For a few years we hosted the family gathering for turkey day, nearly 30 people crowded into a small house! We were the only atheists, and out. All others were either fundamentalist or at least culturally catholic.
My wife's cousin told her daughter to be careful talking to us as we couldn't be trusted not to be nice to them. (strange, they accepted our invitation!)
Later, that daughter remarked to my wife that we weren't at all nasty, as her mom had said, and in fact were nicer than some of her church-friends.
I figure as long as I'm setting a better example of clean living than most of them, and that's an easy task, there's not much to say or defend.
[original post]
So acting like the sort of decent, moral, kind, helpful person which so many Christians insist that only Christians (or perhaps at least religious theists) are capable of, an atheist can immediately and directly disprove some common myths about atheists. We can offer all sorts of intellectual, reasoned arguments against these popular myths, misconceptions, and lies, but sometimes we can do more to disprove them by simply living in a manner that directly contradicts them.
Have you ever set a "good example" as an atheist in a manner which surprised others, maybe causing them to reconsider some of their assumptions about what atheists are like? Just how little have you had to do in order to set a good example and disprove the assumptions people made about you because of your atheism?
Not only by “acting like the sort of decent, moral, kind, helpful person” but then refraining from holding it over others. I think’s whay I find the mosty hypocritical of theists (and Republicans) is that they constantly tell you how to behave, and hold themselves up as an example of that behaviour. Of course, they continually seem to get caught with their pants down (literally as well as figuratively) and then attempt to weasel their way out.
So, “acting like the sort of decent, moral, kind, helpful person” as well as not lording that behaviour over anyone sets an even better example.
I totally agree with Larian and Mike.
One recent example was that a relative of mine was “shunned” by her family. An ex-Jehovah’s Witness, her children would not interact with her except at a bare minimum (they had an obligation to make sure she was OK, as their mother, but couldn’t “socialize” with her beyond that). She rarely saw or spoke to them (all for their part—she would have gladly welcomed them at any point during all of this and was painfully tortured by their actions—which is exactly how shunning is supposed to work). She was also barred from seeing her grandchildren, and only saw one that was born during this period for literally a few minutes at a public function where she happened to be in her son’s family’s presence.
Like Mike’s turkey day story, this loving, kind, and generous woman was treated like someone who would be dangerous for children to be around—like one might treat a child molestor. I had the opportunity to tell her that I found it emotionally abusive, couldn’t see any reason to think she’d be dangerous around children, and that I would never treat her or any other relative in this fashion. Meanwhile, I’ve done my best to include her and show her support. Her own family has “come around” somewhat over the years, but it’s shameful they would subscribe to a belief system that encourages this type of emotionally abusive and co-dependent behavior (trying to emotionally manipulate someone) over a clash if differences of ideas—where there is no real, honest harm to demonstrate from interaction with this woman. I had to tread carefully, since she is still religious and still defends their actions on religious grounds. But I still do my part to make sure to always be available to her and to treat her as part of the family—she is included in every get-together at our home.
As Austin points out—just being decent to her seems to be enough to demonstrate my kindness, ironically _over and above her own religious family members_, but as Larian says, to point that part out would only lessen my gesture and make it look like a petty competition.
I want to say also that I rallied successfully, with others, to take on some charitable endeavors with an atheist group I am a part of. I have always engaged in charitable work, and wanted an opportunity to do so secularly (which isn’t always as easy as it sounds). I have seen that most members are motivated by a sincere desire to help others, and do so proudly in a secular fashion. However, I have also come across an attitude of “let’s do something good to show those theists we can beat them at their own game,” and I’m extremely turned off by this. I was invited to take part in a group effort to engage in charitable work recently by a fellow atheist, which I thought was an excellent idea, but it became sour to me very quickly when I read the message further and learned the location and the time were chosen strictly because a religious group also engages in the exact same effort at the same time/place. It was clearly promoted as a “let’s show those theists we can do just as good,” and it really just made me, personally, ill to think of using desperate people in need as pawns in some sort of pissing contest with theists about who can be more kind-hearted. I was, out of conscience, not able to participate; and frankly, if I did participate, I might have been tempted to ask the theist group if I could participate on their “side” of this to demonstrate that it really is about helping people and not about using those who need help as a stepping stone on my way up the ladder to demonstrate to others what a really generous atheist person I am. It really just turned me off.
But to end on an “up” note, I still do charitable work with other atheists under the atheist banner, and I do some other personal work on my own, but my desire to help other people will never intentionally be for publicity purposes, but, rather, for purposes of sincere generosity.
Strictly speaking, it’s wrong to judge all atheists differently simply because of the behavior of an isolated individual
And lets be fair, it’s wrong to judge all theists differently simply because of the behavior of an isolated individual.
I have many christian friends, some more fundamentalist than others, in fact I have probably more theist friends than athiest or agnostic friends. All of them are aware of my opinion of religion and all are aware of my atheism.
Yet in no way does it prevent them from inviting me over to their homes for celebrations of any sort, including thanksgiving, nor does it prevent them from coming to my house for the parties I throw.
They have learned to accept that I dont bow my head at their table when they say their prayers and they accept that I dont offer any prayers at my table. They dont proselytize to me and I dont berate them.
So perhaps I may have set a “good example” who knows, or perhaps even, no proof was needed to these people that I am a decent person.
I don’t see why an atheist can’t be left alone to be just another human being with very human virtues and vices instead of being expected to set examples which, in itself, can be a very tricky business. I also don’t recall too many atheists lecturing god-believers about the merits of atheism unless confronted.
More often than not it is the chest-thumping theists that I see lecturing atheists about their own moralistic lifestyle and praying for their salvation. Which is why it gives this old heart no end of pleasure when they so vocally condemn “sins” like homosexuality and adultery and then are caught in airport lavatories, in the company of prostitutes, sleeping with the wives of their employees and hiking the Appalachian trail.
It is also interesting to see how they nonchalantly exempt themselves from the punishments they want to inflict on others for those very same “sins”.
Not that it makes any difference because shamelessness and hypocrisy seem to be integral parts of the characters of these self-declared paragons of morality.
I don’t see anyone suggesting that atheists should be expected to set examples.
Have you ever set a “good example” as an atheist in a manner which surprised others, maybe causing them to reconsider some of their assumptions about what atheists are like?
Well, that is how I interpreted this sentence anyway. It is also unclear to me why an atheist setting a good example should surprise anyone or why should it even matter at all.
The question of whether one has ever “set a good example” is not the same a statement that atheists are or should be expected to set a good example. The question means only and exactly what it says: has this ever happened to you?
Why would setting a good example surprise anyone? That should be quite clear: atheists are so despised and distrusted that even basic decent behavior is surprising to some. When people are consistently taught that some minority is evil, untrustworthy, etc., they will come to expect the worst. So of course they will be surprised when they don’t find it.
Why would “it” matter? I’m not sure what “it” is. If you mean, why would it matter for people to suddenly discover that atheists are decent human beings and not the evil, amoral, nihilistic monsters they have been taught to expect? It matters because such assumptions lie behind the discrimination and bigotry which atheists are subjected to.
>It is also unclear to me why an atheist setting a good example should surprise anyone or why should it even matter at all.
Would that were reality and not just hypothetical. I’ve heard more times than I care to count how no atheist can be moral–that atheists don’t “believe” anything is wrong. I’ve also heard more often than I should have how nobody can really love another human if they don’t first love god.
It’s ill, but not nearly as rare as it ought to be. Most Christians will pay lip service to the idea that you can “not believe in god” and still be a good person. But push comes to shove and they will admit they don’t see how you can be moral if you don’t subscribe to god or the Bible.
I understand this is a generalization and not all Xians fall into this category–but more do than one would believe. Until I began actually putting myself in a place to really dialogue with a wide range of believers, I had no idea really how many people (more than I’d have thought) subscribe to this sort of thinking.
I had no idea really how many people (more than I’d have thought) subscribe to this sort of thinking.
Well, those who can keep believing in a figment of imagination like a god or gods without any evidence have their minds already made up and trying to change them with mere facts is an exercise in futility, as far as I am concerned. So if the atheists give any credence to what they think then it is their own fault.
Interestingly enough, a theist can commit the most heinous crime but no one is going to blame his religious belief for that.
Being true to one’s logic and reason against all hostility is a heavy burden indeed but it comes with the territory and better men and women than us have carried that burden and our civilization is indebted to them for that.
DaveInLV:
While I believe I know what you’re getting at with the idea of a close-minded individual, I have to say that I have seen people re-evaluate their stance on a particular stereotype after they meet someone in that group that they actually don’t dislike.
I think it tends to work most often in situations where the person is forced to meet the other in person, rather than from a distance. But I’ve seen people significantly soften up.
However, this will only occur if atheists get out there, make their atheism open and unapologetic, and be the people they are. If the only experience a person has with an “atheist” is:
1. His minister’s caricature from a pulpit.
or
2. Reading about a lawsuit where an atheist wanted to have the 10 commandments stripped off the court steps,
that person isn’t going to have a very positive view of atheists or atheism.
This is important because we are a minority and we are extremely defamed and vilified. This makes us an easy target in many regards.
I live in Texas. Our school board just finished trying very hard to undermine science education by inserting language into textbooks that would have cast particular science in a misleading light. This same group now has appointed a member of “Wall Builders” (google that for a scary time) to oversee our Social Studies texts as an “expert” (and, no this expert has no other credentials). Also, theists in Texas have promoted an “abstinence mainly” sex education agenda that has left us with one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation. We just had “In God We Trust” carved into our Legislative chambers last year. We added “Under god” to our pledge as well that same year. And on and on and on.
We are a politically weak and disorganized bunch and theists take full advantage of steamrolling atheists at every turn, because they can–and only a handful of representatives, and a good number of justices (thankfully) will even try to speak on our behalf.
While we do nothing to offset the defamation and victimization we are subjected to on an ongoing basis–it won’t quit. We have to stand up and be proud, and put our best foot forward, or we’re shooting ourselves in the foot.
In some ways, I can imagine it is like being black and seeing black youths on the nightly news invovled in crime. If I am black and know I’m a good person, but that many nonblacks consider me the number one public enemy face–I will cringe every time I see someone in my demographic feeding into those negative stereotypes. The only power I really have in that situation is to do what I can to show I’m black and NOT a criminal or a bad person–and encourage others in my community to stand proud and be on their best.
I don’t know how else to impact social judgments.
While I haven’t come across the “If you don’t believe in God, you can’t be good.” argument as much as Tracieh has, I’ve seen it quite a few times. And living in the bible belt, I suspect that had I looked more, I would have seen this view even more.
Also, apparently I was an example (not that I was trying to be) of a person who was atheist and good when I was in college. I went to a small Methodist liberal arts college. Not that conservative, but there was a significant group of serious, traditionally-minded christians there. Some of my christian friends told me that they had used me as such an example in heated debates among christians over whether you could have good atheists.
Later, in my academic job, one of my colleagues, someone who was reasonably intelligent and had to all appearances competent academic training, when he heard I was an atheist, asked why I would bother to do good if I didn’t think there was a god. I tactfully refrained from saying that I would have thought that someone of his intelligence and training would be better able to think this through. Instead, I said that being good was reason in and of itself. That if you believed that there is a god who is all good, all wise, etc., that that might be an advantage in sorting out morality if you could figure out which communication really was from god (or gods) since most, if not all, claims about what god says are contradicted by others (except for obvious ones that are necessary for some kind of social harmony). But even if god exists, not having a dependable way to sort out god’s advice obviously is a major problem. I added that to say god is good, you had to have some sort of logically independent moral standard and that obeying god because he/she/it/they were more powerful is just bowing to authoritarianism, which might be prudent if there is such a deity, but is not really that morally admirable. This guy at least didn’t doubt my sincerity, but still seemed puzzled on an emotional, gut-reaction level as to why I wouldn’t be completely selfish and immoral.
On the other hand, I have tons of christian friends of various sorts who most likely think I’m mistaken on the existence of god issue, but seem to think I’m a pretty decent human being.
>why I would bother to do good if I didn’t think there was a god
Yes, this is the root of their question in a nutshell; however, I run into it more as a statement than a question. Even when it’s “asked,” it’s asked in such a way as to be rhetorical and not a sincere question. In fact, I recently had a discussion where a theist proceeded to tell me about all my beliefs and why I believe what I do. When I insisted this person was wrong, and even pointed out a few of the more glaring fallacies, he quickly backed down and said, “That’s why I’m asking…” However, nothing he had said had been phrased as a question–and I pointed out that “You haven’t asked me anything yet–you’ve simply asserted what I believe and why…and you’re wrong.”
Christianity is a system of bribes and threats linked to a “divine” fiat system of rule. As I said in another post, if god tells you to rape a 12-year-old, and you refuse to comply, you’ve sinned, but you’ve acted morally correctly.
Ned, you probably already know this, but the dilemma you’re invoking is Euthyphro–who asked what you’re describing:
Is morality simply fiat decree from god? Or is god beholden to morality?
It’s really a central question and a very important one. If there is no morality outside “whatever god says”–then raping 12 year olds can be moral–all it takes is a decree from god to make it so. However, when people try to back into the idea that “god would never tell you to rape a 12 year old,” they’ve destroyed the explanatory function of god as a morality-giver. If there is a morality that we can clearly see, that it’s wrong to rape a 12-year-old, and we can judge god would be wrong to instruct such an action, then morality does not come from god, but rather morality exists and we can access it directly, and god is beholden to it. That is, god cannot/would not instruct actions that do not align with this morality–and we can be assured that since X is wrong, god would never instruct it. God is, then, just as subject to, and aware of, this morality as humans. And in this case humans are able to judge commands of god as moral or immoral.
The rebuttal to this is that god may have benevolent divine and secret reason why it’s a good idea to rape 12-year-olds that we, in our puny human brains, cannot understand at this time. This then undercuts our moral judgment, and we’re back to the question of: If god tells you to rape a 12-year-old, how do you know–since you judge the action as immoral–whether god is instructing immorality or whether he has “good cause” to instruct such an atrocity?
What would be “good cause” for an all-powerful god to instruct child rape? Since god can achieve his goals magically and is not restricted to any one line of action in order to get ‘er done…? That is, whatever god could do by having me rape a 12-year-old, he could also do without having me rape a 12-year-old–because he’s god. So, how would the rape be justified as necessary or best if the same ends can be achieved without it?
But in the end, if god can instruct atrocity and we can’t know if it’s atrocity or for some higher good (that could be achieved just as well by a god without committing atrocities?), then on what grounds can we label god “good”? How can we judge if we call _any_ action by a god a “good” action, or assume it’s good even if we have no way to know? If god were malevolent, and that was our stance, how would we ever know?
Thanks Tracieh. While generally familiar with your points (and well said, by the way. I always enjoy reading your posts and sometimes get a point that I hadn’t thought of before or something I didn’t know.), I didn’t know the name of the Euthyphro dilemma. The religious folks who I talk to most about this kind of thing tend not to be biblical literalists, which gets them out of some of these problems, but trades them for a host of others (most of which are gone over on this site on a fairly regular basis).
Great post Tracieh! Although, to give it more impact, instead of using the example of raping a 12 year old boy (I don’t recall that ever explicity being said in the bible, although a lot of Catholic priests seem to think so), how about “Dashing an enemy’s baby against the rocks”? That way you can cite Psalm 137 as a concrete example of an immoral and deplorable action that god endorsed.
Just a thought (it’s one I use, and drives sertian fundamentalists into a tizzy).
Hi Larian:
The most atrocious example I’m aware of is the Hebrew genocide against the Amelakites in 1 Samuel 15:
>”I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ”
> 4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
> 7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves [b] and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
> 10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 “I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.
So, god instructed absolute genocide and infanticide (not just little kids, but be sure and kill all the babies, too–need to make sure he got that clear to the Hebrews). And when Saul didn’t utterly slaughter every living thing–including _animals_(?), god is “grieved” by that? What sort of monster god are we talking about here? When a person does this, don’t we generally call them a war criminal or subhuman or monstrous, heartless, cruel, merciless…? But if god says go for it–go for it.
Not to mention the little gem where Samson asks god to give him strength to collapse a building–killing a couple thousand people, and the Bible says god helped him do it…Hmm. Where have I heard about someone invoking god to help him kill a few thousand infidels by taking down some buildings…?
Forgot to mention that Samson also killed himself in that building collapse that killed those thousands of infidels…it just gets more and more analogous–doesn’t it?
Yes, Tracieh…
“and on, and on, and on…anon?” in that oh-so wonderful (and “spiritually uplifting”?) Babble…erm…Bible:
[Again, courtesy of good ole Skeptic's Annotated...some more inspiring tidbits?]:
“Cruelty and Violence in the Bible”:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
Hey guys…I mean…NO one can compare to the (imaginary) Almighty, when it comes to totally, off (and through?) the wall, unjust scapegoating and utterly insane violence on a humongously grand, and over the top, scale…
NO?
It’s really rather hard (mind warping?) to imagine how totally bonkers the writers of all that claptrap must have been.
What!…the Steven Kings of the ancient world?
[cue Jack Nicholson (ala "The Shining"):
"Heeere's Jehovah!"]
Excellent posting, Tracie…as per usual!
By the way; if I may be so bold to ask…I’m curious…when does Atheist Experience start broadcasting from the newly renovated studio?
Any imaginary image is idolatry Almost all religious belief celebrates one form or another of idolatry.
I recently found a cane on the road. It had a name on it. I was very near an elder care facility.
I was riding my bike and wearing my t-shirt with “ATHEIST” written in huge letters on it.
I walked into the facility, and asked if they had an “Ethel X” there. The woman behind the glass looked up, read my shirt, and had a horrified look on her face. She rather rudely told me that it was none of my business, and that the privacy of all residents was strictly controlled.
I then held up the cane I was holding, and said “well, I guess I won’t be able to return this cane I found outside to her, if she’s living here. I guess I’ll have to put an add in the paper to return it.”
You should have seen and heard her suck up and flatter me after that. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but . . .
Years ago, I worked at a job with exactly one black employee, who we will call Babs, because that was her name. This workplace had exactly two atheists — myself, and a guy we’ll call Dan, for reasons that are by now familiar.
One day, Babs told Dan and me that she knew we were both Christians, because we were the only two people in the workplace who didn’t mistreat her because of her race. We told her thanks for the compliment, and we were sorry that others mistreated her, but that the two of us were atheists.
She thought we were pulling her leg. We never did convince her that we really were atheists.