Atheist extremism is bad... mkay?

[theVOID]

No, only some do and that is specifically because they haven't had the distinction made clear to them.

Extremists are a problem for both sides, not only for the impact they have on the image, but on their ability to misrepresent the positions held by others too.

What you are suggesting seems to be to not bother making the distinction, which is just going to make shit worse.

[Cerrone]

No, only some do and that is specifically because they haven't had the distinction made clear to them.

Extremists are a problem for both sides, not only for the impact they have on the image, but on their ability to misrepresent the positions held by others too.

What you are suggesting seems to be to not bother making the distinction, which is just going to make shit worse.

I don't see how a little productive activism could possibily make shit worse than it already is. It go a long way to doing some good, I mean like somebody said on here most peoples problem with atheism is ignorance, if they were made to understand that it's just an evolved state of mind encouraging self determination, then they'd be much less likely to jump on a pro-christian political movement in the future.

Somebody else posted a thread on here about how some jehovahs witnesses were getting themselves in a rage because of some atheist billboards and flyers, thats good work to whoever was behind it. You see how easy it is to bring down religious idiots when you start playing them at their own game?

[theVOID]

1. There was nothing productive about what you were suggesting

2. The fact that the distinctions are made is what is responsible for evangelist opinions of atheists not being the dominant idea amongst moderate Christians. If there were no atheists contending the claim that we are all just angry at God there would be even more Christians who believed this.

3. There is nothing "evolved" about Atheism, it's simply a position that requires a higher standard of evidence (I.e no revelation, personal incredulity, personal experience, testimony etc) To call atheists more "evolved" is not only false, it's completely arrogant.

4. Jehovas witnesses are examples of extremists on the other side, and as was made clear earlier, we don't give a fuck about them. We do however care about the normal every day theists we encounter because they are the ones who actually matter in every day life - Them having a misinformed opinion of our position could affect even the mundane interactions, this is something that should be avoided. Moderate theists and atheists have the potential to be more closely aligned on the vast majority of issues, especially socially and ethically, than moderates and extremists of any group, as such having a good understanding of each other is far more important that allowing extremists to taint not just what they think we believe, but what we think they believe.

[Cerrone]

2. The fact that the distinctions are made is what is responsible for evangelist opinions of atheists not being the dominant idea amongst moderate Christians. If there were no atheists contending the claim that we are all just angry at God there would be even more Christians who believed this.

That's exactly what I was saying, the evangelist position should be contended, vigourously.

3. There is nothing "evolved" about Atheism, it's simply a position that requires a higher standard of evidence (I.e no revelation, personal incredulity, personal experience, testimony etc) To call atheists more "evolved" is not only false, it's completely arrogant.

I really disagree; for the same reasons i'd criticise a christian, and the same reasons i'd applaude an athiest. Athiests have taken the step in that they no longer bow down unthinkingly to praise an imaginary god and that they don't render themselves as slave by following the insane doctrine that other christians follow.

If atheism isn't evolution or to use a better word if it isn't progress away from damaging social sterility and servitude then what is?

You should give yourself more credit VOID. It is evolution in action that we're not only questioning religion but that we're able to make alternatives that are indeed practical and productive

4. Jehovas witnesses are examples of extremists on the other side, and as was made clear earlier, we don't give a fuck about them. We do however care about the normal every day theists we encounter because they are the ones who actually matter in every day life - Them having a misinformed opinion of our position could affect even the mundane interactions, this is something that should be avoided. Moderate theists and atheists have the potential to be more closely aligned on the vast majority of issues, especially socially and ethically, than moderates and extremists of any group, as such having a good understanding of each other is far more important that allowing extremists to taint not just what they think we believe, but what we think they believe.

Maybe we need to define extremism here lol i'm not talking about blowing up churches, i'm talking about social activism. That is, if you want to get your message across to people and make a positive impact on peoples lives, and the only way to do that is by doing something.

Otherwise all you suggest to try and change peoples minds about atheism and steer them away from religion is passivity, and that's never achieved anything. I don't mean to lecture you, but seriously if you think laying down and basking in moderation will do anything to change the torrent of anti-atheist propaganda that religion throws at people about you, then you need to examine such wonderful effective peaceful protests such as the Iraq War demonstration.. the anti nuclear weapons demonstration.. the free palestine demonstrations or any thousands of ineffective passive protests that liberal moderates flaunt about engaging in.

Perhaps a better word for evolution is revolution; that's my opinion on this subject anyway.

[thesummerqueen]

Can't we just, as Phil Plait said at TAM, not be dicks?

I'm serious - even though you might define atheists as a "non-group" and skeptics as a "group", I think the same general rules apply.

Hate speech is hate speech, no matter who is saying it about or to whom. If I say I hate Christians, I am still hating on Christians no matter what religious affiliation I have or lack thereof. If I say it publicly, I have to recognize two things: 1) the repercussions I will have personally by expressing my vitriol, and 2) the repercussions I incur for the people I affiliate with (unless it were possible to carry one of those "opinions of the individual do not reflect..." signs everywhere) since for however brief a time I am the "figurehead" of that movement/group/club in the eyes of all those observing me. You can't escape this, even though we are a society that highly values the individual, we still are quick to classify, label, and sort people into groups and we get troubled if we can't. Why do you think the cliques in high school are so pervasive, and how many people have a general bad opinion about, say, the jocks because of a few assholes, even if you know a few good ones personally?

There are ways to get points across that show your passion for your cause or display your wish to provide more information without resorting to the same tactics as those we label extremists. No one respects Martin Luther King because he went around displaying his hate - he's respected for his eloquence and peaceful demonstrations. I've never heard of anyone from, say, the ALF become respected...just infamous.

I couldn't tell you why some people who call themselves atheists have such hate towards anything relating towards religion. I agree we should be angry about some aspects; I don't think anyone can hear about the bombings in Ireland or the way Catholic priests act, or the money hoarding, homo-hating speeches of the fundamentalists, or the vicious acts of muslims on their wives and daughters or the witch hunting still pervasive in Africa without feeling anger and the need to DO something. But spreading generalized hate towards everything having to do with religion doesn't...do...shit!

My personal opinions about religion aside, some people need it for the structure, the comfort, whatever. People have done good things - truly good things - in religion's name. Maybe they feel better surrendering themselves to something they feel is bigger than they are. It is this side of religion that doesn't deserve to be stomped all over as it is when someone damns them. I personally have always in some way struggled with a belief in God, but like Mulder I *wanted* to believe in supernatural or paranormal things, and maybe it's to my credit that I figured out those things were bullshit early on...but it doesn't give me a right to act like an arrogant fuckhole about it to otherwise decent people, and no one else has that right either - after all, at some point in my life, I was just like them, believing in silliness.

And if atheists actually have a goal, which I would say is impossible if we're not a group, but if they did and it was to have everyone realize that religion is shite and we're better off without it, you can be sure we're never going to convince anyone by being hateful about it. To paraphrase Phil, did you ever stop believing something because someone called you an idiot?

Me personally, the way I began to relax into the way I thought...it was by laughing, and that's a far better way to convince than to shout.

[Cerrone]

Hate speech is hate speech, no matter who is saying it about or to whom.

Hate speech is an orwellian concept many people use frequently to condemn those who challenge the controversial aspects of society or instituations. It's unjust and cowardly and ineffective to dismiss a passionate speakers arguement as being hate speech, because it doesnt achieve anything and the arguement isn't resolved. Isn't it better to engage than to instantly condemn when you hear a trigger word?

You can't escape this, even though we are a society that highly values the individual, we still are quick to classify, label, and sort people into groups and we get troubled if we can't. Why do you think the cliques in high school are so pervasive, and how many people have a general bad opinion about, say, the jocks because of a few assholes, even if you know a few good ones personally?

We are a society that values socially damaging and destructive individualism, not the individual. It's a trick of media plain and simple, and if you doubt that, try and assert your individualism in a way that isn't identifiable with a clique.

There are ways to get points across that show your passion for your cause or display your wish to provide more information without resorting to the same tactics as those we label extremists. No one respects Martin Luther King because he went around displaying his hate - he's respected for his eloquence and peaceful demonstrations. I've never heard of anyone from, say, the ALF become respected...just infamous.

Martin Luther King wouldn't have acheived anything if he wasn't the alternative to the extremism displayed by the likes of Malcolm X. White america ignored the peaceful protest displays by the moderate black civil rights activists, but it wasn't until the black extremists began defending themselves that white america was forced into chosing between extremist revolution and moderate toleration and a semblance of coexistance. But the choice would never have been made at all unless the radical extremists had been there; look back through history, no group or people have ever had a victory against an oppressor without first being able to prove their independence.

You used an Orwellian term to condemn these people, but the insistance for moderation displayed in the media and echoed by a fraction of the public says to me that it's not 1984 we're living in, and its not extremists we should consider the enemy. We're living in Aldous Huxleys Brave New World, and its moderates who're doing the real damage by discouraging the few people passionate enough to speak out.

And to quote Malcolm X yet again;
[align=center] I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he's wrong. Than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil.[/align]

And if atheists actually have a goal, which I would say is impossible if we're not a group, but if they did and it was to have everyone realize that religion is shite and we're better off without it, you can be sure we're never going to convince anyone by being hateful about it. To paraphrase Phil, did you ever stop believing something because someone called you an idiot?

That's exactly why atheist activism should be encouraged.

[Paul the Human]

For the record... I am all for atheist activism. What I don't like is hate fueled emotional outbursts that serve no constructive function and work to the detriment of the reputation of atheists. There is a difference between activism and extremism.

[IceSage]

For some reason, people disagreed with this lecture? But I find it's point stands:

Phil Plait (TAM 8) - Don't Be a Dick
http://vimeo.com/13704095

It's meant more towards skeptics trying to make their points toward people, but it still stands with atheists dealing with the extremely religious.

[thesummerqueen]

Cerrone - I think you missed my meaning. Or maybe I'm missing yours, I'm completely willing to accept that I might be an idiot or that I didn't express myself well.

"Hate speech is an orwellian concept many people use frequently to condemn..." - Okay, when I said 'hate speech' what I mean was exactly what Paul is talking about - bullshit nitpicking, and a whole lot of shouting without actually accomplishing anything. If the person came up with a passionate argument, I completely agree that it should be addressed/engaged. I love passionate arguments. What I don't think makes a positive impact in this world in any sense is useless "I hate [insert usually random and pointless shit to complain about]." I see people like this all the time. I think I mentioned in my post that we SHOULD get angry about many things - the harmful actions religions have made people do in their name SHOULD be argued against and activism taken. I'm not saying sit idly by. But you must agree there's a difference between what I think you're trying to say, which is "we're not going to stand by while you do this anymore" and "I hate you because you do this" (which I think we can agree isn't constructive.)

"We are a society that values socially damaging and destructive individualism, not the individual. It's a trick of media plain and simple, and if you doubt that, try and assert your individualism in a way that isn't identifiable with a clique" - Yup, let's see... If I'm understanding this correctly, I think the experiences I went through in high school were quite enough. I mentioned the cliques because I WASN'T part of one and damn did it piss people off when they couldn't label me - it unsettles people. The point I was trying to make went with whether or not you call atheists a 'group', and if you do then you must realize that just like those groups back then, one or two bad faces can spoil the rest of the school/world for them. It's not right - we ought to recognize each person for the individual that they are, but the fact is that most of society doesn't. A few loud and obnoxious people calling themselves atheists going up to religious people and basically acting the same way my ex's ignorant Baptist family treated me makes it look to anyone else looking on that atheists are no different from those who follow invisible men.

How exactly do you define extremeism, and where do you draw the line? When I hear extremist, I think of terrorists. I think of people bombing places they feel don't fit into their version of society. I think of people who use unnecessary violence on the idea that it's the only way to get attention. Of course, this is only my opinion, but I'm sorry I don't feel like we're living in Brave New World. I have to be quite honest, the second you refer to that and 1984, I start to close off - it's too much like my paranoid, racist, delusional and bipolar father, who thinks the world has been blinded. Before you accuse, I'm not putting those labels on you! I just think it's unfair to say that we're living in a world where people have no idea what the hell is going on.

I do not define activism as someone trying to outgun another person. An activist to me is someone who comes up with a positive solution that, even if not implemented, gets people thinking. Extremist: 9/11 terrorists. Activists: those people who relentlessly pursue justice for their families through the courts after those bastard Catholic priests, using media coverage to make it so that these pedophiles can no longer hide even behind the money of the church.

Why do I think Paul had a point? Because when people from any religion, group, clique, etc sit around and talk about only how they hate something, day in and day out, it's the first step down that road to lynchings and the like. Sit a bunch of fundamentalists down and let them whip themselves up about how they 'hate fags'. Do you think atheists are above that? Who's to say in the future there won't be atheists running around policing anyone who happens to NOT not-believe, just because they're the majority?

And by the way, in the general public, the more you shout a person out the more they cling to their beliefs. I could passionately decry everything that Christianity (for example) has done wrong and tell the person in front of me how horrible it is, and out of pure spite they will dig in their heels and call ME the asshole. Or I could keep my cool, explain my points, NOT look like the asshole, and maybe anyone observing will notice that and think twice about their own beliefs - because one non-believer proved themselves sane and logical. The point is made all the time in the skeptical community - you're out to convince the people around you, not necessarily the one you're arguing with, and the second you make your cause look like shit, that's the second that audience stops listening.

[Cerrone]

Okay, when I said 'hate speech' what I mean was exactly what Paul is talking about - bullshit nitpicking, and a whole lot of shouting without actually accomplishing anything. If the person came up with a passionate argument, I completely agree that it should be addressed/engaged. I love passionate arguments. What I don't think makes a positive impact in this world in any sense is useless "I hate [insert usually random and pointless shit to complain about]." I see people like this all the time. I think I mentioned in my post that we SHOULD get angry about many things - the harmful actions religions have made people do in their name SHOULD be argued against and activism taken. I'm not saying sit idly by. But you must agree there's a difference between what I think you're trying to say, which is "we're not going to stand by while you do this anymore" and "I hate you because you do this" (which I think we can agree isn't constructive.)

I totally agree with that, but the reason I brought you up about using the term "hate speech" is because it's used by many people as an automatic dismissal of the persons views and how he came to those views, and that dismissal is counter productive to finding solutions. I've spoken with the kind of people that would be described as engaging in "hate speech" in my life and because I didn't switch myself off and zone out I was able to turn them around and find common ground and build on that ground.

My point really is that an atheist activist has more in common with an atheist extremist (whatever extremism may be), and for them to argue with themselves while their common enemy is still doing as he pleases it makes no sense whatsoever. That comes back to destructive individualism; hypothetically defined when two people place their own vanity or minor issues which each other before that of accomplishing a goal which is in the interests of both of them. The small issues you would have with an atheist who would be described as extreme are surely not worth fighting over, and surely it makes more sense in the interests of acheivement and accomplishment to work together, because you've got more in common with that guy than any hardened catholic, deluded evangelist or even the better moderate form of christian, who still produces the same effect of the extremists, but doesnt realise it.

A few loud and obnoxious people calling themselves atheists going up to religious people and basically acting the same way my ex's ignorant Baptist family treated me makes it look to anyone else looking on that atheists are no different from those who follow invisible men.

How exactly do you define extremeism, and where do you draw the line? When I hear extremist, I think of terrorists. I think of people bombing places they feel don't fit into their version of society. I think of people who use unnecessary violence on the idea that it's the only way to get attention.

A christian will define you as an extremist once you tell him that you're an athiest. He'll regard your opinion as invalid and switch off to anything you say, and so often passive and polite conversation isn't enough to convince him otherwise.

In my experience- and i'm a product of the society i'm in and I know attitudes are different elsewhere but i'm in england and I see a lot of indifference and a lot of problems caused by ineffective moderate political attitudes, and its because moderation and passivity just doesnt work when you're dealing with christians or anybody who has the option of not listening to you! In contrast to moderation and passivity, it's only when i've displayed passion or anger that these people have dropped their condesending attitude and begun to listen to what i've said and take it on board- and vise versa.

If you bind yourself to passive action and then you enter a fight with someone who isn't so noble as to show you mutual respect and be passive also, then you're going to lose that fight quickly.

And that's an analogy for athiest activists trying to combat christianity.

Of course, this is only my opinion, but I'm sorry I don't feel like we're living in Brave New World. I have to be quite honest, the second you refer to that and 1984, I start to close off - it's too much like my paranoid, racist, delusional and bipolar father, who thinks the world has been blinded. Before you accuse, I'm not putting those labels on you! I just think it's unfair to say that we're living in a world where people have no idea what the hell is going on.

I brought it up because you said "hate speech", and for the reasons i've just given lol

I have to say though, and this is my opinion too, that Brave New World is a very accurate description England and of peaceful political activism as a whole. And I realised very early on that moderation renders you almost afraid to be passionate about your beliefs with the fear that you may come across as being considered extreme in some way, but why is that? I've never been able to understand the logic of people who would commit themselves to overcoming something -whether its an army or a law- and through peaceful activism and obeying the laws they go through the courts and the legal process and then they lose as they often do, and then they either give up or keep going through the courts hoping to get a different decision. And whats the point of doing that when it's totally ineffective and acheives nothing?

What i'm trying to get across here is that if you can convince an evangelist through polite conversation that he may have been in error in his beliefs then my hat goes off to you, well done, but if you can't convince him by that method, will you give up?

Because when people from any religion, group, clique, etc sit around and talk about only how they hate something, day in and day out, it's the first step down that road to lynchings and the like. Sit a bunch of fundamentalists down and let them whip themselves up about how they 'hate fags'. Do you think atheists are above that? Who's to say in the future there won't be atheists running around policing anyone who happens to NOT not-believe, just because they're the majority?

As I see it atheism is the first step down the road to enlightenment and intelligence. Once a person no longer abides by the slaves laws that their religion has given them they eventually begin to take responsibility for their actions and the actions of other people around them because instead of valueing the delusion of heaven after death of a life of slavery, they realise -or they should realise lol- that this world is the only chance we really have at paradise, and that they can make it a reality.

So for that reason I don't think that you'd ever find an atheist lynching a christian, you may find that christian being vigourously talked sense to, but certianly not treated with violence for the sake of violence.