If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

Having favorite dodges is a bit odd, if you ask me. ... Atheism makes no claims. Neither does theism. They are words for states of mind, ...You seem to have a deep human need to justify your characterizations of atheists by grasping at flimsy straws.

Don't worry too much; I have my own favorite dodges for when I desire grease to slither away from a discomfiting scene.  

I admit treating atheists en bloc is a deliberate oversimplification. I did it to avoid having a separate section to address each type of atheist, of which your post introduces "hard skeptics" and so on. I'll allow it's doubtful whether a state of mind actively presses a claim, although it does rest on implicit assumptions the mind makes about the world. Yet what's wrong with making a claim?  If atheism (as philosophy rather than mental state) indeed makes no claims, then it's not very interesting.

There's nothing wrong with making a claim. But atheism and theism can no more make claims than basketballs can, and atheists as a demographic don't have any claim in common but the claim that they are atheists. You're right, atheism and theism are not particularly interesting in themselves. Apparently you don't find our claims, opinions, and thought processes as individuals interesting enough to ask about. I think you gather that asking us to speak for all atheists is akin to asking someone you run into at a particular house of worship to speak for all theists. Have you considered asking about freethought, secular humanism, or the like?

---

Likewise, the minimum claim for Christians holds that Jesus is the resurrected son of God. Belief in a 6-day creation, or in a lake of fire for the unsaved, or that the King James English bible is literally word-for-word from the mouth of God, are all optional. I frequently see Christians lumped together as if all believed these extra things.

Sometimes people don't make distinctions that they should. How does that kind of sterotyping work out when you do it to their face? The logic of some of your comments seems to be that if other people do it, it's okay for you to do it, too.

---

In response, I can choose to view that in one of two ways: as unfair stereotyping, or as simplification for sake of argument, where it is understood that exceptions to the fire & brimstone model of Christianity exist but aren't being referred to. Either is possible, the latter grant is the more charitable and the one I prefer.

Similar to the grant that one can expect from African Americans regarding their dietary preferences? There's a difference between using stereotyping as a sort of shorthand in a discussion between neutral parties and using it in a discussion with the people you're actually stereotyping, or do you find that not to be so in your experience? The law of charity says assume lack of malice, but it no longer applies once the issue has been pointed out and the person continues the behavior anyway. True lack of malice is demonstrated by ceasing the offending behavior once it's been pointed out that it's offensive. Insisting that it's okay to contine the behavior at that point may demonstrate ignorance or stubborness rather than lack of malice, but in any case it's nothing of which to be proud.
.

---

The other curious thing is that avoiding having your position scrutinized too closely helps you in a public debate. Staying away from that microscope lens if you can dodge its field of view is considered a perfectly legitimate tactic in forensics. And dare say we oft hear that ad hominem is a fallacy; yet political debaters continually resort to it, finding it remarkably effective. Your ditty on watermelon and fried chicken (below) carries just the right amount of personal jab: to suggest I might be a racist without a direct accusation.

I would love for you to scrutinize my opinion. Why do you avoid doing so?

And I assumed that you weren't a racist, a real racist wouldn't understand the point. And you seem to have missed it spectacularly, but I think it's because you're not actually interested in an honest conversation, not because you're a racist.

---

Mister Agenda

... I realize some people are sensitive about receiving any feedback on issues like capitalization, and from your tone, I mistakenly assumed you were not one of them...

...You seem keenly aware of stereotyping on the part of others, but almost comically unaware of your own machine-gun delivery of stereotypes about atheists. I suppose if you were racist about African Americans, a comment about fruit would tell you that many blacks love fried chicken and watermelon.

You may have come under the impression that negative feedback from others bothers me.

Only when your response to it smacks of assholery.

---

I assure you that in most cases it does not.

Show, don't tell.

---

 It can either represent advice I should heed because I'm doing something wrong, or it's something I can ignore. Feedback only pricks my sensibilities if it comes from someone whom I have a personal relationship with. I do know that capitalization conveys part of a written English message, including some of that message's value content.

We live in a Politically Correct age where everyone shouts "stereotype!" and takes umbrage immediately every time a controversial topic pops up. Political correctness has led to a convoluted language where every assertion concerning human groups must be hedged and various code words used (or avoided) so as not to offend anyone.

You are apparently under the impression that the reason people don't like to be stereotyped is something other than the obvious fact that people in general don't like being stereotyped and the reason they consider the people who insist on doing so as bigots is because that's pretty much what makes someone a bigot. Some bigots like to pretend they're warriors against political correctness when they're really warriors against the idea that they can't express their bigotry without being called on it like they were able to in the good old days.

---

 I'm sorry, but I don't have talent for PC and I tend to be a bit blunt. I haven't made assumptions regarding your own particular viewpoint, but have summarized a pool of atheist views I've encountered over time, using snippets from one or two of your posts as exemplars. Most of these views are actually from media sources or fora rather than face-to-face conversation. I agree they may not be representative: In fact I expect they will represent the most vocal rather than the most numerous.

So, if I sound like a German machine gun, feel free to return fire.  

You sound like someone who can't be troubled to treat the people to whom you're talking as individuals and think that's somehow virtuous.