4 Things Both Atheists and Believers Need to Stop Saying

Saim · #1 by **Saim** » Dec 25, 2011 4:38 am

Recently, one of the comedy sites I frequent decided to get a bit philosophical and post an article about the most irritating things "both atheists and nonbelievers" say. I personally thought it was a great example of false equivalency.

[url=http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-both-atheists-believers-need-to-stop-saying]Gladstone[/url] wrote:God Is Not Great was the 2007 anti-religion book by popular atheist and author Christopher Hitchens. Last week, Hitchens -- known for his intellect, eloquence and insufferable arrogance -- achieved his life-long goal of becoming God by ceasing to exist. After his death, the #GodIsNotGreat hashtag was all over Twitter and the Internet. Now it's become a ballsy thing for atheists to say because man they don't care whose toes they step on.

I take issue with how deliberately and needlessly provocative the phrase is. Also, how illogical. "Hey man, this God you believe in that I totally don't believe in? Yeah, well, he sucks!" Kind of tries too hard, y'know? I mean, after all, if chicks think you're a badass for saying your old man or your High School principal sucks, then, wow, imagine what a rebel you are for saying God sucks.

But my main complaint is that most purveyors of this sentiment don't really have a beef with God. Even Hitchens' book mostly tears apart the abuses of organized religion, particularly Judaism, Islam and Christianity. I'm surprised how often atheists conflate the two things. Of course organized religion sucks. It's run by people. Religion, like government or anything structured and administered by humanity, will always be flawed and ruined by all of our weaknesses and failings.

And given how much we suck, why shut the door completely on the possibility of something in this universe being better, stronger and wiser? Something we could strive to be more like? It's always seemed to me that the most virulent atheists -- not mere nonbelievers, but those who claim to be positive about God's nonexistence and openly hostile to anyone who could think otherwise -- are incapable of believing there could ever be something greater than they. Not a lack of faith so much as humility. Certainly, that's not true for all atheists, but it doesn't help the atheist cause that the three most hostile atheists I can think of are also on the short-list for most overbearingly arrogant.

[url=http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-both-atheists-believers-need-to-stop-saying_p2]Gladstone[/url] wrote:There have been atheists of significant intellect: Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, and the aforementioned Christopher Hitchens. But in what may come as a surprise to the Internet, not believing in God will not, in itself, make you smart. Reading the God Delusion is as likely to transform you into a genius as reading the Holy Bible will make you a saint. And by the same token, faith need not be a sign of a feeble mind. But just mention God online and you'll be mocked as a mental deficient awaiting the second coming of the "flying spaghetti monster."

In support of this intellectual elitism, some atheists will say that skepticism is the sign of an active and curious mind -- traits consistent with learning. Fair point. They will point to creationists and stem cell research protestors as people placing obstacles in the path of progress, and I'll agree with that too. But there is a difference between questioning the stupidity of dogmatic, close-minded zealots perpetrating institutional abuses and simply mocking sincerely held religious beliefs by equating faith with stupidity. It's sort of the difference between giving a formal presentation about the inherent flaws of your company's policies and procedures, and just farting in your boss's office.

The perversion of the Spaghetti Monster meme is a good example of how some, particularly on the Internet, have destroyed the distinction between thoughtful protest and mere mockery. In 2005, in reaction to the decision of the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in public schools, Bobby Henderson wrote an open letter espousing his religious belief in a divinity known as the flying spaghetti monster. He demanded belief also be afforded equal time in the school system. The letter went viral and spawned a faux religion called Pastafarianism. An effective protest pointing out the ridiculousness of people's subjective religious beliefs as a basis for scientific education. But now, for many, citing the spaghetti monster means only that religious people who are stupid enough to believe in God may as well believe in spaghetti monsters or leprechauns.

If you want to convince yourself that ignorance loves atheists as much as the devout just spend some time watching the flame wars between these factions online. Usually not a trace of intelligence. Just the worst aspects of blind faith from believers and atheists alike: some with unquestioning beliefs in a God just like the one in that Book, and other holding onto an undying conviction that nothing could be more divine than a mind with the ability to deny the existence of anything more divine.

My comment:

saimdusan wrote:Eugh, enough with the false equivaleces. Just because there's "two sides" to any given debate doesn't mean both sides are equally wrong or that both sides have the same amount of problems.

Regarding #2 ("god Is Not Great"), Hitchens' point is that, not only is it unlikely that there is a god, but also the existence of the Christian god isn't particularly desirable. Now you can agree or disagree, but this is a philosophical argument that can be considered on its own merits, rather than as some sign of arrogance.

Furthermore, I don't think many atheists think that "there could ever be something greater than they". Dawkins himself described himself as a "deeply religious nonbeliever" in that he has an almost spiritual reverence for the natural world. I have the same feeling, I just don't think I need to invoke a supernatural explanation for its existence. I can just say "I don't know how the universe came to be" - because no-one does. Positing a god solves nothing.

Regarding #1, I agree that calling religious people and theists stupid isn't particularly correct or tactful. But I think it's fair to say that smart people can believe in very irrational things. Hitchens himself supported the war in Iraq, something most of his readership didn't or don't support (given the general unpopularity of the war and especially given Hitchen's other opinions that are more orthodox leftist ones). But why does satirizing someone's beliefs mean you disrespect the person? For me, most religions are just inherently ridiculous. For that reason, I find humour in poking fun at them. Is this wrong? Is this disrespectful? I'm not even making an argument at the moment - I'd like to know what other people think.

Also, there's a difference between believing ideas are stupid (i.e., Yahweh or a flying spagghetti monster) and beliving the people who believe in those ideas are stupid (Christians, pastafarians). I believe the former, not the latter.

Finally, I think the title really underlines the false equivalency of the article. The article doesn't talk about 4 things both atheists and believers need to stop saying, it mentions 2 things atheists need to stop saying and 2 things theists need to stop saying. There's a difference, and I don't think I'm being pedantic in pointing it out, as this mistake underscores the whole logic behind the article.

I think the article and the comments section were enlightening on how many 'moderates' (i.e. people who don't really think about religion) and 'spiritual but not religious' people see atheists. Many of these people are upset that atheists are saying that religious belief is stupid (which is eroneously extrapolated to mean "religious people are stupid"). Perhaps they have a point, I mean, I don't think we can say that their feelings are "wrong" otherwise we become what they're accusing us of. Is it true that atheists are being arrogant when they say that religious beliefs are stupid?

Others seem think that theism and atheism are just as valid as each other. I really find it irritating when people instantly jump to some "middle ground" rather than appraising people's beliefs based on the evidence backing them up. Why is it that people feel the need to be 'moderate'?

virphen · #2 by **virphen** » Dec 25, 2011 4:55 am

I'd some up "god is not great" as "non-existence is god's only redeeming characteristic".

His existence is not only massively improbable, it's totally undesirable.

Cito di Pense · #3 by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 25, 2011 1:16 pm

Saim wrote:Is it true that atheists are being arrogant when they say that religious beliefs are stupid?

I'd say it's more the case that anti-theists are being stupid by pretending that skepticism of religious and spiritual beliefs is anything but an observation. Adding contempt for vigourous defense of unsupported beliefs is just normal ground-ape behaviour in an age of science. Back in the day, when superstition was a characteristic of government, skepticism of woo was déclassé.

[derail]Nowadays, some people substitute 'monetarism' for 'god', vigourously defend it, and receive relatively little contempt into the bargain. Overpopulation and price stability. A match made in heaven.[/derail]

[url=http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-both-atheists-believers-need-to-stop-saying]Gladstone[/url] wrote:And given how much we suck, why shut the door completely on the possibility of something in this universe being better, stronger and wiser? Something we could strive to be more like? It's always seemed to me that the most virulent atheists -- not mere nonbelievers, but those who claim to be positive about God's nonexistence and openly hostile to anyone who could think otherwise -- are incapable of believing there could ever be something greater than they. Not a lack of faith so much as humility. Certainly, that's not true for all atheists, but it doesn't help the atheist cause that the three most hostile atheists I can think of are also on the short-list for most overbearingly arrogant.

Price stability strikes me as a very good candidate for something in this universe that is better, stronger, and wiser than we are.

Ihavenofingerprints · #4 by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Dec 25, 2011 1:43 pm

My prediction: Playing the victim card for theism will be an olympic sport by 2020.

Ihavenofingerprints · #5 by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Dec 25, 2011 2:06 pm

But now, for many, citing the spaghetti monster means only that religious people who are stupid enough to believe in God may as well believe in spaghetti monsters or leprechauns.

So it's irrational to dismiss particular types of theism. But it's perfectly OK to equate people who believe in leprechauns to those who believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

BUT BUT BUT isn't it OK to believe there might exist an animal - better, stronger and wiser than us (in leprechaun form)?

Why do these self righteous theist bloggers think it's OK to parade around all day dismissing the existence of leprechauns. They are continuously putting us down with their smug superiorness. They often cite the end-of-the-rainbow (EOTR) creationist leprechaun believers as examples of a typical leprechaun believer, and then paint us all with the same brush.

Just mention leprechauns for a second on the internet and you will undoubtedly be swamped with mocking replies from theists. This intellectual elitism is vibrant amongst online forums. Ignorance loves theists as much as it loves the EOTR leprechaun believers. Some with unquestioning beliefs in a leprechaun just like the one in that Book, and other holding onto an undying conviction that nothing could be more divine than a mind with the ability to deny the existence of anything more divine.

Spearthrower · #6 by **Spearthrower** » Dec 25, 2011 2:20 pm

Moonwatcher · #7 by **Moonwatcher** » Dec 25, 2011 3:07 pm

Oh I'll admit there might be a difference between saying that there might conceivably be an intelligence of some sort behind the universe, details unknown, and saying that there are leprechauns that dress in green, like to steal pots of gold and are always after me lucky charms or that some Bronze age tribal god created a garden with a couple of magic trees.

Now I do not think the evidence supports a design argument. That leaves a "Start it and let it go based on encoded principles" or something like that. It is purely a "Gaps" argument and it is no argument at all in empirical terms because there is no evidence at all.

Things like the Flying Spaghetti Monster were thought of specifically as a counter to forcing a particular Creation myth into Science classrooms. Whether or not it is a valid parody when used to parody just a pure Deist concept of a god is purely opinion. Personally, I have no quarrel with pure Deism as long as it genuinely is pure Deism and as long as it is acknowledged as a belief.

When people start using it as a sophist lead-in for a particular mythology that isn't pure Deism at all but they just want to prop up their mythos to make it sound more sophisticated (more in the gaps, really), then I find it discoursively dishonest because the person is jumping back and forth between two different concepts of "God" while pretending it is the same one.

It is more problematic when they argue it is evidentially supported. We know that the universe is explainable from natural processes so, again, one can only retreat fully into the Gaps to find "God". But that is a Gaps argument, not an evidential argument. Hence, it is a belief.

Cito di Pense · #8 by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 25, 2011 4:07 pm

Moonwatcher wrote:Oh I'll admit there might be a difference between saying that there might conceivably be an intelligence of some sort behind the universe, details unknown, and saying that there are leprechauns that dress in green, like to steal pots of gold and are always after me lucky charms or that some Bronze age tribal god created a garden with a couple of magic trees.

Yes. The only difference is that between not being embarrassed by putting in a lot of ridiculous detail, and not being embarrassed to be completely vague in order to have something to say oneself about deepity.

Moonwatcher · #9 by **Moonwatcher** » Dec 25, 2011 4:16 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Moonwatcher wrote:Oh I'll admit there might be a difference between saying that there might conceivably be an intelligence of some sort behind the universe, details unknown, and saying that there are leprechauns that dress in green, like to steal pots of gold and are always after me lucky charms or that some Bronze age tribal god created a garden with a couple of magic trees.

Yes. The only difference is that between not being embarrassed by putting in a lot of ridiculous detail, and not being embarrassed to be completely vague in order to have something to say oneself about deepity.

Yes, vacuity masquerading as depth. Precisely.

AlohaChris · **#10** by **AlohaChris** » Dec 25, 2011 4:50 pm

Muslims Claim Responsibility for Christmas Day Bombing of Christian Church

:this:

I don't feel all arrogant & superior when I read this. I felt sadness, fear & horror, but ZERO shock or surprise. Now if the headline read:

Muslims MIT Claims Responsibility for Christmas Commencement Day Bombing of Christian Church Cal Tech.

Then I'd truly be shocked.

-Sylvan · **#11** by **-Sylvan** » Jan 02, 2012 10:03 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Moonwatcher wrote:Oh I'll admit there might be a difference between saying that there might conceivably be an intelligence of some sort behind the universe, details unknown, and saying that there are leprechauns that dress in green, like to steal pots of gold and are always after me lucky charms or that some Bronze age tribal god created a garden with a couple of magic trees.

Yes. The only difference is that between not being embarrassed by putting in a lot of ridiculous detail, and not being embarrassed to be completely vague in order to have something to say oneself about deepity.

I see you've seen Dennett's lecture to the American Atheists Institution conference. :grin:

Apart from myself, I haven't ever witnessed anyone else using that term before.