Why are Atheists afraid to insult Islam and Jews?

[*Deidre*]

When did atheism become synonymous with insulting?

What? 

Sorry, but that is the argument used when someone wants to shut down a conversation. I bet you don't like Bill Maher either.

When you form a group on old books with fantastic claims and go to war over them and cause the entire planet to have to divert resources to it; I think that blasphemy verbally by people who wish that would stop is appropriate to those who are participating in that conflict show that only care about their own tribes. 

Since when did atheism become synonymous with walking on eggshells? Religious people kill over their beliefs, I think being killed because you offended someone with no intent of killing them, is far worse than getting offended.

If you believe that insulting theists will destroy religion, it won't. But, if that is where you'd like to spend your energy, that's fine. Atheism isn't synonymous with walking on eggshells or insulting. It doesn't need to be either or. 

[Brian37]

What? 

Sorry, but that is the argument used when someone wants to shut down a conversation. I bet you don't like Bill Maher either.

When you form a group on old books with fantastic claims and go to war over them and cause the entire planet to have to divert resources to it; I think that blasphemy verbally by people who wish that would stop is appropriate to those who are participating in that conflict show that only care about their own tribes. 

Since when did atheism become synonymous with walking on eggshells? Religious people kill over their beliefs, I think being killed because you offended someone with no intent of killing them, is far worse than getting offended.

If you believe that insulting theists will destroy religion, it won't. But, if that is where you'd like to spend your energy, that's fine. Atheism isn't synonymous with walking on eggshells or insulting. It doesn't need to be either or. 

"How dare you insult Islam"...............Lots of Muslims say that to Christians and atheists as well, should we not insult them? You are going to tell me an insult is worth silencing someone as a blanket solution? If all 7 billion humans got to silence those who insult them we could all think of others we'd like to silence.

And when you use the word "destroy" you are using that to falsely equate that to a call to use force against believers. 

"That is not true" by itself is enough for many believers to say "SHUT UP" and in some places in the world you get arrested or killed just for saying "that is not true".

FOR EXAMPLE ONLY

If I say to someone "that is bullshit" that is the worst they will get from me. Being blunt does not make me a fascist, it simply makes me blunt. Nowhere in "that is bullshit" can you read into that "I want government to silence you" or "I want you dead because you say stupid things". It just makes me blunt. 

I can also post Mr Deity's "Way of the Mister" video response to the Pope who equated picking on religion was like picking on someone's mother. He cussed the Pope out, you going to stop everyone who blasphemes religion?

---

No I will not stop "insulting" religion. Humans have rights, but ideas don't deserve taboos, just because you have the right to claim them. And that "insult" was not an insult, it was more like saying "No the New York Yankees did not win the Superbowl, they play baseball, that is a ridiculous thing to claim".

It is a blunt way of saying "Think about what you are saying".

[*Deidre*]

Brian, you exaggerate my points to prove your own. I will bbl to reply, though.

[Brian37]

Not "exaggerating" anything. Jews and Muslims and Christians cant get along. Their respective governments circle the wagons and protect their respective tribes. Those governments have weapons. And are willing to die over old books. That to me is insanity. And you should consider what is more important, an "insult" or a nuclear war because this is also the same rock you live on.

Now you'd advocate for the sake of political correctness they don't get picked on when they are holding our planet hostage? You must not watch the news that much.

Make all three of them a deal, when they stop fighting then I'll stop picking on them.

[Whateverist]

"How dare you insult Islam"...............Lots of Muslims say that to Christians and atheists as well, should we not insult them?

I think there are multiple points getting crossed here. Deidre is right that there is nothing about not believing in gods which requires us to be rude or crass to people because they believe what we don't. Not all of us are on a mission to end religion.

But you are correct in saying that Muslims should not expect people in Western countries should change their customs to avoid violating their norms. Indeed, fuck them if they can't take joke. Don't like cartoons depicting Muhammed? Go home where you can hope to have it your way. We don't self censor to that degree and we place a greater value on freedom of expression -including humorous expression- than we do on avoiding hate speech.

So no, you don't have to accept a prohibition on speech which offends Muslims. Bill Maher lampoons pretty much everyone's faults. Muslims shouldn't get a free pass.

But, then again you don't have to let Muslims pull your chain either. You don't need to go out of your way to insult them if it isn't part of your craft as it is with Maher. I would no more intentionally offend a Muslim than I would a Jew. I don't down play down or make light of the holocaust so I also wouldn't draw doodles of Muhammed fucking children or animals just to be cruel. Why do that?

Being insulting for the sake of slandering a group of people isn't cool. Nor is it called for just because we think they're overly sensitive. It doesn't rob me of my freedom to avoid gratuitous insults, and I certainly won't let what they do or say dictate how I respond.

[Brian37]

UGGGGG

No sorry, this is the problem right here, now we have gone from "insult" to "rude" and "crass'.

I find it sad when people do this, it seems well intended in the minds of people who think all contexts of communication should be an Oxford library , but in reality it is nothing but an excuse to shut down a conversation.

Do your own thing, but I don't like it when people think there is a utopia blanket solution that will lead to a world where nobody ever gets offended.

Here is who you don't help with that attitude.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/10/...n-affleck/

No minority, Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist or gay, is served by thinking the only tactic we should use in all contexts is a library.

My bluntness isn't the worst thing in the world. Killing over old books should be more important to you than my word choices or criticisms of ANY religion.

[Whateverist]

Well you didn't make clear what you meant. You seem to be arguing in favor of insulting people. Seems odd on the face of it.

I'm not at all clear what you think I did that was such a problem. I really don't know what you're arguing for.

[Brian37]

Everyone should be free to conduct themselves the way they please. No one is arguing one tactic over another, nor should they.

I simply don't like coded arguments that are really nothing more than the person making them not wanting to face parts of our ugly world.

The ugly truth is religion teaches humans to die over old books and Sam Harris is right, and so is Ayaan and Bill, far too many well intended liberals on the left use arguments like in this thread to shut down a conversation.

I think my species goes about gaining peace the wrong way. We insist on politeness in every context, far too much, instead of accepting it is more important how we respond to getting offended than it is that we got offended.

No one is saying offend everywhere all the time. I am saying religion does not deserve a pedestal outside of the human right to make the claim.

[Polaris]

Well-intended liberals remember what has happened when bigotry is not checked. There is a difference between being polite to the point of seeking political correctness and attacking someone's beliefs merely to attack their beliefs.

[Dystopia]

@Brian

Bill Maher is quite funny (coming from a non-native English speaker) but he is also anti-vaccination - As I said before, no one is free from delusions

Religious people kill over their beliefs? So what? People kill over politics, ideology, money, pieces of land, sex and love - Why do atheists give special treatment to religion? Do you believe that killing for religion is worse than killing for ideology? Your assertion is (much like many intellectually weak atheist arguments) overly narrow minded and only displays a very specific viewpoint on religion

The point of Deidre is that in social circles atheism is sometimes associated with insulting and hating religion when there is no absolute commandment for that - Some atheists like Alain de Botton think religion can teach atheists something and we should just steal those positive aspects from it. New Atheism in particular is characterized for a fierce criticism of religion. Seeing the world trough one group's perspective is harmful to oneself and prevents self-examination and self-critique. If you spend your life listening to lectures by Richard Dawkins you will most likely grow up thinking religion is a force of evil to be eradicated or that it is a disease/virus that spreads trough the mind and corrupts people. Not everyone shares the view that atheists need to be hostile towards religion and not everyone spends their live writing books like The God Delusion. 

Wake up - Atheists can be as delusional as other people. Not believing in god doesn't make you a special snowflake or give you intellectual superiority like Dawkins indirectly advocates - It just means you are rationalizing well on the field of theology. It doesn't mean anything else. The fact atheism is just a lack of belief in god is not important as much as what atheists do with their lives and how they organize themselves, and we are prone to the same dogmas, groupthinking and narrow views as everyone else. Atheists don't have different brain patterns or chemical properties. We function the same way. There's no reason to promote groupthinking mentalities of atheists V theists specially considering much stronger divisions in the world like social class.

Not "exaggerating" anything. Jews and Muslims and Christians cant get along. Their respective governments circle the wagons and protect their respective tribes. Those governments have weapons. And are willing to die over old books. That to me is insanity. And you should consider what is more important, an "insult" or a nuclear war because this is also the same rock you live on.

I always wonder if you ever considered why tribalism is wrong... I think tribalism, even if it sounds outdated, is a natural instinct and there's nothing in it to be afraid of. I prefer my own group to others. I prefer my family (tribe) to the rest of society. That is a valuable concept for the future of our societies that will probably drastically change in the next 50 years (And I will be alive to see it). Jews, Muslims and Christians have got along during history in certain time periods. What exactly do you think religion is causing? Under what evidence? Do you think that Obama is attacking ISIS because of Christianity? 

Now you'd advocate for the sake of political correctness they don't get picked on when they are holding our planet hostage? You must not watch the news that much.

Make all three of them a deal, when they stop fighting then I'll stop picking on them.

You sound exactly like a preacher saying "i'm right because I said so". Did you notice that? Do you have any proof for your claims? What planet is hostage? Only if you consider humans the captors

The ugly truth is religion teaches humans to die over old books and Sam Harris is right, and so is Ayaan and Bill, far too many well intended liberals on the left use arguments like in this thread to shut down a conversation.

Hmm not all religions have books (if we consider them all) and if we exclude the problematics in Islam I think there's many justifications to kill or not and you can find them theologically or ideologically. Killing each other is part of the natural state of affairs as well. Sam Harris shows a narrow view on religion like the rest of New Atheism (seriously - atheism can't have dogma right? Why do they all sound the same then?) - You should try to read on someone who shows a different view.


As for your argument about leaving superstition - It's not that easy. You see, I'm educated, middle class and privileged - Because I know something about science, I have time to develop my intellect and I don't need religion I can understand how our universe works (the basics) and justify my non-belief in god. You don't get to mock someone for believing in god or even creationism if they don't have an education, are extremely poor and no one helped them get out of ignorance. If you are intelligent you shouldn't mock people who have lower IQ's and have trouble understanding easier concepts and letting theist beliefs go. Some people go trough desperate life situations and believing in something higher helps them cope. I never lost a relative in a terrible situation like some of my friends did - My brain isn't a copy of other people's brains, and therefore I can't judge people for being religious or believing on the basis of my perspective and life experience when no one shares it (only me).

The vision that destroying religion will create a better world is a narrow minded reductionist naive one and reminds me vaguely of the final goal of converting everyone to the same faith. If we consider social circumstances, nurturing and biological aspects that lead to religion, I think it is impossible a world without religious people unless you want to become a soviet Union. Even if you provided a perfect society, considering there's about 7-10% of elite scientists who are religious, I think we can only conclude it's in some people's nature. To believe otherwise is going against human psychology, sociology and our history - It's a delusion like any other. Human beings are not known for being rational. Atheists are rational towards the god question, but we can be irrational for everything else.


Don't get me wrong - You can criticize religion everyday all you want, but if you want to be freethinker try to avoid narrow minded perspectives and actually search for the truth

---

Well-intended liberals remember what has happened when bigotry is not checked. There is a difference between being polite to the point of seeking political correctness and attacking someone's beliefs merely to attack their beliefs.

I agree that every group needs to be checked. Organized atheism is not an exception. Thinking one group is magically different and right is naive and leads to disasters. No one thought the national-socialist party of Germany would get anywhere. Believing something will not happen is the reason why it happens. Atheists are not free from dogmas and they usually replace religious dogmas with other dogmas even if they don't realize it themselves (we all do it subconsciously).