Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? Because We're Right.

Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? Because We're Right. | | AlterNet

Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? Because We're Right.

By Greta Christina, AlterNet. Posted June 26, 2009.

Thinking you're right and trying to persuade other people you're right is not intolerant or close-minded -- it's a cornerstone of democracy.

Whenever the subject of atheism comes up, anywhere that isn't an atheist discussion group or something, one sentiment almost inevitably comes up:

"I wish atheists wouldn't talk so much about atheism."

The sentiment gets worded in many different ways. "The new atheists are so evangelical." "This atheist criticism of religion is just intolerant." "You atheists are just as close-minded as the hard-line religious believers you're criticizing."

But the essence of it is the same: The fact that many atheists are talking publicly about our atheism, and are trying to persuade people that we're right about it, shows that we're ... well, evangelical, intolerant and close-minded. So today, I want to explain why so many atheists think it's important to talk about atheism ... and why many of us try to persuade other people that atheism is correct.

The first answer is the most obvious: Anti-atheist bigotry. Atheists talk about atheism because there's a lot of misunderstanding and hostility toward us. It's nowhere near as severe as racism or sexism; but it does exist, and it has real-world consequences.

Parents are denied custody of their children for being atheists; people are harassed and and their homes vandalized by their neighbors for being atheists; teachers are suspended for being atheists; teenagers are harassed and suspended from school for being atheists; politicians whip up anti-atheist fear to try to get elected. (And that's just in the U.S. I'm not even talking about parts of the world where atheism is a crime punishable by imprisonment or death.)

Making ourselves visible, coming out about who we are and what we do and don't believe, is the best way we have to counter that.

That's only a small part of the story, though. Another part -- and probably more important -- is that many atheists see religion not just as a mistaken idea but as a harmful one. We see it as a serious social problem, a type of belief that on the whole does significantly more harm than good ... and one that, because of its ultimately unfalsifiable nature, has little or none of the reality checks that other belief systems eventually have to measure up to.

We see people bombing buildings, abusing children, committing flagrant fraud, shooting political dissenters, etc., etc., etc., all behind the armor of religion ... and we feel a need to speak out.

Even that, though, is missing the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue, the most important answer to the question, "Why do atheists have to talk about atheism?" is this: Why shouldn't we?

Thinking you're right, and trying to persuade other people you're right, is not intolerant or close-minded -- it's a cornerstone of democracy. That's how it works: people explain their ideas, debate them, make arguments to support them, revise or refine or drop them in the face of valid criticism, make snarky jokes in the face of stupid criticism.

The marketplace of ideas won't flourish if people don't bring their ideas to the market. Being close-minded doesn't mean thinking you're right; it means refusing to reconsider your position, even when the evidence suggests that you're wrong. And being intolerant doesn't mean thinking other people are wrong; it means refusing to listen to them, and dismissing them entirely as stupid or wicked, simply because you disagree with them.

Think of it this way. Is it intolerant or close-minded to say that single-payer is the best plan for the American health care system? That public funding for solar power will reduce our dependence on foreign oil? That global warming is real? That the theory of evolution is right? Is it intolerant or close-minded to try to persuade people to come around to any of these points of view? And if not ... then why is it intolerant or close-minded for atheists to explain why we don't believe in God and to try to persuade people that, of all the ideas people have about religion, atheism is the most plausible?

See, here's the thing, atheists see religion as a lot of things. But for many of us, religion is, above all else, a hypothesis about how the world works and why it is the way it is.

Obviously, we think it's a mistaken hypothesis: inconsistent with itself, inconsistent with reality, unsupported by any good evidence. We can't prove our case with 100 percent certainty -- that's pretty much impossible, especially when you're trying to prove a negative -- but we think we can make a pretty good case.

But more to the point: We see no reason to treat religion any differently from any other hypothesis about the world. We think it's valid to ask it to support its case just like any other hypothesis ... and just like any other hypothesis, we think it's valid to poke holes in it in public.

And we think one of the main reasons religion has survived for so long is that it's so impressively armored against criticism and indeed against the very idea that criticism of it is an acceptable thing to do.

So we therefore think criticizing religion is not only valid, but important. It doesn't just chip away at religious beliefs themselves. It chips away at the idea that religious beliefs should be immune to criticism. It chips away at the armor that religion has used so effectively for so many centuries to shield itself from any and all questions and critiques.

Now, playing devil's advocate for a moment: Some may argue that I'm being hypocritical; that I'll decry the evangelism of evangelical believers, but am willing to defend it in atheists.

But I don't, in fact, have a problem with evangelical believers trying to persuade others that they're right. Don't get me wrong: I think many of their specific beliefs are mistaken. I think many of their specific beliefs are bigoted, hateful and harmful. I have serious problems with many of the methods they use to persuade, with their reliance on fear and false promises and, in some cases, outright lies.

And I think far too many of their rhetorical devices simply deflect legitimate criticism instead of answering it. But I don't think it's wrong of them to express their beliefs and to try to persuade others that they're right. Again -- that's the marketplace of ideas. And I'm in favor of that. I can disagree passionately with someone's ideas without thinking they're jerks simply for wanting to share them.

I think a little historical context may be in order. This "I'm so tired of hearing about (X), proponents of (X) who advance their views in the public eye are intolerant" trope has been used against every major social-change movement I can think of.

Queer activists were "in your face"; civil rights activists were "hostile"; feminists were "strident." And now atheists who make our case are "intolerant" and "evangelical." When people speak out, not against atheism, but against the very idea of atheists persuasively expressing their views, I always want to ask if that's really the side of history they want to end up on.

Besides, it's not like we're standing outside anyone's window with a bullhorn at 3 a.m. We're not holding a gun to anyone's head and making them read Pharyngula. We're not even knocking on people's doors at 8 o'clock on Saturday morning to share the good word about Darwin. (Well, except for that one guy...)

If people don't want to hear what atheists have to say, there is a wide, wide world of blogs, newspaper articles, magazine articles, YouTube videos, movies, TV shows and oodles of other media available with just a flip of the page or a click of the remote or the mouse. If someone is seriously angered because they occasionally see the word "atheist" in a headline, or have to change the channel if Richard Dawkins is on, then I have to wonder if what's upsetting them is not the evangelical intolerance of atheist activists, but the very idea of atheism itself.

Now, if someone disagrees with us, then by all means, I want them to say so. If someone thinks that there's solid, reliable evidence supporting religious belief, or that the good done in the name of religion outweighs the harm, then I strongly encourage them to bring their ideas to the conversation and to make their case.

But there's a world of difference between, "Here's why I don't agree with you," and, "You are a bad person for even opening your mouth." The former is an attempt to engage in the conversation. The latter is simply an attempt to shut us up.

If someone comes to the marketplace of ideas and the only thing they have to offer is, "How dare those atheists set up a stand here! They're trying to convince us that we're mistaken and that their ideas are better! That's so intolerant!"... then I don't see any reason why I should take that seriously.

How to Argue with Believers and Not Get Frustrated

Posted on commonsenseatheism.com

How to Argue with Believers and Not Get Frustrated

A reader asked me,

Do you ever feel a [sense] of futility when arguing with believers? What drives you to argue as much as you do?

After giving some examples of arguing with stubborn and ignorant Christians, he concludes:

Sorry about this rant I have just been arguing with some frustrating people as of lately. Arguing with people who think they are “masters” concerning the skeptic position and “skeptic psychology” even though though they have never read a skeptic book, this drives me nuts! I am thinking in my head… damn it, please go educate yourself and read some skeptic books and a couple of logic books [while] you are at it!

How do you decide who or who not to argue with? What are your thoughts about the merits of arguing with the religious?

I have already explained Why I Write This Blog – I’m not just trying to win converts to logic and atheism, though that’s part of it.

Arguing with people can be a frustrating experience. People generally have many deeply held but poorly examined beliefs – theists and atheists alike! Most people don’t like having their beliefs challenged; it is uncomfortable for them.

One of my most fortunate developments was to enjoy having my beliefs challenged. Reading strong philosophical arguments for the existence of God – or anything else contrary to my current beliefs – is actually “mental masturbation” for me, except that challenging my beliefs not only leaves me excited but sleepy, but may actually bear fruit in my life.

Christians are especially vulnerable to holding unexamined beliefs because for them, beliefs have moral and eternal implications. A good way to make someone resistant to examining one’s beliefs is to tell them it is not only immoral to doubt God, but that doubt may usher them into a world of eternal, excruciating torture.

I argue with stubborn believers a lot, but I can’t remember the last time I was frustrated by this. When I tried to guess as to why I’m not frustrated, I came up with the following advice on how to argue with believers and not get frustrated:

1. Lower your expectations. If you think you’re going to deconvert a believer or even change his mind about something, you need to lower your expectations. Things don’t usually work that way. I never expect to deconvert someone or change their mind about an important topic. Instead, I take a lesson from my early days as a Christian evangelist: I seek only to “plant seeds.” Back then, I planted seeds of faith in an invisible friend. Now, I plant seeds of doubt. The arguments I give are not going to impact someone in the moment, but the seeds I plant may sprout fruit sometime later. The theist may consider my arguments at another time, or remember them when confronted with something in the real world. Perhaps when visiting a hospital, he’ll think, “Isn’t it nice that God can be source of comfort for all these people? But wait – why would a loving God allow so much innocent suffering in the first place? Luke may have had a point, there.”
2. Detach yourself from the outcome. This is useful pretty much any time – when taking exams, when picking up women, when writing an article, whenever. You need to realize that your efforts are not the only cause of a given outcome. If a theist doesn’t see the flaws in his own reasoning even when you carefully explain them, realize that there are many causes for this that are outside your control – his upbringing, his psychology, his emotions, his ignorance of science or logic, etc. Focus on what you can control: your presentation of atheism. If you gave a concise, clear, and compelling presentation of atheism then you should be proud of that. And if you did not, then you “win” anyway because you can learn from the experience. Perhaps you need to refine your argument to avoid common objections, or perhaps you need to research a particular issue more. Remember, one reason the theist didn’t change his mind may be that your arguments weren’t compelling. In this case, the theist himself, if he is trained in logic, may help to improve your own argument by pointing out flaws in your reasoning. This is a big bonus to you even though the theist did not deconvert on the spot.
3. Value the conversation. Part of detaching from the outcome of an argument is to value the conversation for its own content, not for its result. Personally, I enjoy a good back-and-forth. I have to think on my feet and run everything through my critical thinking filter in real time. Such conversations tell you a lot about how believers think. The more you talk with believers, the more you’ll realize what their most common arguments or assertions are. Then you can tell yourself, “I should really come up with the shortest, stickiest, most persuasive rebuttal possible for that point.” You can even try different rebuttals on different people and see which ones have the best effects. Arguments about religion – regardless of their outcome – can be fascinating anthropological studies. I am often surprised by what believers really think, and how their belief structures are built. Most of them are wacky, some of them are educated and novel, and some of them are just pitifully uninformed – like the parents who threatened to call in the FBI to deal with their atheist daughter. What does it take to become that kind of person? That’s fascinating.
4. Have fun. If it fits the situation, I try to make lots of jokes when arguing with a believer – and not always at the believer’s expense! I’ll fit in jokes about atheists and other topics, too.
5. Respect the other person. This can be hard. How do you respect an adult with a magical invisible friend? Sometimes you get lucky and argue with someone who has studied logic and philosophy and has some sophisticated arguments – I don’t find it hard to respect someone like Mark Linville or Peter van Inwagen. Other times, you’ll have to remind yourself that this person is probably skilled and knowledgeable about many things – just not their own religious beliefs. Remind yourself that you have many beliefs (about morality, politics, psychology, dating, whatever) that are probably really stupid because you haven’t taken the time to study ethical philosophy, political philosophy, psychology, and the science of social dynamics. As a last resort, you can respect the person on the grounds of determinism. If you had had the same genes, the same development, the same parents and friends, the same life events – then you would have been a believer, too. The believer is a product of genes and circumstances just like you are – you just got lucky and scored some genes and circumstances that lead you to have true beliefs about a very particular subject – gods. It’s not like the believer stepped out of the causal chain, considered all the evidence, and simply chose to cling to a comforting belief in an All-Powerful Protector King. Respect that they are a product of genes and environment just like you.
6. Be a team. Frustration comes easy when you view the believer as an opponent who refuses to go down when beaten. Not so when you view them as a partner or teammate in your search for truth. I think of an argument with a believer as a Socratic dialectic, in which the back-and-forth can help lead us to truth and clarify each other’s thinking – and that is something to which we both contribute. And if I phrase the dialogue in that way – “Well, the thing that confuses me about that is…” rather than “No, that’s a stupid argument because…” – then the ‘argument’ goes more smoothly and can indeed be transformed from a gladiatorial battle to a mutual journey for understanding. And that’s a lot less frustrating.

As you can see, these tactics will work just as well as advice for How to Argue with Atheists and Not Get Frustrated. And I think my advice is slightly better than Dave Barry’s.

But these things are easy to forget. If you find yourself getting frustrated in arguments with believers, come back to this post and read it again.

Kicked Out of the Boy Scouts for Being an Atheist

Posted on friendlyatheist.com
Kicked Out of the Boy Scouts for Being an Atheist | Friendly Atheist by Hemant Mehta

Kicked Out of the Boy Scouts for Being an Atheist
icon1 Posted by Hemant Mehta in GLBT, General, Lawsuits on June 25th, 2009 | 32 Comments

My friend Neil Polzin served on the board of directors for the Secular Student Alliance a couple years ago.

I got this message from him last night and it needs to be passed along.

The short version: He was fired from his job with the Boy Scouts of America… likely because they found out about his non-religious beliefs.

The letter from Neil (emphases mine):

“We have received information that has compelled us to revoke your registration. You must immediately sever any relationship you may have with the Boy Scouts of America.”

Today I received a letter from Marcus Mack at the San Gabriel Valley Council that started this way. What was my offense that makes me so inappropriate to be around children? Before your mind fills with thoughts of violence, violations of youth protection or any other deplorable action, it is simply because I am an atheist.

That’s the only reason for the revoking of my membership. I am being kicked out of the BSA because they feel that I am not a capable role model for children. Regardless of the 15 years I have spent in the scouts, any achievements or recognitions along the way.

It is not only that I can’t ever go to my home troop growing up and visit. Along with making it impossible to volunteer for the scouts in any capacity, It also eliminates me from my current paid position as Aquatics Director at Camp Cherry Valley. I am being kicked out AND fired for being an atheist by my employer.

This has been the policy of the BSA for years, to discriminate against homosexuals and the godless. It is an easy policy to look past, because most do not know anyone it has affected. It keeps people in the closet about their personal beliefs or habits, and gives an example of discrimination being ok to the many children in scouts. It is now directly affecting me, along with the hundreds of cubs I was set to swim, kayak and snorkel with this summer. Just as it has effected so many others in the past.

There is an appeals process in the scouts, one that I plan on following over the upcoming weeks. I know that over the years I have had a great effect on my peers and youth in the scouts and in life, as they have had on me. Any examples of this I would be very grateful for you to write about (scout related or not). I do not know if it will be enough to have any change in outcome, but I want the executives to see how this policy negatively affects scouters and scouting. If you feel this is wrong as I do, send your letters to Marcus Mack (Scout Executive/CEO SGVC 3450 East Sierra Madre Blvd Pasadena, CA 91107), and also make a point to express your viewpoint to him if you are at the council offices. Please also send me a copy (digital or print) so I may include it in my appeal to national.

It is easy to say that without scouts I would not be who I am today. It has given me so much, and so I have tried to give back over the last 7 years as an adult. That looks to be no longer possible due to blatant discrimination on the behalf of the BSA.

Neil Polzin

The BSA has a habit of kicking out qualified individuals because of their religious beliefs and sexual orientation. All the stories I’ve read about, though, involve people in voluntary positions. I’m not sure what the legal situation is when we’re talking about paid staff.

John Hagee - Glenn Beck - Bible Prophecies

Pastor John Hagee, pastor of Cornerstone Church, which has a membership of over 19,000, talks with host Glenn Beck about the signs of the end times, Islam, Christianity, Israel, Jews, the United States of America, Iran, Iraq and Russia and how they relate to prophecies in the Bible. He describes in detail how that many of the events happening today were predicted to happen thousands of years ago by God's prophets, along with events that will occur in the near future. Hagee was named "Humanitarian Of The Year by B'Nai Brith and is a leading authority on the subject of Bible Prophecy.

Atheism. The New Calling

Penn & Teller Disprove God in 38 Seconds