The Origins of Aggressive Atheism

[rug]

Non-believers are often marginalized in the U.S., which has led to a lot of resentment among their ranks. But don't be deceived: For most Americans, lack of religion usually comes with a shrug, not a shout.

Emma Green Nov 24 2014, 8:51 AM ET

O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: It is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God.

American faith has gone through many awakenings. Depending on how you count, there have been three or four distinctive surges of Protestant religiosity in the United States, marked by tent revivals, missionary work, widespread conversions, and, often, intense rhetoric about the consequences of sin. These "Great Awakenings" have been memorialized through texts like "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," a sermon delivered by the preacher Jonathan Edwards in 1741, who warned of the "fire of wrath" in hell.

So it's provocative to title your book Atheist Awakening. Oxford University Press's newest release on non-belief, by researchers Richard Cimino and Christopher Smith, claims to be the "first sociological exploration of organized secularism in America," tracing the evolution of the atheist community over the past several decades. The "awakening" part is "not so much a growth in numbers as an awakening to claiming atheism for themselves, and becoming more public about it," said Cimino.

By numbers alone, American atheists really aren't that big of a group. According to a 2012 Pew report, atheists make up only about 2.4 percent of the population. Even agnostics, whom you could maybe call atheistic-ish, only account for an estimated 3.3 percent of Americans. Although both groups have grown somewhat since 2007, the bigger change has been among those who identify as "nothing in particular"—roughly 13.9 percent of the population, which is an increase of 2.3 percentage points over five years.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/11/the-origins-of-aggressive-atheism/383088/?single_page=true

hhttps://global.oup.com/academic/product/atheist-awakening-9780199986323?lang=en&cc=usjectcode1=1803195|

[MellowDem]

1. "Aggressive Atheism"

What a hoot! The bigotry comes so easily, and the privilege shines so brightly!

[rug]

3. Exactly!

How on earth could they have come up with such a ridiculous phrase?

[AtheistCrusader]

5. People say funny things when the privilege they've been assuming their entire lives, is threatened.

[rug]

7. I know, all sorts of nonsense about AOL and browsers and apps.

Go figure.

[MellowDem]

12. They say so themselves....

It's because atheists criticize religion. Haha, can you fucking believe it? Criticizing an idea is now "aggressive". Guess that makes this whole site aggressive as fuck! But wait, no, religion is treated differently, cause believers are the majority, and they don't like having their privilege challenged.

[rug]

13. The whole lot of them are deluded!

[AtheistCrusader]

2. I've pretty much just been standing up for myself my whole life. If that's 'aggressive atheism'

manning the barricades between religion and state, then the author of that article can kiss my ass.

[rug]

4. You're an inspiraion.

[stone space]

6. "Manning the baracades" made me think of that old UCC bouncer ad...

...that several TV networks refused to run.

In this case, I guess it was Aggressive Christians that the networks were concerned about, though.

[rug]

8. That's a devastating ad.

[okasha]

30. I remember that.

It still speaks truth to power, and it's still an inspiration.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. And still totally out of place in response to a comment on the 'wall of separation'

between church and state, which is manned by secular AND religious entities. (usually AGAINST fundamentalists.)

That ad cast the 'barricade' in an extremely negative light.

A position I occupy WRT to the 'wall of separation', which is why it was a personal attack. (Likely not jury actionable.)

[okasha]

40. That ad is AGAINST fundamentalists as much as you are.

I think perhaps that was stone space's point.

No, I don't think you could get jury action on that, The jurors would likely have the same WTF reaction to the accusation that I do.

[stone space]

42. Here's an ad that casts ejection seats in an extremely negative light.

It's a little more slapstick than the rather subtle and understated bouncer ad above.

That ad cast the 'barricade' in an extremely negative light.

What does the UCC have against ejection seats, anyway? Don't ejection seats save the lives of test pilots?

Damn those aggressive Christians and their ejection seat hatin' ways!

No wonder their ads keep getting banned!

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Your tricycle squeaks when you backpedal.

[stone space]

47. Christians on red tricycles can be particularly aggressive.

Your tricycle squeaks when you backpedal.

Don't let them anywhere near your attack helicopters.

Somebody forgot to man the barricades between the weapons of the state and the red tricycles and garden mattocks of the Christians.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Non-sequitur.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."


It has been variously described as a wall, hedge, barricade, battlement, you name it. Walls are useless against a determined foe if they are not actively defended. And I am not alone in desiring to do so. I have religious allies on that wall. There are those that recognize that, not only is religion corrosive to government, but government is corrosive to religion. The first, most strenuous defenders of separation, were people of religious persuasion concerned about government influence on their churches.

"The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in the Massachusetts Bay Colony to found the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.[59][60]

Williams was motivated by historical abuse of governmental power, and believed that government must remove itself from anything that touched upon human beings’ relationship with God, advocating a "hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world" in order to keep the church pure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian)

Those barricades are what make the United States a sandbox within which everyone gets to play.

[stone space]

19. I'm not sure what you mean by "Non-sequitur".

I think you are using the term incorrectly.

I've never seen it used to deny what people are reminded of.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. The ad it 'reminded you' of, is an attack, and invalid.

The 'wall of separation' doesn't turn people away based on, as the 'ad you were reminded of' shows, disability, class, or race, etc.

The 'wall of separation' prevents government from telling religious entities what to do, and contrariwise prevents religious entities from using the government as a weapon against other religions. (or non-religion)

How you made the connection is puzzling to me. The concepts aren't similar at all. Looks like you just felt the need to try and paint me as a bully.

[stone space]

21. That probably explains why several networks refused to air it.

The ad it 'reminded you' of, is an attack, and invalid.

I disagree with both you and the networks on this.

I don't see the ad as an attack.

Nor do I see the ad as somehow "invalid".

No doubt it was produced by some Aggressive Christians in the UCC, but that in and of itself doesn't invalidate the ad, nor does it somehow make the ad an "attack".

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Invalid comparison.

And your use of it here, was an attack. (Not the networks, I cannot speak to their motives)

[stone space]

23. No it wasn't. That's just a lie.

And your use of it here, was an attack.

I am surprised to see you lying so blatantly here.

Why is your motivation for lying here?

[AtheistCrusader]

24. "In this case, I guess it was Aggressive Christians that the networks were concerned about, though."

Don't play coy with me.

[stone space]

25. Why do you feel the need to lie about me?

There must be some reason.

Do you have something against aggressive atheists?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. OH, you were reminded of yourself then?

That doesn't quite make sense either, but keep on herping that derp.

Because, you were clearly just playing free word association with 'barricade' there and nothing more.

"In this case, I guess it was Aggressive Christians that the networks were concerned about, though."


Substitute 'about, though.' with 'instead'.
You are pathetically transparent.

[stone space]

27. Why do you lie about me?

You still haven't answered the question.

I'll admit to being a bit of an aggressive atheist at times, but so what?

[AtheistCrusader]

28. You made your intent quite plain.

Withdraw/delete it, and I will withdraw my response. Otherwise, feel free to backpedal all you want.

[stone space]

41. You want me to delete that UCC ad? Seriously?

Withdraw/delete it, and I will withdraw my response.

Didn't several networks already do that?

Sorry, but I'm not going to follow their lead.

You may respond as you wish.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Video + your comment.

[stone space]

49. The answer is "no." Feel free to alert. (nt)

[okasha]

31. The ad was an attack on homophobia and discrimination.

Unless you support either of those things, it's not aimed at you.

The "barricades" reference represented by the bouncer were barricades put up by conservative churches. Some of them stll exist.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Yes, I'm sure that's what stone meant.

Thank you for your input.

[okasha]

33. You're welcome.

Here's some more. Stop picking fights over what you assume posters mean. You started a row in Interfaith recently because you wrongly assumed that my one-word comment referred to a photograph rather than the content of an article. It's the only reason I took you off ignore. You're making the same mistake here.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Actually, the problem was much more than just the photo.

The photo(s) simply provided evidence. I clarified that as best I could in the associated Religion forum thread, since I was banned before you posted that excuse.

I was not alone in that interpretation.


Since Stone didn't, why don't you tell me what he meant with:

"In this case, I guess it was Aggressive Christians that the networks were concerned about, though."

That clearly indicates a role reversal to me, meaning, it applied to me, not the simple correlation of the word 'barricade'.

Oh wait, you can't tell me what Stone meant. "Stop picking fights over what you assume posters mean."

[okasha]

35. So why don't you ask him what he meant

instead of starting off with accusations?

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Because the implication is obvious.

Also, it's not like that's a common method, you just described. Not only has it happened to me on many occasions, but in some cases, the poster was right AND I had to eat my words. So uh. Consistency?

[okasha]

37. I have no idea what the body of your post refers to.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Your objection.

Would you prefer it in a different language?

Edit: If I knew how to say it differently/more eloquently, I already would have.

[stone space]

43. Isn't that what some folks say...

.,..every time somebody thanks God to make it thru another day alive in our violent society?

Because the implication is obvious.

If the implications are always so obvious, then why do folks continue to get it so wrong so often?

Some folks seem to want to argue with their own "implications" than to deal honestly with what others actually say and mean.

The word "strawman" comes to mind here.

They are much easier to construct out of ones own "implications" than out of actual words.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. I quoted your post several times. It's not just the video.

You're a master at deflection though, I'll give you that.

[stone space]

48. The problem is your paranoia.

You read one innocuous comment written by an atheist, and suddenly you feel like are under attack.

That's paranoia.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Speaking of people not understanding their privilege

And this would be actual real privilege and not some manufactured one like you tried to do with tech.

[rug]

10. You're the one that tried to turn a thread about racism and sexism into one about aol.

oh, and browsers.

[Goblinmonger]

14. No. I made one comment when you gave out the author's email.

Sorry you are completely humorless. I'll remember that in the future.

You tried to turn one comment about AOL being a shitty email provider into one of privilege for fuck's sake.

[rug]

15. "aol.com? Eeek n/t" is a pretty stupid response to an essay on systemic segregation.

I have been accused o many things. Humorless is the lamest.

[Goblinmonger]

16. It wasn't a response to the OP

It was a response to this:

Maybe you should send her an email and tell her to sit down and STFU.

Here it is: [e-mail]

I was in a particularly good mood at the time and felt saying "How about you stop with your passive aggressive bullshit and straw man building not to mention giving out someone's email and telling people to harass them when that wasn't the intent of that poster at all" might bring me down from that mood. But, after typing it now, I find it actually doesn't bring me down. Note to self, I guess.

[rug]

17. It was a diversion from the OP.

Since you're quoting. this is what it was in reply to:

25. Atheism doesn't hate on social justice...

And it's stupid and offensive to tell atheists what pet issue they should or shouldn't address, it betrays an ignorance of what atheism even is and is non-sensic and arrogant.

I wish all atheists also were progressive secular humanists active in the issues I care about, who wouldn't care?

Now, here's a suggestion that makes sense, "Catholics should work on making their dogma less misogynistic"

Or were you simply diverting from what your compadre's ludicrous comment warranted?

And before you spew any more dishonest, self-serving, hypocritical, self-righteous bullshit about how you were concerned abiout protecting someone's privacy, here's the full quote:

27. Are you saying atheists should not criticize other atheists?

Because that's what she is and that's what the article is about.

Maybe you should send her an email and tell her to sit down and STFU.

Here it is: [e-mail]

http://womenleadershipproject.blogspot.com/

It's the email she posted under "Contact"



Talk about manufactured outrage.

You've now gone from unthinking privilege to rank dishonesty. Go for a trifecta.

[Goblinmonger]

18. I think the saddest thing about this

is that you really think you're clever.

[rug]

29. Regardless of whether that is true or not, it is far from the saddest thing about this.