AmandaJWB writes:
Dear Always Offended Atheist (this would refer only to the ever-offended atheist, not the reasonably atheist who just doesn’t care),
So, an atheist is only "reasonable" when they "just don't care"? Doesn't this mean that an atheist who "cares" is necessarily unreasonable? I doubt that the same standards would be applied to religious theist — after all, Amanda appears to care enough to ask these questions, and in an offended tone to boot, but that doesn't seem to cause her to conclude that she is also unreasonable.
It seems to me that this is just another way for religious theists to insist that atheists should "sit down and shut up" because all their criticism is too unnerving and disconcerting to have in the public square.
I know these are not horribly original questions, but I would genuinely like an (honest) answer to them.
Since Amanda knows that these are not original questions, then she necessarily knows that others — and probably many others — have asked them before her. If she knows that others have asked them before, then she can reasonably conclude that there have at least been attempts to answer those questions. If she knows that there have been attempts to answer those questions, why didn't she spend a little time trying to find those answers?
Wouldn't that have taken as much time, if not less, as writing them out? Even if she didn't find the answers to be very helpful, she could have gotten the ball rolling by explaining why she needs more. Instead, we get a bunch of badly framed questions that are posed as if no one has ever had these conversations before — and which demonstrate that Amanda really has no idea what she's talking about.
What exactly is the problem- for you- with religion? Why do you rail against a God who “doesn’t exist” and the “silly immature notions” of millions, no, billions of believers who personally have nothing at all to do with you?
Let's see: Amanda knows enough about what atheists say and write to conclude that some are "always offended," but not enough to actually know what any of their arguments are against religion or theism? That doesn't strike me as being even a tiny bit plausible. I could perhaps understand it if she found some arguments tough to comprehend or simply wanted certain arguments expanded upon, but that's not what we have here. Instead, we have someone asking generally what "the problem" is which atheists have with religion as if she hadn't a clue about atheists' anti-theological and anti-religious arguments.
I don't find that very difficult to believe. If she did know much about atheists' arguments she should know, for example, that atheists argue against ideas of gods and belief in gods, not against any actual gods which atheists don't believe in. Then again, the "question" here would apply equally well to anyone who is critical of any belief. No matter what idea you criticize, you'll be critical of something accepted by millions or billions "who personally have nothing to do with you." Amanda doesn't express any concern about people doing that in political or philosophical contexts. She personally doesn't have any problem doing it to atheists. For some strange reason, it's only a problem when atheists do it with religious theism. Why do you suppose that is?
You are thrown into a tizzy at any mention of church, God, religion, worship, prayer… Somewhat amusingly, this reminds “us” of a cinematic demon encountering holy water.
I've never met any atheists who are "thrown into a tizzy at any mention of church, God, religion, worship, prayer." I've met atheists who get annoyed at Christians that a person needs God to be moral, religion to be free, worship to be happy, or prayer to be health, but those are very different things. For some strange reason, Amanda doesn't take the time to explain what she means by "tizzy" or to provide clear examples of atheists who are "thrown into a tizzy" by anything. You don't suppose that might be because it would be difficult to find any instances where "tizzy" doesn't amount to pointed criticism and disagreement, such that Amanda would be revealed as the one who is overreacting?
Assuming all religion is false- it makes people happy. Certainly, it makes some people miserable, guilty and angry, but on a whole, it makes people happy. This is particularly true in difficult situations, such as the death of loved ones, or financial difficulty.
There are two issues here, and both are irrelevant. It's difficult to pack two total irrelevancies into a single question, but Amanda succeeds. First, any happiness produced by religion is irrelevant if religion is false unless one specifically promotes the value of happiness over truth. To put it another way, such a person would want to believe a comforting lie that makes them happy is better than an uncomfortable truth that might make them sad. Amanda doesn't do this, and that's hardly surprising given the degree to which Christian theology relies on the idea that Jesus is "truth." Any Christian trying to argue in favor of religion on the basis of the idea that truth is irrelevant could quickly be revealed as hypocritical; moreover, how could any reader believe anything written by such a person?
Even if we accepted that premise, though, there is still the issue that "religion makes people happy" doesn't preclude the possibility that being nonreligious makes people happy too — and maybe happier. This means that Amanda's attempt to defend religion as making people happy is irrelevant unless religion makes people more happy than being nonreligious and/or atheistic. Of course, she doesn't even try to claim that much less offer the slightest shred of evidence that it might be true. This means that her "argument" is completely lacking in even the slightest value.
I don’t care if other people believe. It only “gets me in a tizzy” when it interfers with my children and my rights.
My children have the right to a good education. A good education that includes PROPER science education not nonsense of intelligent design.
My children have the right to read books without the fear of people jumping down their throut. (as happened to my 10 year old for reading Harry Potter)
My children have the right to comprehensive sex education. To know how to protect themselves and make educationed reasoned decisions for their lives.
My children have the right to learn to think and not simply blindly follow authority.
And I as a parent have the right to believe the local school district will not interfer with my parental choices in raising my children.
I tried explaning to her. I should post this so she can see the effects thought meeting paper.
As I tried to explain to the responders on the actual post, which this author possibly did not make further effort to read. The purpose of the question is an attempt to understand why a specific type of atheist does, in fact, get worked up into a tizzy at the mention of simple and generic religious concepts.
You cannot spend much time on the internet without noticing this fact and if you choose not to acknowledge it I will certainly be tolerant of that attitude. As Samuel (above) mentioned in the commentary to the post, there are some very extreme fundamentalists (in any religion- he referred to Christianity) and although Samuel argues that these persons are not crazy, but representative of a genuine belief in the doctrines of the religion, I prefer to call them crazy and outside of the “true” boundaries of the religion. I believe these people are crazy. I have met many of these people and they have shown themselves to be otherwise unbalanced individuals. So, in that sense I can understand that you would argue this is not the general attitude of atheists and not representative of “atheism”.
However, my experience spending the slightest amount of time on the internet (and as the title indicates, this post was in reference to atheists on the internet) has shown only a very very small minority of people presenting themselves as atheists to be, as the author presents himself, without care.
“Care” may not have been the absolute appropriate word choice in my original post, but a contextual reading, I believe, would have indicated that the word was not in reference to any callousness or disregard, but rather to a lack of “tizzy”- a person, such as the author, who claims to not become enraged at the mention of all things religious. In other words, they don’t care about religion- period. It would appear that such interpretation would have been contrary to this author’s purpose in writing this article.
The author asks why I didn’t research atheism. Am I to assume that atheism is an entity like a government or political belief and can be examined and generalized? The doctrines of a given religion can certainly be discovered and analyzed, but if we maintain that atheism is not a religion (and that point is debatable as I’m sure all of you have heard) then where would I find the tenants of atheism? Certainly I could read silly arguments between atheists and theists all over and find out what both sides say when they are mad, or I could find debates between these parties explaining the logic and rationale behind their beliefs. Do you think I have never seen these things? How I could have lived my life without some wonderful youtube presentation of “Christian Slams Dawkins” or “Atheists Pown Seminary Professor”? I presume atheists to be individuals and not part of a collective group and this is why I have differentiated the type of person who acts in the way referred to and all the rest which have reasons for their beliefs and behaviors as numerous as they themselves are.
My question was directed fairly specifically toward those who are highly offended at the mere idea of religion or religiosity. Those persons whose opinions I am constantly bombarded by, but whom I cannot personally understand BECAUSE, as the author claims to be completely irrelevant, they are railing against a thing they deem untrue, pointless, non-existent.
It makes no logical sense to me- nor to most other theists (and certainly in the United States most of those are Christians). I was searching for a personal answer, a justification- if they wished to provide it- from those persons as individuals and not any argument for or against atheism.
The answer I was seeking was much like the one given by EE above- on a personal level. Of course, I don’t know if EE is even one of those persons I’m referring to as they tend to be very young men and very angry (and also obviously very loud).
Unfortunately, the majority of people seem incapable of leaving anything at a mere discussion. The internet is full of incivility and argument. Debate and discussion are two very different things. Nobody “wins” a discussion. Therefore I am unlikely to get many answers to the actual question.
Hey, author, thanks for making me kinda famous =P Hopefully I have been just obnoxious enough to spark further commentary on your article. I was kind of shocked by the effectiveness of wordpress in bringing people to my post. The “blog” has 2 entries and has only existed for 3 weeks- not to mention the fact that there was never (and still is not) any intention of making it a page about religion.
So, I’ve commented on my criticism…
This one is directed at EE. I have almost exactly the same concerns (I don’t have the children right now, of course, but I guess it’s unavoidable to worry about the prospect of them in the future). Maybe the issue is political more than theist v. atheist. I actually would define myself more along those terms than “religious”. I have had problems with certain aspects of organized religion my entire life. I also (was) an active church member for years- I’ve moved and not started anywhere else. Although I shared many of the same beliefs as the people there, there were differences among all of us. Many of the places where I differ from many other religious people are in the areas you mentioned. Although I am doubtful as to the usefulness of sex-ed, I never had any sex education in public schools (being a former army brat, we managed to move at just the right times that I completely missed the program in all of my schools), and have been well aware of the concepts taught therein for a very long time…
I think the concept of creationism in science classes is absurd and counter productive. I think sheltering kids from deemed “offensive material” to the ridiculous extreme of banning Harry Potter is equally ridiculous and sheltering to an extreme is dangerous overall.
I don’t believe that the government should have any say outside of the criminal realm as to the raising and care of children. I’ve been sometimes doubtful as to the benefits of mandatory public schooling in general, but unfortunately, the world is far from perfect. If left to their own devices, many parents wouldn’t even teach their children to spell their names. I also have a huge problem with blind acceptance of anything. As is probably very obvious, I’m a Christian, and I believe this to be a very personal thing. You cannot choose that path for anybody else and you cannot force the beliefs.
Soooo, in this sense, I am sometimes more than a little… miffed… by the opposing attitudes. I can certainly understand that response.
As I tried to explain in the post, which you perhaps did not make much effort to read, you do not show that atheists “get worked up into a tizzy at the mention of simple and generic religious concepts.” If that doesn’t happen, then the question itself is invalid.
They would say the same about you, and with equal legitimacy. Everyone picks and chooses which aspects of their religious tradition to emphasize; with religions as old and complex as Christainity, there’s lots of pick and choose from. People who pick the less savory aspects of a religious tradition don’t stop being genuine representatives of that religion.
Since when has “care” been legitimately defined as a “lack of tizzy’?
So, to care about religion at all is to get worked up into a tizzy? That’s what you imply here, and it’s absurd.
No, you are to assume that atheism is a concept which people have discussed and explored to some degree. If you have enough experience with atheists to claim that they “get worked up into a tizzy,” then you have enough experience with atheism to know this.
This assumes that something which can be researched must have “tenants” [sic]. That is incorrect.
Indeed, but unless such people exist then it’s an invalid question directed at no one.
Is being obnoxious really one of your goals? That would be sad.
amanda:
I also rail against astrology which I consider untrue, pointless, and has nonexistent effects. Astrology is a complete waste of time and treasure. Sure, it may make some people feel good, but that does not offset the harm it does.
I don’t much care if people wish to believe in gods and follow religious practices or not. Sure, I think it is a big waste of time, but it is their time to waste. What bothers me is when the theists try to suppress science, dumb down education, rewrite history, and try to convert this country into a theocratic one.
I don’t get “thrown into a tizzy” at the mere mention of religion. I do get upset at the blatant mis-characterization of atheists that is prevalent amongst the religious. I find it especially heinous when it is passive-aggressively implied. For example, I am currently working from a customer site and found it especially hard to hold my tongue today when one of them, talking to a co-worker, said that he was sending his daughters to a Christian private school so that they would get a “good moral foundation.” As a representative of my company, I feel it was my duty restrain, as I did, but I found the implication offensive. I have found that more often than not, religion is presented as the solution to exaggerated or non-existent problems, or differences of perspective disguised as problems, and in my opinion, it simply should not be anything of the kind. I, of course, don’t feel that the invented word of an imagined god can be the solution to anything, but if you believe as such, you should recognize that there are many who do not believe as you do, but respect your right to do so, and respect them by doing the same for them. Trying to force your own “morals” and standards on someone who doesn’t believe the same way you do is implicitly giving them permission to do the same to you, and personally, I don’t want to do that. I just want to live my own life without interference, and until I can do that, I’ll continue to speak out.
On a slightly related note, I can’t really say much about this without revealing more than I to, but I have found it surprising and refreshing that the least overtly religion of all of the customers I have dealt with are those that deal with death on a very real level on a daily basis. That alone gives me hope that we can eventually break this self-destructive cycled that religion has place our society in for so long.
Austin Cline said:
“To put it another way, such a person would want to believe a comforting lie that makes them happy is better than an uncomfortable truth that might make them sad.”
This sounds like the kind of mindset of a person who would want the government to cover up details of an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. “I don’t want to know that I’m going to die!”, they’d say. “That’d make me sad.” They’d rather live under the delusion that everything is OK.
It’s bizarre, but understandable, why people would be like that. But I still think that it’s immoral. Just because lies can make people happy in some circumstances doesn’t mean that the truth in those circumstances can’t also make people happy. In the above example, the people who think that they’re going to die might be touched that the government had the courage to be honest with them, and they might treasure their last days on earth more than they did before they knew.
The above quote also reminds me of a line in a Crowded House song There Goes God:
“Cos I’d like to believe that there is a god
Why sinful angels suffer for love
I’d like to believe in the terrible truth, in the beautiful lie” — as if the singer wants to believe the terrible truth because it’s true, and the beautiful lie because it’s beautiful.
“You are thrown into a tizzy at any mention of church, God, religion, worship, prayer… Somewhat amusingly, this reminds “us” of a cinematic demon encountering holy water.
Because, clearly, you can judge people’s entire lives by how they behave on the internet. Obviously, Austin has no life outside of this website, no job, no spouse, no friends, and no other interests. He just sits there all day long, frantically hitting refresh and waiting for new replies.
Clearly.
The author asks why I didn’t research atheism. Am I to assume that atheism is an entity like a government or political belief and can be examined and generalized? The doctrines of a given religion can certainly be discovered and analyzed, but if we maintain that atheism is not a religion (and that point is debatable as I’m sure all of you have heard) then where would I find the tenants of atheism?
Ho-hum another “atheism is just another religion!” assertion.
It takes five minutes on amazon to find books written by atheists that explain that particular atheist’s take on why he or she doesn’t believe in god. You’ll find much similarity in the thought among us, but it’s usually more than just philosophy. Many of us integrate information from other branches of science, history, biology, geology. It’s a gestalt of many things.
The problem is that you’re looking at it as if atheism is a religion. The only commonality between all atheists is the conclusion that a lack of belief in god is the only reasonable point to reach.
it’s a fact that confused theist religious people often question atheist about “why do you defy the good god and be the unbeliever?”, and it’s also a fact that atheist people also confused about how religious people would just nod at whatever their religious preachers say without really thinking about that clearly, or even protest about anything unjust within their preachings. i’m not an atheist, but neither religious, so everytime i hear annoying ridiculous preaching i have the urge to protest the preacher and start a debate … but of course my parents would stop me from doing it just to make sure the listeners pay respect to the (paid) preacher just because he/she is a preacher! what’s so holy about them?
I’d just like to see the reaction of these “why do you care what people believe?” (Xian) theists if someone tried to impose Sharia Law in the U.S. Do you think Xian theists would “care”–or not? How much of a tizzy do you suppose we’d see then? Simply trying to stop them from forcing their religion’s regulations onto everyone else–usually using our own government to do the job–makes US a problem in their eyes. If atheists were actually anti-religious as opposed to anti-theocratic, who knows what reaction we’d be seeing in the religious community? I can’t even imagine the backlash.
I’ve seen theists organize to try to stop films from being made available to the public; to stop books from being accessible; to control other people’s reproductive rights; to deny some groups the same rights and privileges as others in a discriminatory fashion. This isn’t the pervue of a few “nuts”–this is organized religious movements in the U.S. The Constitution be damned–let’s get Huckabee in there and make that document more godly (Xian).
When Amanda talks about the believers who “personally have nothing at all to do with you?,” I wonder which believers she’s referring to?
I only hear atheists speaking out against theists who believe they need to spread the word of God come hell or high water to everyone and anyone using whatever means necessary–and not taking “no” for an answer; you know, the theists who actually (to use Amanda’s term) “care.”
That which offends you, provides an opportunity to become stronger. It might even provide some smarts.
Amanda, as a general rule, people don’t seem to welcome news that threatens to upset a cherished apple cart. This is a human proclivity, and applies to believers and non-believers in gods and religions alike. Also, some people are simply of a more choleric temperment than others, irrespective of their stand with respect to theism or religion. This also is just a fact of human nature, widely accepted by believer and non-believer alike.
I don’t really know why, or ever whether, you seem to encounter so many “tizzy” predisposed atheists online, but I’d like to introduce two considerations. First, it’s become a fairly routine tactic on the parts of some believers to accuse their antagonists of “over-reacting” to this or that aspect of religion/theism in what strikes many in our baliwick as an attempt to portray virtually any opposition to their belief system/s as irrational, if not hysterical.
This can get irritating after a bit, and, ocassionally, I have no doubt that some atheists simply yield to the impulse to snap back. Second, there are apparently some rather sensitive souls on the believer side who seem to regard any doubting or criticism of their religious beliefs as intrinsically unfair and impolite, no matter how cool-headedly or carefully presented. This may sometimes result in a mischaracterization of intensity or zeal as “tizzy-like” behavior.
Nevertheless, regardless of the attitude, real or perceived, of individual atheists, many sources, online and off, are available to you if you have a genuine interest in what atheism is actually all about.
Amanda I’m curious to know, since you never took a sex ed class and have no children, what concepts are taught therein of which you are completely aware?
It seems like you are dissatisfied with the answers because they are not what you want to hear.
You know, down here in the antipodies a very large chunk of the population, about 20%, said “No Religion” at the last census. Many more didn’t bother to answer this question which more or less reflects the average Australian’s attitude . We have had as our leaders Anglican, (Episcopalian) R.C. Jew,Agnostic and Atheist.Methodist and Baptist. In my opinion the last two were the pits.Until very recent years no Politician would have raised the question of his religious affiliation. NOT until the American style evvangelical mob started to organise voting blocks. NOT until the “Crazies” tried to highjack the laid back philosophical approach of the average Oz. Down under this is one of the reasons why we Humanist/Skeptics/Agnostics/Atheists have become a little more defensive.
I say defensive as the attack against freethinking has been going on for millenia. The best defense is to attack
and when confronted by Nonhumanist/Unquestioning/Gnostic/
Theists then we have no alternative to striking back. I’ve had over eighty years to reach my position. I would hate to be living in the U S A where I know that my stance would mitigate against advancement in so many areas and lead to ostracism. One of the reasons I do not regret rejecting my opportunity to stay in Texas at the end of WW11. Australia has been the better choice, for me, by far.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
I doubt I will get the chance to return and review any answers Amanda may post to this, Which is a bit of a dissapointment.
But I did want to question the intent and understanding (or lack thereof) that went into the original letter that Austin Critiqued?
It honestly looks to me like an attempt to turn atheism into a religion. Or, perhaps that Amanda has no experience with dealing with logical philosophical concepts. To have made some of the massive bungles common to almost every theistic argument, one is left to wonder exactly what Amanda’s true understanding of the world around her is.
Apparently for something to be researched it must have a governing body or organisation?
I wonder where Amanda would go to do research on something like, say, SMS terminology? Or is that something that cannot be researched?
What about if one wanted to research Chicken life cycles?
I think perhaps a fairly brief period of research would answer almost all of Amanda’s questions, and she would have the satisfaction of having found her own answers without having to resort to asking a congregation of tizzy weilding, care-free, easily offended atheists such as ourselves.