in the eyes of many, including some atheists, the only acceptable way to be an atheist is to shut up

[BurtWorm]

From a lengthy rebuttal by the Canadian philosopher George Williamson to an article against the tactics of the "Four Horseman" of "New Atheism," Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens by Julian Baggini:


http://richarddawkins.net/article,3703,n,n


...

It seems quite clear that in the eyes of many, including some atheists, the only acceptable way to be an atheist is to shut up about it and not disturb believers’ complacent presumption of their unassailable metaphysical and moral position, their conviction that anyone who could oppose governance by their religious principles must surely be beyond the pale, if not actually evil.

The new atheists’ principal fault would seem to be failure to abide by this. But there has never been a congenial relationship between believers and non-believers to be spoiled. The fault for this, though, must belong to religion, given its historical track record for aggression toward dissent. Maybe the new atheists are arrogant, but so far, no one has been burned at the stake for apostasy from reason.

But surely Mr. Baggini is not following in this line – he’s an atheist, new or old, himself. No, his concern is to not alienate the moderate believer. On this I have little to say – I have no idea as to how one makes rapprochment with religious moderates, nor even what value doing so might have for atheists.

This is a thorny political problem for greater minds than mine. But it seems to me that what is moderate about a believer is rarely their religion. Rather, their moderateness is so to the extent of their secularity, to the extent that they are not religious.

It is to modern, secularized culture that we must attribute this moderation, for the religious get their values and beliefs overwhelmingly from this source, same as the rest of us. Perhaps this suggests that atheists should press the case for a secular world with renewed vigour, though that will predictably dump further displeasure on them. All the same, I can only wonder what use compromise with religion could be to atheists, apart from deflecting a small amount of the hostility directed their way.

[Goblinmonger]

1. This should be good.

I'm sure there will be plenty of love in this thread.

[MADem]

2. I think that's a good idea for the religious, as well! nt

[no_hypocrisy]

3. For some individuals, discussion of this topic can become emotional as well as intellectual.

Almost like the ultimate topic to win in a debate, not to mention to be challenged on this topic is being personally challenged.

[Jeep789]

4. Discussion is fine

but attempting to force your religious or lack there of view on anyone else is tiresome. As is ridicule of other's beliefs.

[BurtWorm]

5. Ironic last sentence, given your avatar.

;)

[maxsolomon]

6. no one can force a lack of belief

ridicule is everyone's right under our laws. it may be rude, but religious beliefs must be able to withstand ridicule or their not really beliefs.

[Jeep789]

9. Didn't say you didn't have the right to ridicule

just that it was tiresome.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. No matter how ridiculous those beliefs might be.

And for impartiality's sake I give equal respect to Jesus, Mohammad, Moroni and Xenu.

[MineralMan]

8. Insofar as religious folks choose to inform me about the benefits

of following their religion, and the dangers of not following it, I won't be silent. Silence begets silence. Proselytizing begets something else.

It's that simple.

[Jeep789]

10. Two wrongs do make a right

:crazy:

[dmallind]

11. and when atheism is in a similar position to Xianity in the US

your snark will be based on something valid. When our money affirms an absence of gods along with our pledge, and when Xians can't hold office in seven states, and when they are the most reviled minority in the nation (see both Pew and U Minn studies) then you can reasonably say that antagonistic attitudes from both sides are equally culpable, but right now that's like saying gays being snarky to straights are equally as dangerous as homophobia coming the other way, or that black comedians making fun of white people is just as bad as racism against blacks. Christians have ALL the power and influence. Resentment against that is not equivalent to continuing enforcement of it.

[Jeep789]

14. Um, I believe entire countries have been atheistic at times.

I didn't absolve the Christians. I would like to return to secularism.

[Meshuga]

12. I don't believe the only acceptable way for someone to be an atheist is to shut up about it

Thinking people should shut up is far from the way I feel about it. But I can't deny that I find the "I have no idea as to how one makes rapprochement with religious moderates, nor even what value doing so might have for atheists" statement to be troubling. Unless I am totally misunderstanding it.

There are "religious moderates" groups (no matter how many or how few they are) who long for a secular society even if members of these groups choose to be religious at home and at their houses of worship. So I don't think that putting a wall between you and a group (or individuals from a group) that might share your cause accomplishes much.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. Exactly

I heartily dislike political appropriations of religion, because they're almost always religion distorted by politics as much as politics distorted by religion, pure crowd manipulation.

[skepticscott]

15. The current vogue is to disparage

the stridency and vociferousness of atheists and anti-theists like Dawkins and Hitchens by saying that being rude and offensive (even if incidentally) does no good; it just puts people off and never persuades anyone of anything. But it would be equally valid to ask what good centuries of deference and politeness (forced, for most of history) towards religion and all of its abuses have done for atheists, other than to keep them alive in a state of fear and submission. It's no coincidence that the standing of atheists and other non-believers has improved more in the past 10 or 15 years than it did over the thousand years before that (not that it still doesn't have a long way to go), pretty much in line with the emergence of the so-called "New Atheist" movement.

Maybe there are people out there who have been afraid to come out as atheists because of the stigma attached and the abuse and ostracization they know they can expect. Perhaps they will be much more likely to step up to live the life they want in an unashamed way and to be open and active members of the community of non-believers if they see that they're part of a group that will stand up for themselves and not simply accept being trodden underfoot just to get along. And perhaps people will be more likely to consider that atheists know what they're talking about if they're unabashed about calling fools fools and nonsense nonsense than if they constantly hedge and parse their words, to avoid giving even the least offense to the most sensitive of believers.

None of this happens overnight, of course. Few people if any are going to do a complete 180 on their worldview just from reading one venom-laded Hitchens column, and many people will never be persuaded, no matter how polite or impolite you are. But the notion that minds will never change unless we're unfailingly polite and obsequiously deferent is simply false.

[Why Syzygy]

16. Well that answers a big question.

Where does the intolerance of Atheists on this forum originate? Richard Dawkins.
The Church of Dawkins meeting now.

Someone will need to show me when/where Atheists were burned at stake. Please.

How about equal time for Tolerance:

(...)Atheists, except for the bravest and boldest of us, are afraid to tell people that they are atheists, for fear of the millions of devout Christians in this country who think they are immoral and on the road to hell. Certainly, some of us are immoral (Stalin was an atheist), but so are some Christians (Hitler was a Catholic). It's unfair to judge someone based solely on their particular beliefs regarding the existence of a deity.

There are two sides to this coin, however. Many atheists have responded to Christian intolerance with equal intolerance towards the Christians. Atheists have been known to refer to Christians as "hopelessly deluded," along with several other uncomplimentary names. Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Jon Garth Murray in their "FAQs About Atheism" describe religious beliefs as "old, silly ideas that we should have abandoned by now." 1 They also do not capitalize the names of any religions, God, or the name of Jesus Christ, which is simply an open act of disrespect.

It should be noted that they also say (supposedly speaking for all atheists) that God "was never anything other than a fictional idea," suggesting that atheists actively disbelieve in God. Many atheists, however, simply refuse to believe in God, but don't go so far as to disbelieve in Him.

It seems like most of the atheists who speak out (rather than hide) hold beliefs like these. When they make their atheism public, they seem to immediately go on the offensive, attacking the beliefs of Christians before they can attack their disbeliefs. The entire FAQ referred to above seems more like one long treatise against Christianity than an explanation of atheism.

Perhaps we should take a lesson from Martin Luther King, Jr. In his day, African-Americans were vastly discriminated against, to the point that whites tried to totally separate them from society. They had separate restaurants, restrooms, and even schools. Violence was frequently performed on African-Americans, and often there was no one in law enforcement who would protect them. Dr. King, however, preached both love and pacifism. He said, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction." We atheists are discriminated against far less than the African-Americans were in those days, yet we seem to answer intolerance with intolerance and hatred with hatred.

My point here is that if we atheists expect to be treated with respect by Christians, we have got to treat them with respect too. We say that we want the right to believe whatever we want without fear of discrimination. Well, if we expect to get that right, we have to practice what we preach: tolerance.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mettetal01.htm