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

[calum]

Not a question, but both your links have an extra " in them, so they dont work

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

I'll ask as sensible question later... But tell me, what's the original source for please choke on a bucket cocks? The link seems to be a locked post.

atheism and morality

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

A lot of atheists seem to take the same approach to morality as they do to God - that moral statements have no meaning. Hence, for many people their only justification for behaving morally is "because it's in my interests". Do you agree with this?

[I'm just rather confused at the moment about how to reconcile atheism and morality.]

[some-fox.livejournal.com]

Cool idea. As an agnostic and believer in the importance of embracing uncertainty (not that I always manage it so well) I'd ask you how you can be so certain (a question I'd also ask religious believers).

And - along similar lines - given that atheism involves taking a pretty critical position on things, how do you pick and choose which things to turn that critical lens on and which you simply accept.

[keirf.livejournal.com]

As an atheist I assume that you believe the universe emerged without any conscious intention behind it. What's your take on consciousness, and determinism versus free will?

[mskala.livejournal.com]

I have friends who are Catholic and who believe with all possible seriousness that I and all non-Catholics are headed for Hell, for sure, just for not being Catholic. They believe that I and all non-Catholics could be saved from that if we converted, and that that would be a good thing and worth promoting. Nonetheless, I don't hear much about it from them, and I've never heard snideness or insult from them on the subject. I've never had a Catholic call me an idiot to my face for not converting to Catholicism.

I have friends who are Evangelical Protestant and it's the same story. I have at least witnessed some Evangelical Protestants engaging in snideness and insults towards Catholics and others who aren't Evangelical Protestants, but never any of the ones who are my friends, and my friends don't seem to condone that kind of behaviour.

But when it comes to atheism, snideness, insults, and venom seem to be the order of the day. Many people I otherwise like a whole lot, stop behaving in a way I could call admirable when they start talking about their anti-religious beliefs. Calling all non-atheists idiots is routine. Calling me an idiot to my face if I mention that I'm not an atheist, is routine. The standard of what's acceptable discourse is completely different from what I expect from people who have other strong opinions and beliefs. It is also different from the standard of discourse between professional scientists. Religion is, by what looks like common agreement among very many of the atheists I've seen, so vile that there is no reason to have any respect whatsoever for anyone who follows any of it, there is no need to learn anything about religion before rejecting it, and it's perfectly okay and acceptable to be an asshole.

Even atheists who do not engage in those behaviours themselves openly associate with the ones who do and don't seem to feel any need to disclaim or distance themselves from anything. The assholes are treated as valued assets to the cause. I don't think you've ever called me an idiot directly, Paul, but you've certainly posted with approval and no disclaimer links to people who did. My Catholic and Evangelical Protestant friends have never done that, despite having at least as strong disagreement with my eclectic neo-pagan beliefs.

If that's what atheists are like, then I sure wouldn't want to be one. It is fortunate, since I'm employed as a scientist myself, that I know not all scientists are like that - but I'm certainly annoyed and disappointed by those of my colleagues who think that the only true scientists have to be atheists and the only true atheists have to be assholes.

So my question is, and I'm sorry if this is less polite than you were hoping for but I think it's pretty important: why do atheists seem to be such assholes, and especially, why are they different in this respect from adherents of theistic religions? It'd be easy to say - not convincing, but easy to say - that atheists are different from adherents of theistic religions in the way of being right, but how and why would it lead to also being different in the way of often being assholes? It'd also be easy to say that I don't know enough atheists and non-atheists, or enough about how good atheism is and how bad theism is, to judge, but that's unfalsifiable; no matter how many people I meet and how much I know one could always claim that if I met a few more or learned a little more I'd feel differently. Even if it were possible to somehow measure the proportion of theists and atheists and find out how many of each are assholes, and even if it turned out that actually a far larger proportion of theists are assholes about their beliefs, there remains the question of what led me to form the impression of atheists being unique in this way.

(over the comment length limit - continued below)

[mskala.livejournal.com]

(continued)

I've read (and, sometimes, cited) Karla Mclaren's article "Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html)" - I think it was you who brought it to my attention, and thank you - and I think it's a wonderful start but I don't think she's completely right. In particular, I think there's not really so much difference between science and what she calls "the New Age" in terms of cultural standards of discourse. Interactions among scientists, when they're doing their actual jobs instead of attacking non-atheists, are not the pure rational fact-based activity she seems to imagine. If I want to publish a paper saying that someone else is WRONG, it's not enough that I can prove I'm right; I still have to say it respectfully or that article is not getting published. There are the scientists who get up in the question periods at conferences to call other people idiots to their faces, and those scientists are rightly treated as being way out of line. They're certainly not considered assets to the profession. Atheists, including the ones who are off-duty scientists and the ones who seem in all other ways to be decent people, seem to think that being right is enough and in fact some of them seem to think they get bonus points for stating their positions as snidely as possible. I almost never see this occur in any other realm of human endeavor. (Though I also don't watch US political television and maybe if I did...)

Why?

[duranorak.livejournal.com]

Without having seen this post, I was thinking about all this yet again earlier today.

I haven't read anyone else's comments here yet, I usually get caught up in what other people are saying and then don't say anything myself because I feel like everything I might say is far too simplistic. I still feel like that, because it is simplistic, but, oh well. I still have a question or two that I hope you don't feel are beneath you. :)

Dear Mr atheist,

The only thing I would ever try to assert as 'truth' about my gods is that they were once worshipped by a relatively significant number of people, and that I experience things I believe are me having an interaction of some kind with them. (NB, I would assert that I have the experiences, and that I believe etc etc, not that those experiences are me having said interaction.)

I would not attempt to tell you that they had a hand in the creating of anything, or that they have the power to affect the earth or people on it in general in any way, nor that they ever have had. I would not attempt to tell you that any stories about them are accounts of actual events, or that they are any kind of allegory - just stories. Also, the experiences I have, that I believe are connected to these gods, have not at any time involved requiring any specific action of me, and therefore I would say there is nothing remotely Bible-comparable in what I do. While I discuss the concepts with people, I have never done nor do I have any intention of ever doing anything connected with my gods or 'religious beliefs' with or in front of anyone else.

Given the above, how would you respond to what I believe compared with, say, a practising Christian or Jew? Are there differences in how you would want to go about arguing with me? Am I less of an enemy of reason than someone who follows rules because they believe those rules were put there by god/a god, or is it the same with me as with anyone else, and why? Would you class me as 'religious'?

These and other things, but if I don't post this now I will delete it in fear of being laughed at, so~ You don't have to answer, I was just wondering this earlier.

E.
x

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

The question I've always wanted to ask you - and this is a genuine question and actually not really a 'challenge' at all, IMHO - is;

WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH?

I honestly don't get it. Personally, I don't like most sport. I find it confusing, tedious, expensive & time-wasting. I think it's been responsible for perpetuating a lot of damaging attitudes and stereotypes (including racism & homophobia). Therefore, I don't watch sport, read about sport, attend sporting events or join in sporting conversations, because it's just not my thing.

I just don't understand why you seem so, well, obsessed with something you neither like nor want.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

Do you ever worry that you suffer from confirmation bias when observing the poverty of the arguments in favour of theism?

[damerell.livejournal.com]

You fetch the bucket, and I'll wield the tiny shears.

[some-fox.livejournal.com]

Reading through all the comments here I realise that what baffles you is why sensible people choose to have religious beliefs. I think the answer lies in the existential givens. Existentialism tells us that the following things terrify people:

* Death,
* Uncertainty (about what to do or what happens),
* Realising they are free to choose
* Realising that life is meaningless and the only meaning there is is that which we create which could just as well be otherwise.

I don't find religious belief baffling at all. It takes away all of these (as do many other things that we choose to believe in)

[jhg.livejournal.com]

Bugger, I always miss the interesting stuff.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Another question, if I'm not to late to ask this - what do you mean when you use the word "theist"?