Atheist extremism is bad... mkay?

[Paul the Human]

[rant]

One of the newer members said some things that got me thinking. I don't want to name names, so we'll just call him 'gobstopper'. This 'gobstopper' has expressed what I can only call rage fueled hatred toward anything (no matter how trivial) relating to religion... and it really made me think.

While the word 'atheist' means 'lacking belief in deities' and nothing more, a number of qualifiers are used to make the label more specific. We have strong atheist, weak atheist, agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, non-theist, anti-theist, etc. At the core, each label lacks a belief in deities, but the mindset behind each is different.

And then there is 'Angry Anti-Theistic Extremism'. Most of us have probably encountered this type of 'atheist' before, many of us can even relate to some of the anger that drives them, but I can't help wondering if 'atheist' is a less than accurate description in many cases. The saying, 'Me thinks thou dost protest too much', comes to mind.

It's as if they do not necessarily lack a belief in 'god', but are extremely angry with 'him'. Sure, they vent their rage skyward, but that's not very satisfying, so they turn it on anything and everything related to 'god' and/or the worship of such. I get the impression that they actually hope 'god' exists, so 'he' will be aware of their rebellious rage (not saying this is true of 'gobstopper', just that he sent my thoughts in that direction).

Now, maybe most of these people are truly atheists, but the above paragraph describes the impression they give me. I consider it to be counter-productive at best, and detrimental to the reputation of all atheists in general. Such declarations of hate offer no room for rational discussion, nor do they offer information of any substance. They are nothing more than emotionally driven outbursts.

I'm sure that we're all sick of theists popping in to declare, “Atheists are just mad at god!”, but I think I know where they get that idea. They get it from atheist trolls coming to their forums and spouting a bunch of hatred, instead of trying to engage in discussion.

We all (generalization) love to rally against extremism, but shouldn't we also be looking a little 'closer to home'? If atheist extremism is not a problem now (and that's debatable), then it certainly has the potential to become one. One need only look to American politics to see where polarizing extremism leads. How can we hope to achieve and maintain a secular society if both sides are raging at each other? How can we call others hypocrites if we allow the same kind of hate-filled extremism to represent us without condemning it openly?

Don't get me wrong, like many atheists, I do think the world would be better off if religion disappeared, but I (like many atheists) am smart enough to realize that that is not going to happen any time soon, if ever. That being the case, the only solution is peaceful coexistence, which means that we atheists have our work cut out for us. Religion (generalization) is not happy with the idea of coexisting with us (atheists) to begin with, so the last thing we need are people validating their misconceptions about us.

[/rant]

[Edwardo Piet]

[...] If atheist extremism is not a problem now (and that's debatable), then it certainly has the potential to become one.

No it doesn't have such potential because that's impossible by definition. Atheism, as you know, is non-belief in God, and so you can't get "Extreme atheism" any more than you can get "Extreme non-stamp collecting".

If there are atheists who act like assholes, that doesn't represent atheism because that has nothing to do with atheism and so you shouldn't worry. They don't represent "us". There is no "us" other than the mere disbelief in God we share that makes us atheists by definition.

[Darwinian]

And then there is 'Angry Anti-Theistic Extremism'. Most of us have probably encountered this type of 'atheist' before

Yup, I run a forum with one

One of the problems is that, when discussing God with theists most atheists still refer to him as if he exists. i.e. "If God loves us why does he allow suffering?" Which puts the onus on them to explain the personality of God rather than to question his existence in the first place.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah I agree in that I personally think it's way more effective to just address stage one ... God's actual existence.

[Paul the Human]

I agree, Evie, but that's not really what I meant. By 'atheist extremism', I mean extreme and anger fueled language and/or actions in the name of atheism. Like it or not, atheism is seen (mistakenly) as a cause and/or movement... and the extremists support that misconception through their actions. It is counter-productive to being accepted openly as an atheist.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, if I could get away with it honestly I wouldn't even label myself an atheist because of the very fact atheism is so often misunderstood.

I wish I could honestly follow Sam Harris' idea of not calling myself anything. But I can't honestly do that because if someone asks me if I believe in God and I honestly answer "No" and they then say something like "Oh, so you're an atheist then" for instance, I couldn't honestly say "No" because I really am, properly, an atheist by definition. If I don't label myself as an atheist, others will do it for me. And I'd rather openly and honestly take the initiative.

So I call myself an atheist out of honesty because I really am one. I see it as merely unfortunate that atheism is quite widely misunderstood. I see it as merely unfortunate because no misunderstandings of atheism actually represent me or what atheism actually is.

Sam Harris talks of how the word "atheist" isn't really needed because it's as useless as a word as "non-astrologer". But my counter argument to that is, used in combination with my example above, if someone asked if I believed in astrology and I said "No", they wouldn't say "Oh, so you're a non-astrologer then" and label me as that, since such a term is certainly not wildly used. And it's a whole other story with "atheist" and "atheism". So I counter Sam Harris in short by, I hope, explaining how his analogy is not sufficiently accurate (as I hope I've explained now).

[Paul the Human]

So I call myself an atheist out of honesty because I really am one. I see it as merely unfortunate that atheism is quite widely misunderstood. I see it as merely unfortunate because no misunderstandings of atheism actually represent me or what atheism actually is.

Exactly. But while it doesn't actually represent you or atheism's real meaning, it does do harm to the reputation of atheists in general. It causes us to be misperceived and lessens the chances that we will actually be understood and accepted by the 'believers'.

[theVOID]

Fuck changing definitions under and any all circumstances.

Words mean shit. How we feel about the word means nothing at all.

I for one have no concern for those who attach baggage to 'atheism' it is not and should not be used to mean anything other than what it actually means. Anyone who ties extra meaning to the word and then allows that to pollute their(or that of others) concept of the word is quite simply an idiot.

If this is about picking a label for yourself then do that, I use naturalist over atheist because it's more comprehensive, so my initial response to a worldview question is "i'm a naturalist", but if i'm asked specifically about Gods it's "I'm an atheist" that would be the initial response.

[Edwardo Piet]

But if it's a misrepresentation of us then I guess the question is not only: "Well, are we going to actually do anything about it, and if so, what?" But the question is also "If "we" address it then surely we're contradicting the very fact that there is no "we" other than a mere disbelief in gods?" - what if addressing the very problem undermines the whole point of what atheism actually is... non belief in God? Ignoring such misrepresentation might have a better effect because addressing it might make atheism look more like something more than mere disbelief in God and ironically misrepresent atheism even further.

And of course there are many atheists who won't be bothered by any misrepresentation of atheism..... since atheism is divided other than its non-belief in God of course.

[Paul the Human]

I not suggesting we change the meanings of words. I'm suggesting that atheists that engage in rage fueled anti-theistic extremism do harm to the reputation of all atheists. It only adds to the negative stigma associated with the word atheist. Therefore, I am against it... as I would like to be able to declare myself an atheist without being instantly condemned by misconceptions.