There is a lot of chatter on the Internet currently and the topic is the “angry atheist”. It seems it is not ok for bloggers and authors to stand up and say enough is enough; that belief in a bronze age doctrine does not fit well with a global society with enough technological know-how to blow us all up many times over.
I draw your attention to http://importreason.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/the-angry-atheist and the quaint little hand drawn cartoons. It is the ultimate irony that atheists, who according to the poles have been one of the most despised groups on earth – in a call for sanity and the right to not believe in a tenet no different from the tooth fairy – are being called intolerant and evangelical.
I made some points in retort to the article but would really like to make them again:
Most atheists are not angry but we have a good and healthy dose of gat-vol. Gat-vol is a South African slang term for “beyond fed-up”. I went to a Christian school and had religion literally jammed (in sticky fish-oil like globs) down my throat for 12 years. When the religious teachers didn’t like the sane questions I was raising, I was made to stand outside the classroom for the rest of the year or pick up litter (no doubt a fitting task for an unbeliever).
My 5 year old son came home the other day and told me that Jesus loved me and died for our sins and that god created the world. I almost fell off my chair – apparently the nursery school teacher is a born again Christian and has been working wonders with the young and pliable minds of our children – yep, you guessed it, without our permission.
I am annoyed at having to defend, what I believe to be sanity and lucid thinking and getting funny looks when I declare I don’t believe in the sky-god of these same bronze-age texts. The world is changing constantly and with frightening speed, many of you are familiar with the Zeitgeist discussions on the net at the moment – the ever moving spirit of the times. Atheists point out that this change is being hindered by the immovable doctrine of religion who’s adherents subscribe to an outdated and terrible tome of intolerance, ignorance, violence and bigotry; a doctrine which has remained fixed and opposed to the evolving thoughts of humanity since it’s inception.
The “angry atheist” is a natural mud-flinging response by a group completely unused to criticism of any sort. Hundreds of years of fear, intolerance, torture and murder was the de-facto response to any sort of negative or derogatory statement about religion and the faithful are bound not to enjoy the right of non-believers to stand up and call it silly. It is ironic that the religious have no trouble speaking their minds and very often putting those rights to action, from the burning of flags and embassies to the preachers and ministers espousing (and killing against) the sins of the abortionists or unbelievers.
The moderates ask what is wrong with harmless belief. Harris and Dawkins’ have said enough to explain that the moderates provide a buffer and nest for the extremists. As I mentioned in my comment:
Harmless beliefs don’t have abortion doctors murdered, or teachers torn limb from limb or nations and people vilified for no reason. They do not bomb embassies or fly planes into buildings. They don’t burn people alive for being witches and Satan worshipers (this still happens today in South Africa amongst the poor and uneducated but well indoctrinated communities) or have them stoned to death when they happen to be unlucky enough to be raped.
The fact that the American president has personal little chats with the sky-god that dictate the course of a bloody war against another nation should be of utmost concern globally. How is this different to another version of the same God whispering in Osama’s ear and giving him good aeronautical advice? The fact that there are people with access to the red button who refute common sense and believe that the one god created all that there is 6000 years ago makes me sick to my stomach.
I think more of your tolerance and respectful disagreeing should be awarded to the so called “angry atheists” and their right not to buy into the madness.
[...] The Thought Menagerie has taken the time to respond to my post. Half of the post is largely irrelevant, because as I said above I don’t disapprove of the opposition to religious indoctrination and I do believe that most atheists are not intolerant assholes. I’ll respond to the relevant part below. The “angry atheist” is a natural mud-flinging response by a group completely unused to criticism of any sort. Hundreds of years of fear, intolerance, torture and murder was the de-facto response to any sort of negative or derogatory statement about religion and the faithful are bound not to enjoy the right of non-believers to stand up and call it silly. It is ironic that the religious have no trouble speaking their minds and very often putting those rights to action, from the burning of flags and embassies to the preachers and ministers espousing (and killing against) the sins of the abortionists or unbelievers. [...]
I’ve responded to your post here: http://importreason.wordpress.com/2007/01/02/more-on-the-angry-atheist/ .
Thanks Simen, I have posted my reply here as well as on your blog.
I agree with the statement that it is not the moderates that are flying into buildings or blowing up buses but what terrifies me is the ability for the moderate to be swayed to more extremist thinking and behavior. George Bush wasn’t born-again, having little chats with the big guy, until quite recently. The men who flew planes into buildings weren’t uneducated or impoverished – they were educated, employed people who [to quote Harris' view here] just happened to hang out at the local mosque talking with the extremists too much.
The other problem with moderates is that many of them support their religion for cultural or social reasons – I have asked many Christians just how much of the bible have you read and the answer is always, not surprisingly, very little. They are happy to defend the contents of a book, based on the word of their minister as the word of [their] god, without having read much of it at all.
A quick visit to The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible should enlighten even the most hardened of moderates.
What most atheists are asking for is not a decrease in religious freedom, they ask that the religious keep their religion to themselves so that it stops impacting on our lives. It would be no different if a country with warheads suddenly found salvation in the ubiquitous flying spaghetti monster and was willing to go to war to defend their beliefs or stop serious scientific work because meatballs were sacred.
Remember historically the intolerance has always come from the theists, not the other way around.
I’d be really pissed if a nuclear war started over a fairy-tale or if my son was ever denied regenerative stem-cell therapy because of cute and cuddly blastocycts.
Greetings. Just stopping by. We are at opposite ends of the idealogical universe, but I thought that I would just say hi.
Hi timbob
Thanks for dropping by.
I’d love to hear your views on this topic sometime.
p.s.
As for the angry part of in the “angry atheists” – I have yet to see the vocal proponents of atheism get angry. I chuckle at Dawkins’ incredulity at some of the answers he gets in interviews but I’ve never heard him lose his temper or be verbally abusive.
Excellent post, Stuart.
Reality, to me, is awesome enough. I will never understand the desire of so many to cling to scripture when the wonder of it All is writ so large in Nature. It seems to me that we would be doing well enough to learn to live in harmony with each other and with the natural world (since we are, after all, actually a part of it), without pretending to know the mind of The Big Kahuna or what happens after we die.
thx for the message, and excellent entry!
I’ve read Sam Harris’s The End of Faith. I think it’s brilliant, and I particularly like his view on the religious moderate. I think I’ll read his new book A Letter soon.
A great post and well put together argument. As one who is struggling with my views on religion and dates an atheist, I definitely appreciate the fact that some people can discuss religion with an even head.
Cheers!
Thanks chickpea,
I hope you are able to resolve your dilemma between love and religion.
I’m an atheist and I’m not angry at all. I love stuff and I’m overall, pretty funny. What’s really funny is when people come to my door selling their God.
Thanks for the support Stuart! I’m working towards resolution! I’m starting to think that it’s all in my mind, but maybe I’m just fooling myself!!
Hey Checkpea, hate to break it to you but ‘everything’ is all in your mind. Like all roads lead to Rome, all neurons lead to the brain. Doesn’t make it any easier does it?
Hey Stuart!
I like atheists and free-thinkers, and I congratulate them all on successfully breaking free from childhood indoctrination! I still label myself as of the “moderate Christian” persuasion though. Though labels generally suck. (Should I be using the “liberal” label, maybe? And then there’s the cute “Christian Agnostic” label I like so much.
Well, that was just a little intro. (Maybe I gave an intro already in the past?)
I am honestly curious about your feelings/opinion about Soft True Strong & You, an essay by “Real Live Preacher”. Dawkins’ primary concern about “moderates” is that they still teach “faith is good”, and thereby serve as a “gateway drug to fundamentalism” (my words
. As such I have been thinking a lot about “what I would be teaching my children one day”. How do you feel about moderates? Or the “dangers of moderate Christianity”, differently worded? (Hmm, I’ll be blogging about that exact topic some time, after first tackling “the dangers of fundamentalism” and “the dangers of atheism” . I’ll maybe bother you again then, if you’re interested in making some contributions.)
Hi Hugo
My feeling is it’s important to give children options and to show them there is no right or wrong answer, irrespective of what they are told elsewhere. At the end of the day they will grow up and make their own decisions and choices. My son attends a very good Catholic private school primarily because the level of tuition is very very good. He is therefor exposed to a very strong Christian influence and at home we discuss it. When he asks me if God created the world I try and show him that there is this fascinating thing called evolution that is stunning and so very interesting. I also show him that there are other religions like Buddhism or non-religions like Atheism that also are equally right.
I am trying to instill in him an non-dogmatic view of the world. We have all had more than enough of the “I’m right and everyone else is wrong’ outlook on life.