A good case in point is a member of the DeviantArt community who created an image which they claimed depicted what they felt was the "truth" about atheism and atheists — not unlike how fascists once claimed to depict the "truth" about Jews in their propaganda posters. This "artist," Krensada, lacks the skill of those propagandists and couldn't do anything more than show a solitary figure in a closed room to represent how an atheists has no more "rewards" than that because they can't believe in love. Can't believe in love? That's like saying Jews can't believe in generosity or blacks can't believe in honesty.
Krensada has since taken the image down in order to avoid violating the Terms of Service at DeivantArt, though the exact reasons given for why are very interesting. DeviantArt bans material which is "obscene, offensive, blasphemous, pornographic, unlawful, threatening, menacing, abusive, harmful, an invasion of privacy or publicity rights, defamatory, libelous, vulgar, illegal or otherwise objectionable," but Krensada is only acting in case the image is considered "offensive and objectionable."
The very idea that such an image might be abusive, defamatory, libelous, or vulgar clearly isn't an option. I'll bet Krensada would recognize a racist picture depicting blacks as incapable of honesty as being abusive and harmful. I'll bet Krensada would recognize an anti-Semitic picture depicting Jews as incapable of generosity as being defamatory or libelous. Somehow, though, the idea that it might be just as wrong to express such bigotry about atheists is deemed by Krensada as acceptable.
Of course, Krensada considers his own bigotry "truth," just like racists and anti-Semites have considered their bigotry to be truth:
My speech is still truth, and thanks to the way they treated me about my picture, I believe even more that Atheists are the largest group of close-minded people on earth.
Krensada claims, without any basis or evidence, that atheists cannot love... yet atheists are "the largest group of close-minded people on earth" for objecting to and complaining about this. Apparently, being "open minded" for Krensada means letting people spread all sorts of false and bigoted ideas about you and not uttering a peep of protest.
Are blacks "close-minded" when they complain about racist material? Are Jews "close-minded" when they complain about anti-Semitic material? Bigots behind such material could easily make such a claim because they are only trying to present speech which they think is "truth," and here come people acting all offended. Why shouldn't bigots be allowed to spread their hate?
Well, they are allowed to do so — but everyone else is allowed to object, too. It's not "close-minded" to object to bigotry, especially when that bigotry is aimed at you. It's not "close-minded" to object to malicious falsehoods spread by self-righteous people trying to make themselves look better. If anything is "close-minded," it's making claims about an entire class of people when you have no basis for those claims and then standing by the claims even after you've been corrected by people who know better.
but I don't care what they believe so long as they are willing to share their opinion without bashing me.
Oh, poor Krensada doesn’t like being criticized in public for his lies and bigotry. I guess it's just a matter of how atheists need to be more "respectful" and "tolerant" of bigots who want to spread their "truth" about how inferior and immoral atheists are. When Krensada creates images to spread hatred, falsehoods, and bigotry towards atheists that isn't "bashing" them, it's just telling the "truth" from his perspective. When atheists call him on how vile this is and how bigoted he is, they are "bashing" him rather than telling the truth about his behavior.
Is every bigot this thin-skinned, or is Krensada unusual in this regard? I'd have expected a bigot to be a bit more capable of withstanding criticism and attacks for their bigotry. I can't imagine a member of a White Supremacist organization, for example, whining about being "bashed" by non-racists.
My picture opened the doors to a lot of fact: they really did prove what they are really about: Christian hating mostly but anybody who believes in a higher power will do for their ridiculous, flawed beliefs.
I'm sure that there are lots and lots of people on DeviantArt who create and publish religious images. I'm sure that there are lots of people who create and publish specifically Christian images. Are they all getting complaints from atheists? No — indeed, I doubt that any atheists care. No one is criticizing anyone for expressing religious or theistic beliefs through text or images. Krensada is pulling out the self-pity card, but he's being deceptive by giving the impression that he was getting complaints simply because he "believes in a higher power."
Even worse is that Krensada's trying to portray atheists are "really" all about "Christian hating" when the only purpose of the image in question is to promote hate for atheists. Granted, the image doesn't specifically say "kill atheists," but the portray of atheists as inferior and less human than theists carries with it the necessary corollary that atheists shouldn't be treated as well as the rest of humanity. That, in the end, means hating them — a problem which atheists already experience widely, but which Krensada is trying to make worse.
I believe now that if Atheism ruled this country, that anyone who believed in a god would be dead or tortured into believing Atheism, or silenced.
So, when atheists object to and complain about ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous bigotry from people like Krensada, this "proves" that atheists are willing kill or torture anyone who disagreed with them? Perhaps it's too much to expect much logical coherence from a bigot, but the incoherence of this idea still strikes me as rather extreme. After all, Krensada is the one who is deliberately spreading vile falsehoods and hatred about people who disagree with him and that has consistently, throughout history, but an important factor in the suppression and even murder of despised groups.
I wonder if Krensada can identify anyone he knows who has been subjected to death threats simply for expressing their religious or theistic beliefs? I have, for writing about atheism. I wonder if Krensada can identify anyone he knows who has been tracked down to their home or place of employment to be subjected to complaints about what they have said in defense of religion or theism? I have, for being critical of religion. Who is it really that is most likely to be persecuted in America: theists or athiests?
PZ Myers has a copy of the image available, if you want to see it, and he writes:
I'm not offended by the picture — I'm just sickened by the smug ignorance of its creator. There are a lot of comments over there, too, all of which are getting hidden away by the host, which tells us who has got his eyes firmly closed in this debate. I think he needs to retitle his picture to "Self Portrait."
I have to agree. The art isn't good enough to be especially threatening, and Krensada is by far not important enough for his opinions to truly matter — nothing he says could possibly be offensive or complimentary to me. That doesn't change the fact that the art and the sentiments behind it are factually wrong, deliberately hateful, and spitefully bigoted. It's so sadly ironic that Krensada would have the temerity to say that he doesn't think atheists can love when he demonstrates, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how little love he is capable of showing towards people who disagree with him. A person who even understood love, never mind was capable of expressing it sincerely, would probably not promote such bigotry against entire classes of people.
I am not sure whether or not I am an “atheist”. I do not believe in a religious God, who is interested in each and everyone of us and who will provide an after-life, but the possibility of a Creator remains open. (I can supply quotes by Dawkins and Hawking where they also seem to leave the possibility open.) If we accept that the Universe had a beginning, there are only two possibilities – it was created by some external agency or it created itself. Both seem improbable and without any supporting evidence. Something very strange happened and whatever the certainties that militant atheists and militant believers display, no-one presently has a clue on the how and the why. I find debating with the two militant opposing extremes very similar.
In general, they are dogmatic, humourless and totally lacking in any significant scientific knowledge that might be relevant. They both ultimately depend on “faith”, which could be defined as believing something without any rational reason for doing so.
>Instead, there appears to be a regular need to insist that they — the bigot — are the ones who are being put upon or even discriminated against because of their bigotry.
This is because bigotry is fueled by fear. It’s no different than trying to help a wild animal. You can have all the best intentions in the world, but the animal can’t understand you, and if you try to splint it’s broken hind leg, it will attack you–and feel justified in doing so. It’s unjustified fear–but the animal is not capable of comprehending that. It simply feels threatened and is reacting in “self-defense.”
>I am not sure whether or not I am an “atheist”. I do not believe in a religious God, who is interested in each and everyone of us and who will provide an after-life, but the possibility of a Creator remains open.
Can you say, “I believe a god or gods exists”? If you can, you are a theist. If you can’t you are “a” [without] theism [belief in the existence of a god or gods]. In other words, you either believe a god exists, or you are an atheist.
If you believe only that a god could exist, you are still not claiming to believe a god does exist, and you are, still, therefore, “without theism”, and an atheist.
>Both seem improbable and without any supporting evidence.
Which is why we are lucky to have supporting evidence.
>Something very strange happened
Strange is a highly subjective term in this case. I would agree something happened, but I lack the frame of reference to call it strange. For all I know the universe might have gone through cataclysmic changes a billion times before this latest one. What I’m in now–the universe–might be a common yawn for the cosmos. I wouldn’t know.
>whatever the certainties that militant atheists and militant believers display…
Certainty is not applicable to existent reality. There is justified belief and unjustified belief. That is all. Certainties can be had in math and logic, but not when discussing existence. You can be as certain as you can be, but that’s the best anyone can manage.
>no-one presently has a clue on the how and the why
No one has a clue? So, in your view, Hawking isn’t basing his calculations on observations or data. He’s just making up numbers and other astrophysicists simply haven’t caught on yet that he has no data to base his calculations upon?
>totally lacking in any significant scientific knowledge that might be relevant. They both ultimately depend on “faith”, which could be defined as believing something without any rational reason for doing so.
I would agree that someone who lacks complete understanding of X can only believe X on faith as you define it.
With regard to the universe (all matter and energy), however, we all have experience with it–as we are all, quite literally, part of it and surrounded by it. So nobody can claim such comprehensive ignorance of the properties of matter and energy as to be accepting claims about it on faith unless those claims contradict one’s own observations or experience and are not founded upon reasonable beliefs or reasonable assumptions.
Change is constant. That appears to coincide with my observations in this universe, so I don’t doubt it as a physical law. It may be wrong or shown to be wrong one day; and on that day, I’ll be willing to adjust my view; but it will have to be illustrated to me that I do not see what I think I see.
Also, the Law of Conservation of matter and the same for Conservation of energy are observable. Again, they may fail one day, and on that day I can change my view.
I understand what it means to expand. I don’t doubt gravity exists and is a part of all things with mass.
In a universe where these laws and ideas are put forward, and where they align with personal observations of existent reality, I have no reason to doubt them as valid claims. So, when someone asks me to accept a perspective of universal origins that conflicts with them, I think it would be wise to ask, “why?” It would take the sort of “faith” you’re describing for me to believe such a perspective.
I take Big Bang to be possible. It has been shown mathematically to be possible, according to those who understand such equations.
Do I trust their calculations to be as accurate as they can be with the data at hand? Yes.
Is that faith as you defined it above? No.
I do have reason to believe astrophysicists can read and understand a mathematical calculation put forward by another astrophysicist, and judge whether or not it is sound.
If the forumla is determined to be sound by people who are informed about such data, it only means a thing is possible. I get that. And possible is not factual. I get that as well.
And so I don’t hold that Big Bang is “true.” But I do hold it’s more reasonable than making something up.
Making up beings that are not known to exist in order to “explain” universal origins, is not based on reason, any more than it is reasonable to believe there is a dragon in Carl Sagan’s garage (google Sagan’s writing if you’re not familiar with the Dragon in the Garage point of view–basically, if something does not or cannot manifest, it is no different to those observing, as “nothing”–and to express or believe otherwise is unreasonable).
God cannot be examined, and is therefore an undefined variable. Saying “god did it” is simply saying “X did it” and claiming this explains something when, in fact, it explains nothing. It isn’t reasonable to even call it an explanation until god can be examined. If we can’t “solve for X”–then X is an unknown. And on what grounds can “I don’t know what [i.e., X] caused Y” even be labeled as an “explanation” of what caused Y?
If you believe in any sort of god, you’re a theist; if you don’t believe in any gods, you’re an atheist.
Or it wasn’t created at all.
What is a “militant” atheist?
Question: What is a “militant” atheist?
Answer: An atheist who speaks.
Quote: God is a poor explanation to a very important question.
(Made that up yesterday, but guess I’m not the first).
“I believe now that if Atheism ruled this country, that anyone who believed in a god would be dead or tortured into believing Atheism, or silenced.”
The word atheism means a lack of belief in gods. People who lack this belief are atheists. Nothing more, nothing less.
The word “Atheism” means nothing. People who believe in nothing are called “Atheists”. These people hate theists so much that they want to kill, torture or silence them.
I’m actually glad that he capitalises the initial letter. It’s important to make the distinction.
I left a comment on one of Krensada’a journal entries in an attempt to reason with him…all he did was block it. Is he really so afraid to hear opinions that contradict his? It’s so depressing to watch someone completely shut themselves off from logic and reason. I guess I was honestly hoping that my words would make a difference, but I guess I should have known better.
Interesting – if remarkably unoriginal comment about athiests ruling the country.
I’m curious about just what k9_kaos has ever seen or experienced in the way of atheists killing, torturing or otherwise forcing theists to ‘convert’ or silence them?
Perhaps I missed the headlines or something but I have never once heard of someone being beaten, tortured or killed because they weren’t atheist.
Can anyone point me too these events? Apparently my education about the world is lacking there …
As an atheist, I may despise the attitude, actions, bigotry etc of theists (individually or in groups) but I like to think I am adult and civilised enough to be able to differentiate that distaste and disgust for their actions from hatred for them.
The original artist’s email is krensada@gmail.com this was found on his website: http://www.farmillia.com
I’ve tried being reasonable with him and he explicitly shuts his ears and is unwilling to talk about it.
Have at it!
Tom, I believe that k9_kaos was making fun of Krensada’s inappropriate capitalization of “atheist”, making it a proper noun, which it is not. Just a bit of sarcasm mistaken for sincerity, is all. It’s far too easy to mistake one for the other when all we can use to convey our message is text.
Tom T.,
I think k9_chaos is being sarcastic when he said that atheists were killing, torturing, and murdering people since atheism doesn’t drive anyone to do these things.
Stalin is often used an example as an atheist who killed millions of people by theists. While he was an atheist, he killed people out of political motivation since he thought they threatened his power base; a typical trait of most dictators who tend to kill people because they are paranoid of losing their power.
Thanks, I was a little concerned that since I quoted Krensada people might think that I agreed with him! My point was that many Christians are woefully ignorant about what atheism is and seem to think that it is some sort of belief system or ideology that is the root of all evil, which it is not.
This is going far better than I had anticipated.
Strangely enough, he says he was an athiest for 19 years before he converted, and that he truly understands atheism and why it is evil, so to speak.
Huh. Bet you a hundred bucks on the validity of that statement.