I love this blogger.

[chibi_evil]

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/12/how-to-be-an-ally-with-atheists.html

she puts words on the page in funny and informative order.  And says stuff that needs to be shouted from the

Comments

[passer_hedera]

Although I agree with the overarching sentiment completely, I do have something to say about the arguments put forward, and the way in which this is written (because it is very much a nice piece of preaching to the choir, but would do a great deal of harm if actually used as an argument to put before its detractors).

While she may never have met an atheist that wasn't 100% for religious freedom (and let me tell you, that line sent a whole bunch of warning lights blaring in my head), and who met all of the above criteria, there is a point that should be recognized--I, and a lot of other people, have. And while generalizing and marginalizing anyone as a group because of one person is totally idiotic, there is a degree to which these "myths" about atheism in many cases really do stem from that one Eager Young Athiest (who, like an eager young anything, is generally an idiot--I've been one myself), really did embody all of them. Because in reality, those "myths" aren't myths, they're stereotypes. While they have no right to use them to define an entire group, that does not mean that there aren't people within that group that fall under them. And the minute you give someone the chance to say "But I met that person and she did believe that" you have undermined your ability to argue and their ability to listen in a terrible way.

Mine was at Hamline, and she was the loudest, angriest, most openly intolerant person in a class of the Philosophy of Religion (and don't get me wrong--it startled the hell out of me. I found myself in the position of being a loud defender of Christianity specifically and all religion generally, a position I had never intended to be in, because of her and how much she cowed everyone else in the class). She really did believe (and would scream in your face about it) that there was absolutely scientific proof that God did not exist. That belief in God made you an ignorant, worthless moron (which she called me, hilariously since I am a fairly comfortable agnostic, after I interrupted one of her rants to point out that there was no more proof of a lack of god than proof of god, which was apparently taken as prima facia evidence that I was a believer). That the sum total of stupidity in the world belonged to the religious, and that simply by being an atheist you ranked among the world's intellectual elite. That the world would be a much better place if all religion was outlawed. In fact, every single one of the myths about Atheist's beliefs the article listed (obviously not the ones about atheist's world influences or anything like that--those are just silly) she embraced, embodied, and passionately defended. And while I recognize that she was not an atheist like anyone I like is an atheist, she was very active about calling herself an Atheist, passionately believed that she was, and really, truly, deserved the term "fundamentalist" just as much as any other person who clings so passionately to the superiority of her beliefs as any other. And frankly, while you can make the argument about how atheists beliefs have no canonical structure and therefore cannot allow them to be lumped into one group, the same argument is valid for differing sects of religions (atheism has the advantage of differing by individual, but still, the minute you say the word Christian in this country you could mean any one of a thousand different groups, and if you really believe that a common book--one that is, for the record, full of absolute pointed contradictions and is so open to interpretation that you can (and people do) make it say anything--actually creates a common set of beliefs, I'd be surprised--name any one Christian belief...

[chibi_evil]

and if i defined all christians by the screaming, ranting, obviously insane folks that give religion a bad name, you'd rightly call me on that. All we ask is to not be defined, in large part, by the crazy fringe.

I mean, I call myself an Athiest, and i'm pretty loud about it. i think it's important to let people know we exist, we vote, and that we won't put up with the constant, incessant drone of religion in our government. I do think the world would be better off without religion (teri disagrees, but mostly in semantics), but i'd fight to the death for the RIGHT to believe in whatever the fuck you want, provided it doesn't hurt anybody but yourself.

since we'd all, greta included, define Crazy Atheist Chick as, well, crazy--i'd certainly hope that she wouldn't get to be the DEFINTION of atheist to you--but she, unfortunately is to a lot of people. even those who should know better. And since people who define christians by the crazy fringe get told CONSTANTLY that "those people aren't real christians"...

I'm not that dishonest. She's an atheist. just a crazy one.

now--about the argument of CAC as being a fundementalist-- there was certainly no agreed upon, This Is How Things Must Be, sect of atheism that dictated her actions. likely she came to them on her own, and on her own terms. She can't be a fundementalist--theres nothing fundemental about atheism--except that you don't believe in gods. any of them. that's about all the whole group can actually agree on.

I'll grant that there are those who think like CAC--but they tend to...ah...not play well with others, and don't tend to agree on much. also, they get laughed at a lot. Y'know, like the crazy fringe in any group.

We'll actually call out our own, tell them that they are crazy, and that they are making us look bad. We own them.

The crazy christians...they get a free pass. nobody owns them. they get to say whatever the hell they want, and since they are christians (but not MY christian, oh my no) they STILL get to shout thier insane beliefs, and NOBODY SAYS ANYTHING. 'cause you can't critisize religion. that's rude. and that attitude kinda drives the rest of us a little nuts.

anyway, thanks for looking over the link--you know teri and i are always up for a rousing debate!

P.S. plz excuse spelling and ranting. it is late. i am tired. bed time for 1

[passer_hedera]

I get what you're saying, and by and large agree with you--my problem was with the statement, made by your blogger, that it's not ok to say there are bad atheists. Because CAC is an atheist, but she shouldn't be held up as an example for the whole group, yes? So why can't I say that she is a bad atheist?

[chibi_evil]

heh. she's not saying you CAN'T. she talks about "bad atheists" all the time. she's particularly annoyed with Christopher hitchens a lot. he's...uhm..the technical term is "asshole" but you could call him a damn reactionary bigot. he's got a whole thing about killing off large groups of people. the atheist blogs wince every time he writes something. he's not a "bad atheist." he's an asshole, a bigot, a jerk and a warhawk. he's got some extreme views, and we'd really rather he thought about his positions more...

So he's crazy. he's got something stuck up his butt. but is he a "bad atheist"?

it would depend on why you are calling him that, to greta, i'd guess.

She's coming from about 20 years being a major activist in the LGBT movement. where people define Good Gays and Bad Gays by....how loud and angry they are. not thier views, not what they ACTUALLY want to do about the problem--but by how much they made people uncomfortable.

by that definition, nearly all atheists fall in that catagory, if they talk about their non-belief at all.

and that's the definition that gets...well...all of us annoyed. we're very tired of being told that our beliefs are only ok if we're quiet about them.

So calling the CAC a "bad atheist" because she critisizes religion harshly...that's problematic. religion should not be held to the higher standard that it is. I should be able to say that i find religion silly without people telling me i'm being extremely, unforgivably rude and PERSONALLY attacking THEM. I also find the idea behind chick flicks silly, but nobody calls me out on that statement.

Calling her a "bad Atheist" 'cuase she advocates killing and severe restrictions on freedom is less problematic. I mean, personally, i'd call her a bad person in general, and a not terribly rational atheist (which is MY definition of a bad atheist) but i also say that about relgious people who advocate killing and putting severe restrictions on my freedom. But i don't say that (as an example) Mr Falwell was a "Bad Christian". I thought he was a Bad Person, who happened to be a christian and used his christian beliefs as a hammer to get what he wanted.

I left it to the christians to call him a Bad Christian. (which falls back into the "police your own" sot of idea). As far as I knew--he was perectly acceptable to the christians--which only got reinforced as (the visible) christian groups continually said very little to dispute him. Hitchens gets debated, in public forums, by other atheists who tell him he's a moron.

Thought police are always irritating. being told what to believe (or not!) it's slightly less irritating (and more likely to be listened to) if given from within the group. ESPECIALLY if there is a privilege gap between the groups.

the guess the short answer is becareful WHY you are calling somebody a "bad atheist." you should not be any more of a bad atheist for saying Zeus doesn't exist as you are for saying God doesn't exist.

if you are calling them a "bad atheist" because they are advocating killing and putting restrictions on freedom and free will...that makes them a bad person and i'm not sure why the fact that they are an atheist has anything to do with it. i suspect the CAC would have been just as caustic as a christian--the only differnece is that her veiws would be more mainstream.

[passer_hedera]

I'm sure her veiws would have been just as bad--and I would happily have called her a bad Christian for exactly the same reason that I'd call her a bad atheist--because it was her beliefs that shaped the form and advocacy of her bad behavior. CAC would never have looked down on a gay person, or wanted to restrict the rights of a racial minority. She wasn't a "generic advocate" of the loss of freedom or of genocide--she was a an advocate of religious oppression and genocide, because of her own beliefs about the nature of reality, which were atheist. The defining quality of her prejudice was her beliefs.

And Falwell got called a bad Christian, by a lot of the groups that you would categorize as Christian (although this is another issue I have--this the religious v. the non-religious thing that really does a lot of harm as far as actually making and understanding arguments of this nature. To categorize even all Christians as some giant, ideological group is exceedingly problematic. There are more commonalities between Catholics and Islam than there are between Catholics and some Protestant groups--if you get to say that atheists can't be lumped together into a belief group (and I am not arguing with you on that), than you really can't use sweeping terms like "the Christians" or "the religious" either. If all that is needed to be lumped into a category is a belief in the divinity, than it is entirely legitimate to define atheists in lumps (and thus establish their "doctrines," albeit only one) by their non-belief.

[chibi_evil]

well, yes. I define atheists by their non-belief in a god of any sort. and i define christians by thier belief in the divinity of christ. I define religious folks by thier belief in the divine.

I'm not entirely sure why that's a problem. I do think athiests can be lumped together because they have the one defining property that indicates an atheist--i.e. they do not believe in God, Gods, or the divine. that's the only thing that really defines an atheist.

now, there are traits i assosciate with atheists, but really. the non-belief in god is the only thing needed to define you as an atheist.

as far as i know, the only thing christian groups all have in common is the divinity of christ. please feel free to correct me on that--but if you belive in the divinity of christ, you are a christian. I don't know enough to know what the defining aspect of islam is, but i'm sure those sects vary widely as well--and yet we reer to them all as islamic or muslim. Buddist sects have huge cjhisms n thier sects, but they are all still buddists. deists believe in some sort of god-type thing--but they dont agree at all on what exactly that is.

and whether the killing and opression is motivated by beliefs or not--it's still advocating killing and opression. and I consider advocating for those positions, for pretty much any reason--the mark of a bad person, reguardless of beliefs and motivation. i mean, with semantics, i could prolly make the case to greta that all atheists are fundemantalists--we all have one thing in common--we do not accept the idea of the divine in our worldview. anything on top of that is schism and gravy.

we're pretty much on the same page here--mostly we're debating terminology. :) i like terminology.

[passer_hedera]

Well, but not all atheists would be fundamentalists, because part of the strictly adhering part is the "This is the way I am and therefore you all must be or you are bad" idea--which most atheists don't do (but I've met a few who did. Same with Christians, etc). There's nothing wrong with the "This is what I believe, and I believe you are wrong," bit, until it crosses the line into "You being wrong makes you bad," which is what fundamentalism pushes for (and what makes bad Christians, and bad Muslims, and bad anything. And yes, that makes them bad people too, but there's a bigger push to their badness than I think is fair to just dismiss as too specific. Someone who hates black people is a bad person, but the are also, and more specifically, a racist. someone who hates women is a bad person, but they are also a misogynist. I suppose we could generalize it to something like "religious bigot" or something, but that's clunky and there are already terms like anti-semitic. And I'm not a big fan of classifying someone Anti-Christian because that's a term that, however accurate, automatically sets them up for really, really bad things, and I'd rather we acknowledged fundamentalist atheists than started associating atheist and anti-Christian in the same breath--because that is far more inflammatory and I see it leading to every bigger problems.

I like terminology too :)

Oh, and there are at least two sects of Christianity (as defined by everyday American usage--there is grad debate amongst a lot of Christian groups as to whether anyone should use the term for those sects) that do not believe in the divinity of Christ--the Mormons being the big, glaring, obviously mainstream one. And when you start arguing that that makes them not Christian, they get all hysterical about oppression in a way that is really unfortunate (and kind of true, too, though I wish they'd learn from it and start spread love rather than shit like Prop 8...but that's a whole 'nother rant...)

[chibi_evil]

fair enough. what, then is the way you define someone as a christian? why do they get to be an influential, giant, group without having anything at all in common?

Granted, it occured to me we also have the Jews for Jesus group, that accepts the divinity of christ but claims to remain jewish.

...religion confuses me. on many levels.

[passer_hedera]

Well, the perception that it's all one giant, universally moving, influential group is incorrect to begin with. There are certainly enough people who identify _themselves_ as Christian (and that is the only definition that seems to count anymore--hence the Mormons) and are stupid enough to believe statements like "Christians vote this way" to cause things to tilt one way or another--but those people aren't so much influential as part of the overall system of stupidity that allows the balance to get shifted by the corrupt. I mean, Prop 8 only barely passed. Bush got a second term by a slight, slight majority and while the "Christian" vote (those people who voted because they believed Jesus wanted them to) was a chunk of that, it was only a small part of the overall vote that included gun fanatics and pro-death penalty nut jobs and anti-intellectuals and anti-tax fiends and military crazies and the rest. And while there's overlap in those groups (like there is in any group), they're not all the same. Hell, for nearly every fundamentalist vote Bush got, Kerry got a liberal Christian vote--because both of those groups exist.

Honestly, for every Christian group that seems to be winning in our world you find a Christian group that isn't--hence the reason you keep running into Christians who don't get you and yours at pro-gay rallies. This perception of them as some sort of monstrous, unified unit that's controlling everything is kind of silly. Do they and other believers make up the majority population of the world? Well, yes, of course, so our society is going to lean in their (the believers) direction, not out of malice or even intention but out of ignorance (and ignorance still leads to bad things, but ignorance can't be solved by treating it like it's malice). Are they a big lump sum unit made up of people with the same politics and the same attitudes and the same morals and ethics and even beliefs? Not at all. Defining them as the monolithic other is just as bad (and just as damaging, both to you and to them) as any other blanket perception.

[passer_hedera]

Oh, and while we're at it, this is something that annoys me a bit:

Fundamentalist as a phrase was coined originally in reference to a religious movement, but is, by the OED, defined un general (the OED, of course, includes all specific historical uses as well, and so also sights the religious ones) as "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles," no matter the origin, popularity, or function of those ideas. You do not have to subscribe to any sect or have any sort of group support to be a fundamentalist--you could, theoretically, be a fundamentalist designer or writer or really anything so long as you strictly adhere to a set of principles, no matter whether you came up with them on your own or bought them from another group. And since the basic belief she most strictly adhered to was the non-existence of god, drawing all her other beliefs (believers in god are stupid, etc) from that belief, it is technically correct to use the term fundamentalist atheist to describe her. And again, as I noted before--I really don't think that's a bad thing. Most Christians recognize that fundamentalist Christians are assholes--so when you use the term fundamentalist, it immediately conjures up those concepts for the religious viewers and makes the "she's an atheist, but she's a jerk" message very clear.