Why Atheist Redditors Are Stuck On the Internet

[rug]

Sam Brounstein
in Media & Tech, Internet
2 hours ago

For those unfamiliar with the term "lurking" as it pertains to the internet, the formal definition is, according to Wikipedia, “a member of an online community who observes, but does not actively participate.”

If you have ever lurked Reddit, the web’s largest aggregated post-and-comment board, you may notice atheism is a very popular subject. Its category or "subreddit" is one of the most subscribed, and most post-rich on Reddit. The great irony of this highly trafficked area of thought is birthed by its internal contradiction, how it stretches the gap between the championing of rational thought, and the rants, “gotcha!” style rage comics, Facebook captions, and other anecdotal jabs. For a group so active on the internet, this seemingly enthused crowd is more likely to "lurk" in real life than confront, no matter how much they disagree by the faith-based existence around them.

Are we to make cowards out of Reddit’s atheists for the discrepancy between the prevalence of real life and internet proclamations of godlessness? Maybe, as the world’s loudest atheist, Richard Dawkins, first bemoaned in his TED talk, “Atheists do not want to be impolite … Can we stop being so damned polite?” Or, as R/atheist stalwart with the username “blackstar9000” explained in a very thoughtful post on the state of the atheist subreddit, “Many of the users are just recently converted, who fear being ostracized by people the religious people who make up their support system.” Perhaps Dawkins was being a bit unsympathetic in his own right. Religion, as a point of conversation, is about as volatile as it gets.

Unfortunately, the cognitive dissonance between redditor and reality will persist, as long as the faith based argumentation of the religious, and the sometimes irate complaining of Atheists mix like so much water and oil. Until then, the atheists of the internet are participating in a discourse that is suited better for their entertainment than a polemic attempt at confronting the religious.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/41797/why-atheists-redditors-are-stuck-on-the-internet

[Promethean]

1. The writer's wording is offensive

and is obviously coming from a religious point of view with some prejudice against atheism. At the end of reading the entire thing all I got was that this is some article written for religious people to make them feel better about there being a very active message board about atheism. No atheist will read this and get anything useful out of it.

[cleanhippie]

2. Irrelevant. Any chance to bash atheists is a chance to bash atheists.

That's why the OP was put here.

[rug]

4. It's primarily bashing reddit and posturing on the internet.

Surely you, of all people, are familiar with reddit.

[cleanhippie]

12. It's primarily just another passive-aggressive atheist bash.

Surely you, of all people, are familiar with being passive-aggressive.

[rug]

13. Yes, I'm familiar with your posting habits.

Take this subthread for instance.

That's why the OP was put here.

Imputing motives to the OP by posting to the OP without responding to the OP. Classic.

Reddit, for all its faults, has a refreshing honesty in comparison.

[LostOne4Ever]

3. The author of that article

Is full of crap.

[longship]

5. Ho hum! Yawn! Here we go again with those damned angry atheists.

Why don't they just shut up and let the theistic world go on while old man Sol continues to revolve around terra firma.

I am so sick and tired of these militant, angry, strident atheists that I've booked a two month vacation to the antipodes, which I understand is far, far away. I hope I don't get swallowed by dragons. At least I may find some rest from the interminable din. Hopefully, I may be able to get a cold Gin and Tonic or two while I'm there. I've been told the antipodes are warm.

[rug]

6. If I still drank I'd join you.

[longship]

7. And you'd be welcome. How about a nice iced tea?

Cool and refreshing. Slice of lemon.

[rug]

8. Thanks, as long as it's got lots of sugar.

Sugar has replaced alcohol.

[Promethean]

10. I've mostly stopped using sugar.

It is all High Fructose Corn Toxin for me!

Actually I've been using real natural honey in all my cooking and it is wonderful.

[Phillip McCleod]

9. mmm. thanks for taking the crust off that piece of wonder bread rug!

we'd hate to get any substance in our metaphorical diet.

[rug]

11. I live to serve.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Why? Because of scenes like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121879800

In 'real life' in the United States, children are threatened by 'Christian' children* when they, or their siblings, stand up to get a secular law followed. On the internet, you either don't get threatened, or you can leave one unwelcoming site, and go to one where you don't have to shut up and conform to the status quo - such as the atheist subreddit.

What the culture of the US has to ask itself is: how did it bring up such bullies, who think they get to say what should happen? Is it the endless "God bless America" tying of patriotism and Christianity? The political involvement of the Roman Catholic church, Southern Baptists, and other clowns, with Congress and the media absurdly thinking these are people to listen to in a debate on, say, contraception?

Professional believers are given undue respect when people think they are someone to turn to when you have an ethical question to be debated. Society (and this include the UK as well as the USA) kowtows to these people who earn their money by telling others what to do, not because they have shown expertise in knowledge of life, but expertise in a book a couple of millennia old. And this has produced the ridiculous idea that 'religion should be respected'. No. We don't demand that astrology is 'respected', or that the people who make TV programs about ghosts are 'respected', but they're in the same business as the priest and the minister down the road. When it becomes as unusual to interview a bishop about a public policy question as it is to interview a psychic, it will be a society in which atheists have a level playing field.

* Are they actually 'Christian'? Have they thought about what the Christian ideals are, and how they should apply them to their lives, or their reaction to someone pointing out the 10 Commandments are an instance of the state favouring one religion over another or none? Probably not, but they've been told, all the time they're growing up, that they are Christian, which means praying when others do, thinking that 'God' is something the USA is under, that 'In God We Trust', and that this is what all 'good Americans' do. So they shun and bully anyone who doesn't conform to the indoctrination they are undergoing.

[rug]

15. There are far worse examples. I've posted some of them.

The solution is not indiscriminate buckshot.

And what is a "professional believer"? Are there "professional nonbelievers" as well?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Professional believers: priests, rabbis, imams, etc.

They get paid to believe. You might put theologians in the category as well.

I can't work out what 'indiscriminate buckshot' refers to.

[rug]

17. It means don't indiscriminately attack everyone like unleashing a haol of buckshot from a shotgun.

There are far smarter and effectice ways to fight that crap.

Clergy do not get paid to believe. They get paid to minister or, in the case of theologians, to study. Belief comes first.

What about "professional nonbelievers"? I can think of a few who are getting rich off it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. 'Ministering' is presiding at a religious service

and you can't pretend that people would be happy knowing that person doesn't believe it. They have to tell other people how to believe, and that it's important to believe. If they didn't believe themselves, it obviously couldn't be that important.

It is possible to be a theologian without believing what you're studying - you can just look on it as anthropology - working out what other people believe. But most theologians do tend to believe the area they get paid to study.

A very few people make money off books or lectures talking about non-belief. But their numbers are dwarfed by those, both self-employed and employed by others, who earn their living from believing.

I still can't see what this buckshot has to do with redditors. The question was why atheist redditors aren't as obvious in real life. And the answer is that religious people make atheists very unwelcome. I can't see that asking for a school to follow the law is 'buckshot'.

[rug]

19. It's also comforting the ill, visiting the imprisoned and myriad other things.

The Beatitudes are a good starting point.

Do you have any evidence that clergy as a whole, excepting the outliers, do not believe what they say they believe? If you do you may have found the thread that unravels the entire evil garment of religion.

The article points out the cognitive dissonance between the often obnoxious online personae found on that subreddit and the relative silence that exists in reality.

I will say a third time: the answer to privileged behavior and worse is not the usual tactic there (among other online locations) of attacking all things and all persons religious. The answer is to first understand the source of the attack and deal with that directly, online and offline.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Why would I have such evidence? My point was that they *do* believe it

and it's necessary for them to believe it to get paid. That's what's makes them 'professional believers'.

No, the article is about how quiet reddit atheists are in real life:

"For a group so active on the internet, this seemingly enthused crowd is more likely to "lurk" in real life than confront, no matter how much they disagree by the faith-based existence around them.

Are we to make cowards out of Reddit’s atheists for the discrepancy between the prevalence of real life and internet proclamations of godlessness?
...
Or, as R/atheist stalwart with the username “blackstar9000” explained in a very thoughtful post on the state of the atheist subreddit, “Many of the users are just recently converted, who fear being ostracized by people the religious people who make up their support system.” "

It's not saying "this is because they're obnoxious, and that's not working for them in real life". They're not trying to be obnoxious; they just think being open about their atheism and confronting the bad things that religion do will cause them problems.

It's all very well you saying "understand the source of the attack and deal with that directly, online and offline", but doing that is what got the atheist and his little sister threatened.

[rug]

21. I can't imagine where I got the impression you said their belief was insincere.

They get paid to believe.

They have to tell other people how to believe, and that it's important to believe.

In any event, I'm glad that is not your claim.

As to reddit, putting aside their sterling sleuthing during the Boston Marathon investigation, we must simply disagree. I see much more posturing there than any actual resistance, alone or in coalition, to the example you describe. Unless you're in a Mr. Universe competition, posturing rarely wins anything.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. No, I couldn't understand where you got the impression, either

I now get the impression that you are trying to be sarcastic about it, but I genuinely still can't see how you would have got that impression, with the quotes you give. 'Professional' does not mean 'pretending' or 'insincere'.

So you are agreeing with Dawkins, that atheists need to be more forceful in real life - that putting the arguments in an echo chamber is just posturing, and atheists should be in the face of the believers in real life? I wasn't saying that what atheists post on reddit was going to achieve anything. I was addressing the question in the thread title.

[rug]

23. I don't know if I agree with him or not but some have to be a lot smarter about it.

I do agree that the action must be taken in real life.

(What, you detected sarcasm?)

[Lordquinton]

33. What does "Professional nonbeliever" have to do with this?

There are some folks who are prominent and vocal about their non-belief, they are also not respected. A priest automatically has an aura of respect, Dawkins, a PHD in biology, by the way, is often spoken of with disrespect. Just the note of "I go to church" is supposed to mean you are a good person, and if you let it slip that you don't go to church, then it is generally assumed that you are a bad person, slacking in faith or some such.

That is what was being conveyed before his comment was derailed.

[rug]

35. About as much as "professional believer".

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. The professional believers are given undo prominence by the media and government

as I already pointed out. They interview ministers and bishops about contraception, abortion, or sexuality - subjects on which they have no qualifications. They organise "Prayer breakfasts". Obama has a 'spiritual adviser', for crying out loud.

[Lordquinton]

37. Only if you ignore the topic, then yes.

The point was that people who make the church their profession get an automatic bump in respectability. That part of their "profession" is that they are a go to for moral guidance because of their title. Care to comment on the actual topic, and not on a straw man?

[backscatter712]

24. This article does nothing but kick down a strawman.

Talk about mischaracterization.

Places like r/atheism and Democratic Underground are where people go to blow off steam.

[rug]

25. There is a huge difference between r/atheism and DU.

Manners is only the surface. I've always looked at this place as somewhere to discuss important things not to blow off steam, especially by mocking other members or their beliefs. One is a juvenile playground. The other (with the possible exception of the Lounge) is not.

[backscatter712]

26. Is there? We rant and rave and mock Republicans all the time here.

It's expected and encouraged. We disagree with each other a lot, hopefully in a civil manner, but one of the primary functions of DU is to be a place where we can rant and rave about Republicans, which includes neo-cons, it includes the hard religious right, characters like Bryan Fischer and Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann.

We're not kind to the right wing here. And I'm fine with that.

[rug]

27. There's a difference between mocking republicans and mocking the religious beliefs of Democrats.

The only ones benefitting from the latter are the rightwingers.

But you do realize the article was about r/atheism not r/republicans.

[Goblinmonger]

28. "There's a difference between mocking republicans and mocking the religious beliefs of Democrats."

Sometimes there isn't. There are often, though you may want to disagree, plenty of people that come into this group and spout very right wing religious beliefs.

[rug]

29. "Sometimes there isn't."

When?

I also think you're conflating religious belief with political belief and political action.

[backscatter712]

30. Each place has its purpose.

r/atheism is a place for atheists, so they blow off steam about things like obnoxious family members proselytizing to them.

Here at DU, it's a place for Democrats and other progressives, so we blow off steam about obnoxious right-wingers.

[rug]

31. And the two purpose are very different.

[backscatter712]

32. Indeed.

The point I'm trying to make is that while we rant and rave and insult the right-wing here on DU, that's because we're blowing off steam here in a place with others of like mind. That doesn't mean that we go out and act like raving lunatics when we walk away from our computers and interact with others in the real world.

Same with with atheists blowing off steam on r/atheism.

[Lordquinton]

34. I think the Author of the article should looked up another internet term

Troll, something reddit has an abundance of, and something Du attempts to remove, and I think it is successful at.