Criticism of Religion: Just like Dominion Theology, Oppressive Dictatorship

Atheists are by no means perfect, but more and more the criticisms I see of atheists and atheists are founded at the most outlandish, most wild, most nonsensical charges imaginable. This can't be because legitimate concerns can't be found, but what possible motivation could these critics have? Can they just not identify any legitimate criticisms, or do they perhaps not find the legitimate criticisms "sexy" enough?

As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease and I suppose that people who make more outlandish and ridiculous claims get more attention. That's the only sane explanation I can think of for people who make charges against atheism and atheists which have absolutely no connection whatsoever to reality, common sense, or even common decency.

Case in point is Chainsaw Buffet -- I don't know which member is behind the Twitter account, but they sincerely believe that atheists who criticize religion for the purpose of changing people's minds is the same thing as attempts by Dominion Theology to create an oppressive, theocratic dictatorship.

Chainsaw Buffet: Richard Dawkins is just like Pat Robertson, except for his viewpoint. Hate-filled fundamentalist who thinks he has the only "truth" ...And Dawkins, among others, spews nothing *but* hate for religion and anyone who disagrees with his "truth".

Chainsaw Buffet: You obviously haven't read what he writes. Give me a moment to dig up some prime examples.

These are pretty serious and strong accusations. It would be bad enough to accuse someone of spewing any hate for others, but Chainsaw Buffet goes several steps further by asserting that Richard Dawkins spews nothing but hate -- and not just for religion, but for anyone who disagrees with him. I wouldn't accept that as true about even Pat Robertson and it's obviously false about Richard Dawkins.

What's significant here, though, is the fact that despite repeated requests, Chainsaw Buffet never bothered to even try to support the accusations. He promised he would, but never bothered. Yet, he insisted that he has never made any "dogmatic, arrogant claims" that he can't support. I've never seen anyone in so much denial about themselves, but then again I've never seen anyone make claims so contrary to reality either.

Chainsaw Buffet: Consider this: There are a not-inconsiderable number of atheists who make it their mission to actively tear down religion... this is, in its way, exactly the same thing as Dominionists who want to establish a theocracy. Neither side has proof of its... ...beliefs, and yet forces those beliefs on others.

Chainsaw Buffet: It's an arrogant claim to know an unprovable "truth" and an attempt to force that belief on others. We're not talking about... simply criticizing a religions excesses or breaks with reality. We're talking changing people's faith itself, which is what... too many people on the atheist end of things. It's the same kind of scariness as fundamentalists. ...it is the same thing. The only difference is the belief (or lack thereof, which is itself a belief of sorts).

So, trying to convince people to leave behind religion in favor of something else are just like violent theocrats who wish to establish a repressive religious dictatorship over the entire nation? That makes no sense. It's bad enough how often people try to draw false equivalencies between violent religious thugs and "mean" critics of religion, but this actually manages to go a couple of steps farther than most.

Trying to convince someone to leave behind a religious belief system isn't really any different than trying to convince them to leave behind some political or economic system -- something which happens all the time in our marketplace of ideas. People argue about a variety subjects all the time, always with at least the implicit intention of trying to change minds.

Funny how nobody objects to any this and never complains except when it comes to religion -- usually their own religion, but sometimes just religion generally. Conservatives who try to change liberals' minds aren't equated with Dominionists. Liberals who try to change conservatives' minds aren't equated with Dominionists. Muslims who try to convert Christians (peacefully, with arguments) aren't equated with Dominionists.

Why are atheists singled out for this special honor? Why are atheists described as trying to "force" anything on anyone simply for expressing their beliefs and critiquing other beliefs? Maybe it feels like force -- but only if the critiques are perceived as more legitimate than believers want to acknowledge. What I mean is, maybe it feels like "force" when a person feels compelled to change their mind by a strong critique backed by strong evidence, but are upset at finding themselves being drawn by evidence and reason away from comforting beliefs.

It may be, then, that this extremist reaction is simply an indication that atheists are more right than Chainsaw Buffet will admit. Instead of addressing those critiques directly, then, it's easier to just attack the messengers.

Chainsaw Buffet: What about when those arguments lead to nuts shooting people? Or to riots? Granted, that sort of thing comes from the right... more than the left, but I can easily see too many people doing that over religious/political arguments.

Maybe there was some important news that I missed, but I haven't heard about any atheist arguments leading to nuts shooting people. That sort of thing comes from the right -- and usually those who profess religion, like the preachers praying for God to smite others -- because they are the only ones who are engaging in that level of eliminationist, hate-mongering rhetoric.

Atheists' critiques of religion, no matter how mean or unjustified some may be, don't come anywhere close. Part of this is because those critiques just aren't as vicious as so much political rhetoric, no matter what apologists like to complain. Part of it is also the relative lack of power among atheists -- even if they did engage in violent rhetoric, they're in no position to do anything about it.

Chainsaw Buffet: As long as anyone claims to have a monopoly on a "truth" that is unfalsifiable, that's fundamentalist. ...We're talking fundamentalism in the sense of the actual way the word is used, not the outdated dictionary definition. ...Dictionary definitions always lag behind the real-world use of terms. And "fundamentalism" is used to mean "dogmatic" - suits.

Chainsaw Buffet: If it's an idea in which neither side can prove or disprove their core beliefs (the existence of God), the idea does [deserve automatic respect].

Chainsaw Buffet: ...the concept of "God" can neither be proven nor disproven. It's impossible to draw any conclusion, period. ...It is just as ludicrous to make the claim that God doesn't exist as it is to make the claim a God(s) exist.

So saying that a god exists or doesn't exist is ludicrous, and since that's a truth-claim that is unfalsifiable it's "fundamentalist," but it still deserves automatic respect. Ummm... huh? If it's "respect" to call a belief "ridiculous" and "fundamentalist," then how are atheists doing anything wrong? Setting aside the complete incoherence of Chainsaw Buffet, this suggests once again different standards for atheists than for everyone else. Atheists are in the wrong no matter what they say while others can say whatever they want about anything else while still being decent people.

And how, exactly, is this not anti-atheist bigotry? You can write to them to let them know what you think, either via Twitter or on their web site.