15 Things You Shouldn't Say to an atheist

[rug]

By: Yori Yanover
Published: December 19th, 2013

Hemant Mehta is arguing with Christians, but he’s making cogent points we could all benefit from. The essence of his litany is that Christians (he could have addressed Muslims as well) are driven by a need to spread their faith around the globe, whether through persuasion or, should the occasion call for it, by applying a little pressure.

Jews, for the most part, don’t believe the whole world should become Jewish. The opposite is true. While we feel that the whole world would do well to live according to the rules of the Torah intended for them, as interpreted by our sages, it’s OK if they stay Christian, Muslim or even pagan and atheist with a strong sense of right and wrong and a passion for fairness.

For Jews, faith is a personal choice, taken through an intellectual process. We don’t trust religious impulses and emotional appeals. Give us a good book to figure out.

Which is why I enjoyed immensely Mehta’s entertaining clip. He would make a great Jew.

http://www.jewishpress.com/tv/video-picks/15-things-you-shouldnt-say-to-an-atheist/2013/12/19/

[cbayer]

1. I like him a lot.

He has a way of engaging and communicating that is really effective, imo.

I disagree with him on a couple of points, particularly his take on agnosticism, but I think he represents the kind of spokes person and leader that the movement will really benefit from.

The video is really good. I don't see the things he elaborates on happening on DU very much, and I wouldn't expect to. I am hopeful that some open minded religious people could see this and learn from it.

It very much reminds me of some of the videos that have been made by some in the GLBT community.

[longship]

2. I don't like to get into rhetorical disputes, but here I will make an exception.

Mainly because I know you will not take it personally.

First, he expresses many of the objections atheists have heard for many years from all sides. The Friendly Atheist is one of the good guys. (Don't get me wrong, I think Dawkins is, and Hitchens was, too.)

But I'd like to address the agnostic issue here, which I think may have many people confused.

Re: "Atheism" and "Agnosticism"

The two terms are orthogonal. One can be one, or the other, or both, or neither. Being an agnostic means nothing specifically about gods. Gnosis is the Greek word for knowledge. An agnostic is one who expresses that they do not know. It has absolutely nothing to do with gods.

Atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist. That's all it means. It has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with the surety of that belief. It may be merely that the preponderance of evidence to the atheist does not rise to the level that a belief in gods exist. It may have nothing to do with the certainty, only that the theists have not made their case. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, in other words, "in the absence of that evidence, the null hypothesis is normative." That is the way I would phrase both my atheism and my agnosticism.

Atheism is a lack of belief; agnosticism is a lack of knowledge.

I am an agnostic atheist, like almost all atheists I've met and all those whose wildly popular books I've read. That would include all of the four horsemen, and many of the others. Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Stenger, Watson, DM Murdock, Robert Price, Randi, and, and, and, and...

All would agree with me on this ultimately, very silly issue of atheism vs agnosis.
There are no lines in the sand between atheism and agnosticism because those lines must inevitably cross. And they do.

As always.

[cbayer]

3. I have heard this many times, longship, and I don't agree with it.

As Mehta says when talking on this issue, no one gets to decide what I am but me. No one has the right to choose the label but me.

While I think your argument has rhetorical merit, in real life I think it falls short.

It is an argument made that essentially forces people to choose a side. For many, agnosticism means that there isn't enough evidence either way to take a position and that the person wishes to remain neutral.

That may not be literally accurate, but it suits a lot of people.

I also like the term apatheism, one who doesn't know and doesn't particularly care. I have also heard the atheism/agnostic argument that you outline made with this term, with the person concluding is actually an atheist.

Whatever the argument, I reject the concept that agnostic can only be used as a modifier when it comes to theism/atheism. Everyone is an "agnostic" when it comes to taking either position. No one knows

So not all would agree with you, my friend. I don't and there are many of us. Allow us to define ourselves, just as Mehta says.

[longship]

5. Well, I've been told many times that I cannot be an atheist.

I take great exception to that.

My response is, "do you believe there are gods?"

The answer is usually, "no."

I respond with, " I don't either. Are you certain that there are no gods?"

The inevitably answer, "No."

I nod, "Neither am I, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence does there. Especially according to the various and ultimately diverse religious narratives. I suppose there could be some kind of deist god, never interfering in life in the universe. Once the deist gods wound the watch spring up and set the whole thing running they took a vacation, or something. But the people who are so vocal about non-believers do not believe in that deist god; they believe in a personal god, which I think both those who insist on an agnostic label, and those who merely state that they do not believe and call themselves atheists, both agree are the enemy.

Maybe we ought to stop quibbling about rhetoric and fight the loonies who are intent on tearing our world apart.

[cbayer]

7. Then you know how some people feel when they are told they

can't be an agnostic.

When asked the same question, they are likely to respond "I don't know if I believe that or not".

I agree with you about atheists being told they are not atheists. There is an article on HuffPo today called something like "There are no true atheists" (or something like that) and he essentially makes these same lame arguments.

I agree that we ought to stop quibbling about the rhetoric, stop trying to make people take sides, allow people to define themselves and focus on the loons. That's why I don't like anti-theists or anti-atheists. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing to be anti about. Some people believe. Some people don't. And some just don't know.

We have much more in common than we have differeneces.

[longship]

9. I know that we have much in common.

That's why I was not reticent to open a somewhat public colloquy with you on the topic.

I am a bit more cantankerous and am more likely to descend into polemic, than you, and many others here in the religion group. But I respect everybody's opinion because life teaches that one learns more from being wrong than being correct.

I've learned from my mistakes and I can repeat them exactly.

Peter Cook, a British humorist of some note (1937-1995)

My best.

[cbayer]

10. Love that quote.

Love British humor in general, which is a good thing since I live with one.

I don't find you cantankerous and I have learned much from your position. Even when stated strongly, you emanate an attitude of receptiveness and non-combativeness that should be treasured.

And you treat others with respect and don't make things personal.

All good stuff.

[longship]

13. That does it. I'm sending you snow for Christmas!

Plowman took out over a foot deep on Monday. I was stranded for three days.

There's no stopping me now. I figure I've got a couple of tons of the stuff that I can't use. Maybe you can use it to chill your tequila. It's on its way via B-52s. When you hear them flying over, don't forget to duck. Or hold out your Margarita glass.



Skäl!

[cbayer]

14. Would love it!

I hope this doesn't enrage you, but we were in the high 80's today and I was complaining about the heat all day.

Some snow to put in my margarita would be lovely. I'll leave the glasses out on the deck.

Para su salud!

[longship]

15. Well, at least I'm not sweating. Have a cool one for me.

I'm about to pour myself a Manhattan nightcap to sip with a movie.

[pinto]

6. Agree, some of the parallels with the gay community are on point.

Many of us would do well to take this tack in personal terms. Leave the us/them dichotomy aside a bit and talk about common misunderstandings.

[cbayer]

8. I agree, pinto.

I know it's very important for some people to define themselves as something in this regard - christian, atheist, muslim, jew. That's fine, but they shouldn't be teams intent on running down or destroying the other. It's wrong whoever does it.

Not that running down or destroying a specific harmful ideology is wrong, though.

[pinto]

11. Yeah, harmful ideology needs to be countered and pushed back. We all see its effect.

In action it's a self-perpetuating conflict. Benefits no one.

I see a partnership between larger organized action and personal action as a counter. We can't let conflict define us.

[cbayer]

12. Well put. Let's focus on what we share and not on what we don't.

[Kali]

16. leader? the movement?

while there may be some atheist organizations, atheism itself is not a "movement"

it is simply not believing in god(s) or religion

[cbayer]

17. I disagree.

I think there is a movement and it's becoming more organized all the time.

The primary objectives are the "normalization" of atheism, that is reducing prejudice and misunderstanding, and enforcement of the 1st amendment as it pertains to religion.

There aren't just some organizations, there are many and they are growing rapidly.

There are spokespeople, conferences, websites, very active organizations and growing campus groups. There are even things like Sunday gatherings that are gaining in popularity. There are symbols, t-shirts, jewelry, bumper stickers and books.

While many atheists are not at all interested and see atheism as you define it, many others are.

If that's not a movement, I don't know what is. And in general, I think it's a good thing.

When atheists no longer face discrimination and are equally represented politically, I think the objectives will have been met to a large degree.

[rug]

18. I guess not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/atheist-pac_n_4468067.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[pinto]

4. Fun, interesting video. He's good.

I like how he makes his points in day-to-day terms. Keeps it simple and personable. Seems like someone I'd like to have coffee with, sit back and talk a bit about things.

[Goblinmonger]

19. This guys says

pretty much want the more vocal atheists have said here on DU. He says it in pretty much the same way we all have. He gets the famed "atta boy" from the theists on here but we get the "anti-theist" "new atheism" label of meanness. Interesting.

[edhopper]

20. don't forget

fundamenatlists.

[cbayer]

21. He doesn't come off as a fundamentalist at all.

He comes off as a reasonable, engaging, tolerant person who wants to make a point.

He doesn't resort to personal attacks. He doesn't mock believers. He doesn't descend into dogma.

He simply states who he has and provides a list of things that theists often say that are offensive to theists.

He is, in fact, like the bulk of atheists who post here.

But he is worlds different than a few others. The difference is stark.