This got the grey matter firing today.
While the purpose of Unfollowing Jesus is to make fun of the ridiculousness of religion (and fundamentalism) in all it’s forms, it’s difficult not to draw a comparison between those we make fun of and some (not all) members of our own (skeptical/atheist) community.
Sure, those members of our community are not out blowing up churches, but the online rants and dogmatic judgementalism (is that even a word? I don’t think so, but you know what I mean) of the more extreme members of our community, who actually openly spout hatred and vitriol at individuals just because they believe in religion rather than targeting their beliefs, is in itself worthy of ridicule.
Surely judging lies, deceit and bad influence (religion) cannot be compared with judging those that shout for truth, facts and honesty (science/ criticism of religion)?
It can be when that person acts like a complete ass and bashes people personally for their beliefs. Also, your very statement is flawed as many of those who have a religious beliefs are not being deliberately deceitful yet get treated by many in our community as if they are idiots and lying sacks….
There are some in our community who act with the intolerance seen in the worst of religious fundamentalists and attack people personally rather than challenging their beliefs through education or humor and immediately resort to the “your just a stupid fucking *insert religion here* go read a fucking book you idiot, I hope you never reproduce” argument.
While we may be against religion and it’s negative effects, does that give us a right to treat believers as automatically being stupid simply for believing? I think we forget that many (most?) of us believed before we became atheists. Others need to be given that opportunity and personally attacking them, instead of challenging their beliefs, may be doing our cause more harm than good….
Flawed? You know something Paul, you’re a fucking moron. You’re one of those people that finds an argument with everything and anything presented to them. Any fucking half-arsed graduate can do that.
Thanks James for so graphically proving my point, except this time you do so by attacking me rather than someone from outside our community. Once presented with someone who doesn’t give the answer you wanted (or expected) to your question – and you did ask a question – you resort to name calling and personal attacks instead of reasoned argument. Well done, I could not have asked for a better display of exactly what is wrong with certain elements of our community.
Also, here’s a tip for you… If you don’t want to have your ideas questioned, don’t leave a comment on my site. It’s a concept so simple even a moron like me understands it.
The irony is strong with this one.
A severe issue we tend to run into (and I know that I run into it personally a lot), is that I am one of those active, noisy, general PITA members of the community that really goes after religious beliefs with gusto and probably too much mockery and derision. It’s arguably a bad habit, but it’s just who I am.
Note that I do always try to attack the beliefs, as opposed to the person. (“An invisble man in the sky that controls the universe? Seriously?” vs “An invisible man in the sky that controls the universe? Are you an actual idiot?”)
But the problem that I run into a lot is that those beliefs _are_ people’s identities. So I can’t attack and undercut and argue about religious beliefs and have it interpreted as dealing with the beliefs. It’s so intrinsic to so many people’s beings, that by attacking the belief, I’m attacking the person by fiat. That’s not my intent, but it’s how it comes across.
Is that a flaw in my presentation? Sure, entirely possible. I’m far too blusterous. But in general, I don’t know if we can completely separate “targeting the beliefs” vs “targeting the individual” when so many people consider their beliefs a part of themselves so strongly. That, in turn, leads to people claiming that we’re attacking the person and not the system.
I don’t have a solution. I find it very frustrating.
It can be a difficult line to walk, but at least you’re trying to walk it… Some people don’t even try. And you’re right, it is very frustrating, maybe the community can help us find an answer
I am often told I’m an immoral devil because I have reason to believe 99% of everything written in the bible is fiction.
It’s like Christians by default think us atheists don’t believe in some of what they think are “their morals”, such as respect for one another, treat others as you would treat yourself, don’t kill (although the bible contradicts this one like a mother fucker), don’t be greedy, that kind of shit. All because it was in “their” bible.
I find christians try to take ownership of such moral’s. And automatically assume if your not christian, your not a moral person.
The problem with the “judgment” statement above is that it doesn’t take into account individualism. Being atheist means one thing “you don’t believe there is a god”, you can still be an atheist and still not be rational, you can still be an atheist and be a racist, you can still be an atheist and wear your underwear over your pants and play superman at 3 in the morning… Point is, there is no “atheist bible”, no atheist constitution. The only thing all atheists have in common is that we don’t believe in god, sure it’s no coincidence that majority of us are rational, smarter and a lot more good looking than believers
But we all have our individual beliefs, and certainly don’t have any rule of law set in stone to be an atheist.
The thing we have on christians is that christians believe in the bible. We have a cold hard understanding of what they believe in, because the fuckers wrote it down in a 1000 page waste of paper.
Then we ask ourselves, what do christians have on us? There is no book of atheism that they can sight, there is not book of “the beliefs of heathf” or “the beliefs of john smith”. They have nothing on us, so they resort to generalising that we all are straight minded on every moral and ethical issue.
I call the “reverse racism” bullshit card here(well, obviously not racism, but the same concept). A minority attacking with anger back at the majority can not be compared to the majority attacking the minority. I still believe we should be civil to one another, for various reasons, but the two things are not equal.