth sacrificing "I respect you!", well, that explains pretty much everything else in this discussion. What should we rationally expect will happen when a group of people who holds that opinion about the priority of values, interacts with a group who doesn't?

I'm not saying this is anyone's fault, I'm saying it's predictable. I am surprised that anyone is still surprised by it.

[babysimon]

Lack of belief in something is not the same kind of thing as belief in something. When the subject isn't religion this is generally quite uncontroversial - see the concept of the burden of proof in law, or the null hypothesis in science.

Atheism is not a religion. Really.

I have to admit that I find it a bit startling that you think this is a case where I'm demanding special treatment. Even if you believe atheism is a religion, wouldn't it make more sense to say "you and I obviously have different definitions" than "you are demanding special treatment"?

I also don't think the atheists here are demanding special treatment in saying that they should be allowed to challenge people's beliefs (please note that challenging a belief system is not really the same as "disrespecting" the people who believe it). But even if it were, I don't think atheists alone should be allowed to do this! Everyone should challenge beliefs all the time - their own and other people's.

I mean, you're quite clearly challenging atheism in your comments here - does this mean you're not showing enough respect to me as an atheist? I don't think so, but you might disagree. It's OK though, I won't accuse you of demanding special treatment ;-)

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

I think the biggest form of special treatment I see being demanded is the "my beliefs aren't beliefs, they are something else" thing, shown for instance in Paul's repeated use of the word "believers" as his term for the people he distinguishes from himself. That is a distinction I don't see. I don't see why atheism is different. I don't see this discussion as being about belief yes/no, but as about belief what kind.

To be fair, I hear theists talk of "believers" and "non-believers" too.

The distinction (as I see it) is between "people who believe in God" and "people who don't believe in God".

Is this distinction important? Well, perhaps in some sense it shouldn't be - all it is is a disagreement about a philosophical question of how everything began. On the other hand, religious belief often comes with a lot more than that: claims of intervention in the Universe (either directly, or through communication with people's minds), or people basing their morality on religion.

But nonetheless, I don't want special treatment for this distinction - I won't be offended or find it disrespectful if someone criticises atheism.

There's the "I'm something other than a believer" claim again, but there's also a claim that atheists deserve an exemption from a basic rule ("treat people with respect") that everyone else routinely follows.

Atheists (I hope) treat people with respect. ciphergoth said about the issue of treating belief with respect.

Atheists do not want an exemption, rather we want religious belief to fit into the same rule as all other beliefs. Even though everyone routinely follows this rule of treating people with respect, it's still acceptable to criticise (or even ridicule) all sorts of beliefs, such as political or economical beliefs, or beliefs on moral issues, or indeed, atheism.

Is your point of view that religious belief should not be treated in the same manner? Or do you feel that the criticism that atheists give to theism is above and beyond any criticism given to any other belief?

If you think "I challenge you!" is so important as to be worth sacrificing "I respect you!"

I feel that people can challenge someone's beliefs, without sacrificing respect for people. Just as you can challenge atheism, without being disrespectful towards them. Consider, supposing if, instead of responding to your comment, I only said "I find your comments disrespectful"? Supposing if instead of a debate on theism/atheism, it was a debate on economics, and someone found criticism of an economical theory to be disrespectful to them?

I don't think atheists are making any profound statement about criticism versus respect, we just want to be able to criticise religious belief like people can criticise any other kind of belief or opinion. I also don't feel people were qualifying with "But not if it means I can't challenge", rather it's a question of what we mean by the word "respect". I'm happy to acknowledge respect for people as a core value; I'm not ignoring that value if I debate or criticise ideas about the origins of the Universe, claims that particular events took place, or ethical issues.

Re: your article - I don't think that religious people are stupid. On the contrary, the fact that many of them are intelligent people is all the more reason why I am interested and engage in debate with them on these issues. If it was that they were stupid, then as you say in the article, there'd be no point in doing so.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

I actually think that in some ways it's more respectful to challenge someone's beliefs, because it's saying, "I understand that your beliefs are important enough to be worth having a conversation about."