Atheist quackery? (long)

[Anymouse]

Okay so the subject line is a little sensationalist. But it does in fact cover something that has been bothering me today.

First, those who have heard of me here are aware I am not an atheist (though I find myself posing the question to myself whether I am actually a Wiccan in belief or I find more comfort in the label than the label atheist. Actually I hate labels; they are scratchy on the back of my neck. You may see my deconversion story here someday.)

Atheist quackery. The thought arose in my mind early this morning as I was writing an E-mail to a friend. (A real friend, not an Internet acquaintance.) She sent me an article from an "alternative medicine" Website pillorying a meta-analysis in The Lancet claiming the efficacy of influenza vaccine is only 1.5%. Its writer used words in the article like "shocking" and "absurd" and lots of scare quotes and bold capital type to make its alleged point.

I spent the better part of an hour and a half composing a response to this obvious quackery. I won't go into the details of that (unless someone actually asks me about it, in which case I will go back and post my E-mail) but it brought to mind something else I have done in defending rationality and the atheist position on such things as the demand for proof of a claim (about anything, not just a god).

On a Yahoo!group my wife is a moderator of but no longer participates in on the subject of alternative medicine, there was a fellow on that group making all sorts of unsupported claims of great health benefits achieved for his son by infusing him with massive overdoses of various dietary supplements.

Rather than go after the fellow's claim, I went after a specific part of it, attacking his position on Vitamin C. (A Linus Pauling convert he is, amongst other things.) I spent two days researching an answer to his claims, and posted quite a long message in response to him, essentially annihilating his position about Vitamin C. This forum is a public forum: far more people read the fellow's statements, and my legitimate questions about them, than just us two.

Now I could give a hoot about nutritional quackery, other than the other moderator of that group is my wife's ex-hub and my supervisor at my publisher. But the response was one I have often seen by atheists posting an answer to a question they have heard five hundred times before (or a variant thereof).

Here comes the scare quotes, bold, and caps. "I don't have time to read this, I'VE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION FIVE HUNDRED TIMES BEFORE."

I don't troll nutritional quackery Websites, I have better things to do. So his disingenuous answer gave me two things: on one hand I had a passel of evidence indicating his position on nutritional supplements was hogwash, based on only one supplement. On the other hand, I had his response: I don't have time for you.

Which brings me (finally) to my revelation. Atheists do this too. My term for it is "atheist quackery." Not that atheism is quackery. A good number of atheist responses to open questions on public forums like Yahoo! Answers and Experience Project to a question, say, "I've heard atheism is nothing more than an angry religious view," get the answer "I have answered this five hundred times already, I don't have time to answer it again."

Many atheists claim they are interested in logical argument and supportive evidence. If I am a person to whom this concept is new (atheism=religion), I got it from somewhere, either by thinking of it on my own, or because someone spent their time to present that position to me. If I am posing that question to an open forum, then lots of other people are reading it, and your answer.

If your answer is "I don't have time for this," you have just conceded the issue to the religious apologist. Not only have you conceded the point, others who are only lurking and may never post a single thing on the subject has also seen the arguments presented for "atheism=religion" and your response of "don't waste my time with this."

Religious folk win people over to their point of view one person at a time. They are quite willing to spend their time and effort to do that, time and time again.

Even if, for example, they have heard the question "How do you know the Bible is the Word of God?" five hundred times, they will answer it the five hundred first. (You might not like the answer they give to it, but they will give an answer. They -always- give an answer.)

They believe without reservation their position. If as an atheist you believe yours to be true, why will you not defend it? Why is a Wiccan going in to such questions defending the atheist requirement for proof and evidence?

If you truly have no time, my atheist wife has an answer. Write an answer and save it to a file. Rather than give the answer "I've answered this question five hundred times already," or "Go read a book by Richard Dawkins," take your previously composed, non-patronising answer and <ctrl A"> <ctrl "C"> and <ctrl "V"> it as your answer. Less keystrokes too.

(Sorry, the first trick-or-treaters dared come to the witch's house in this little village of 142. I'm amazed - they know me quite well and I have only lived here six months. I'm back now.)

When you post that answer, even to a troll you've seen on countless forums before, the answer "quit wasting my time" is handing the third party who may never post a thing the same answer. And like the religious, the atheist is only going to win over the religious to their own point of view one person at a time.

Religious people are not going to go to a Dawkins revival meeting any more than atheists are going to go to a Baptist one. Those sorts of fora are "preaching to the faithful." The battle for hearts and minds in the cause of atheism is fought in the trenches, one heart at a time, and anything less will simply have all atheists painted as quacks for the words of one that says "I have no time for this."

James. Joyous Samhain.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nutbags will be nutbugs regardless of their religious bent right? As long as there isn't some god involved it hardly seems like something that atheism would necessarily exclude.

Hardcore Ancient Aliens nuts are atheists, for example.

As are many of the peddlers of magic potions and the explanations behind their "use and effectiveness".

That being said, I wasn't aware that atheism was a hearts and minds thing. I don't think many of the posters here would feel entirely comfortable with the idea of proselytizing in any manner similar to such as we have become accustomed to by theists.

[Phaedra]

This isn't a hallmark of atheism. It's a hallmark of humanity.

[Anymouse]

I wasn't aware that atheism was a hearts and minds thing. I don't think many of the posters here would feel entirely comfortable with the idea of proselytizing in any manner similar to such as we have become accustomed to by theists.

Sure it is a hearts and minds thing. You are trying to educate people. To do so, you have to overcome intellectual and emotional resistance to change. That requires more than an answer "I don't have time."

Compassion, concern, and empathy are not the province of only religious persons. They are the province of humans. And when a human with a real question poses it and gets a slap in the face for an answer (a humorous nod to your old avatar) they will remember it. They will tell others.

Christians -always- have time to "explain" their belief. Always. Every minute an atheist does not, that is another minute a Christian can fill with their own belief.

[thesummerqueen]

Geez...being nice to (and trying to spread knowledge to) believers of any sort would just be too accommodating...

[Anymouse]

Geez...being nice to (and trying to spread knowledge to) believers of any sort would just be too accommodating...

I am not suggesting standing on a streetcorner and "preach the Gospel of Nothing," nor am I suggesting going door-to-door handing out tracts by Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins with little cartoon drawings of people not burning in hell.

I am simply suggesting that when someone poses a question, it get a better answer than "go away, you bother me, son." Even when the troll posts it for the fiftieth time; others who are not trolling are reading those questions and answers too.

[Phaedra]

I am not suggesting standing on a streetcorner and "preach the Gospel of Nothing," nor am I suggesting going door-to-door handing out tracts by Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins with little cartoon drawing of people not burning in hell.

I am simply suggesting that when someone poses a question, it get a better answer than "go away, you bother me, son." Even when the troll posts it for the fiftieth time; others who are not trolling are reading those questions and answers too.

Screw that. I'm too busy lying, cheating, stealing, fornicating, and killing to be bothered answering their inane questions.

[thesummerqueen]

No no no, dear...it's why I wrote my "Dear Atheist Forums" letter. The above crack was something of an inside joke.

I'm in complete agreement with you. I try to hold to Phil Plait's Don't Be a Dick speech...though I will say I get overly exhausted by idiocy as much as the next person.

[Anymouse]

No no no, dear...it's why I wrote my "Dear Atheist Forums" letter. The above crack was something of an inside joke.

I'm in complete agreement with you. I try to hold to Phil Plait's Don't Be a Dick speech...though I will say I get overly exhausted by idiocy as much as the next person.

My apologies, Miss Summer. I get exhausted by it too. But at the same time a flippant answer doesn't help much to such questions; they may very well be valid questions to the one who poses them.

My grandmother (an atheist) used to say "If you have nothing nice to say about someone, it is better not to say anything at all."

[Minimalist]

I get tired of repeating myself to the fuckheads, though. I'm not trying to win a humanitarian award. Every so often one of the motherfuckers is going to catch me on the wrong day and get both barrels.


Shit happens.