"Persecuted" Atheists in America Need a New Perspective

[William Wallace]

Article

...in a country where religious liberty is enshrined in our founding documents, we don't know what it means to be persecuted for our religious beliefs, or lack thereof. To be sure, there are anecdotes about individuals of many different religious persuasions facing discrimination to some degree. Generally speaking, however, we have it well in America. Indeed, that's why we argue about mundane issues like prayer in school, or what our holidays are called, and don't kill each other.

[Sigz]

Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.

It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.

[William Wallace]

Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.

It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.

I thought about that, but they don't get there without people buying their books and coming to their lectures.

[antigoon]

Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.

It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.

I agree with this.

[GuineaPig]

Yeah, I wouldn't say atheists are persecuted in America.  But there is absolutely prejudice, arguably more so thanagainst any other minority group, and I doubt it has much to do with "the way atheists present themselves."

[antigoon]

I don't feel persecuted, but barely anyone I know is aware that I don't believe in God, and there's a reason for that.

[El Barto]

I wouldn't call it persecution by any means,  but I've always been quite annoyed that to get elected to any office in this country,  you have to feign belief in something for the benefit of a constituency feigning similar beliefs.

[Vivace]

I wouldn't call it persecution by any means,  but I've always been quite annoyed that to get elected to any office in this country,  you have to feign belief in something for the benefit of a constituency feigning similar beliefs.

This can work in the other direction too. What it amounts to is what the voters accept and (most) voters accept religion and a belief in a God. Should that matter? Well, if it matters that a religious person is in office, then I guess the religious have a right to complain similarly when an atheist is in office, wouldn't you think. In my opinion, when it comes to "this" country, it really shouldn't matter, but for some reason, "it does matter". 

[Scheavo]

More people will vote for a gay person than an atheist.

Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.

It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.

I thought about that, but they don't get there without people buying their books and coming to their lectures.

And do I really need I find all that's spewed stuff that comes out of some religious leaders about atheists an their immorality?

I know you love the market, so anything that does well on the market is thereby approved. But people could read the book, and disagree with him on some of his points. Personally, never read the man, don't care enough to reaffirm why I don't believe in a religious view of "god"

[King Postwhore]

I don't feel persecuted, but barely anyone I know is aware that I don't believe in God, and there's a reason for that.

It is amazing how people, once they hear you leaning are such and such will try to bring you to their side.  I find that it's the zealots that turn me off on a lot of subjects.

[rumborak]

I can not help to see the irony in this article, which in the end, attempts to justify the bias (discrimination?) against atheists by declaring it a non-issue. Thus indirectly enforcing the thing you declare to not exist.

rumborak

[the Catfishman]

Don't really get the point of this article.. what's the take home message? Atheists shouldn't whine about not getting an atheist president? I think atheists realize this... have you seriously heard any complains about this in the media ? 

Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.

It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.

I thought about that, but they don't get there without people buying their books and coming to their lectures.

eh.. so I can use the Pope as a spokesperson for Christianity? lots of people buy his books and come to his lectures.

[The King in Crimson]

I think it would be better to say that Jerry Falwell is the spokesperson for Christianity, due to his books and 'outspoken views.'

I mean, he didn't get there without people buying his books.

[William Wallace]

Don't really get the point of this article.. what's the take home message? Atheists shouldn't whine about not getting an atheist president? I think atheists realize this... have you seriously heard any complains about this in the media ? 

I've read several stories, and I quoted one the Financial Times ran last week.

[the Catfishman]

Don't really get the point of this article.. what's the take home message? Atheists shouldn't whine about not getting an atheist president? I think atheists realize this... have you seriously heard any complains about this in the media ? 

I've read several stories, and I quoted one the Financial Times ran last week.

alright, it seems to me that you are the one who's blowing these 'atheists' articles out of proportion. The FT article you mentioned talks about personal stories of atheists who are looked down upon by their Christian neighbours (in a similar way as has happened with gays)... and you use this as ammunition to say that atheists shouldn't complain because people in other countries are being killed because of their religion?  what?

[hefdaddy42]

I think it would be better to say that Jerry Falwell is the spokesperson for Christianity, due to his books and 'outspoken views.'

I mean, he didn't get there without people buying his books.

Oh hell no.

[the Catfishman]

exactly

[Super Dude]

Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.

It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.

I thought about that, but they don't get there without people buying their books and coming to their lectures.

Yes, and I imagine many of these people would be theists.

[GuineaPig]

And has already been pointed out, one could point to Jerry Falwell, with equal justification, as the spokesman for the Christian faith.

[rumborak]

People always knee-jerk on Dawkins but like it or not, "The Selfish Gene" was still a hallmark book on evolutionary biology. I know a lot of people like to relegate him to an atheist populist riding on the support of juvenile people who want to stick their middle finger to their religious upbringing, but it just ain't that. When you actually read his books you know he thought through a lot of the stuff he says, and there's a reason he's a member of the Royal Society.

rumborak

[Omega]

People always knee-jerk on Dawkins but like it or not, "The Selfish Gene" was still a hallmark book on evolutionary biology. I know a lot of people like to relegate him to an atheist populist riding on the support of juvenile people who want to stick their middle finger to their religious upbringing, but it just ain't that. When you actually read his books you know he thought through a lot of the stuff he says, and there's a reason he's a member of the Royal Society.

rumborak

His literary endeavors into science, evolution and biology are largely worthwhile and reputable. His pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-intellectual literary endeavors (I'm looking at you, The God Delusion) are intellectual offal.

[rumborak]

Haven't read that one, so I'll reserve judgment. Interesting that Roger Penrose has the same but opposite problem. Brilliant mathematician whose brain somehow shuts down when he tried to shoehorn his particular version of a Creator into his books.

rumborak

[the Catfishman]

People always knee-jerk on Dawkins but like it or not, "The Selfish Gene" was still a hallmark book on evolutionary biology. I know a lot of people like to relegate him to an atheist populist riding on the support of juvenile people who want to stick their middle finger to their religious upbringing, but it just ain't that. When you actually read his books you know he thought through a lot of the stuff he says, and there's a reason he's a member of the Royal Society.

rumborak

His literary endeavors into science, evolution and biology are largely worthwhile and reputable. His pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-intellectual literary endeavors (I'm looking at you, The God Delusion) are intellectual offal.

yup, I still think he should have published the god delusion under a different name. His reputation nowadays is damaging his goal.

[Super Dude]

I never read it, but I've actually heard good things about The God Delusion.

[GuineaPig]

It's just preaching to the choir, really.  No need to read it.

[the Catfishman]

yup, a whole book filled with old over used arguments.

[Super Dude]

yup, a whole book filled with old over used arguments.

Speaking of which, is there an avant-garde in atheistic polemics?

[the Catfishman]

in terms of 'arguments' in favour of atheism.. no not really, but there are enough books from atheists authors who do more than just list arguments and actually talk about the philosophical/sociological/political implications of atheism.

I actually have a lot of respect for Dawkins in terms of his biology books, they contain the single most convincing argument there is... Darwinism, and he does a great job of explaining the theory and its evidence.

[Omega]

yup, a whole book filled with old over used arguments.

Never mind that they are old or over used (if an argument is convincing and the conclusion flow coherently from the premises, no amount of time or repetitions will harm it); they are simply intellectually embarrassing and logically incoherent. The premises he outlines in his "arguments" don't even lead to the conclusions he states they do. It's embarrassing and excruciatingly ironic that he frequently accuses philosophers of "not learning the science" when they speak on scientific matters (while most philosophers actually do bother to "learn the science") yet he has the nerve to publish a book without "learning the philosophy."

[Vivace]

yup, a whole book filled with old over used arguments.

Never mind that they are old or over used (if an argument is convincing and the conclusion flow coherently from the premises, no amount of time or repetitions will harm it); they are simply intellectually embarrassing and logically incoherent. The premises he outlines in his "arguments" don't even lead to the conclusions he states they do. It's embarrassing and excruciatingly ironic that he frequently accuses philosophers of "not learning the science" when they speak on scientific matters (while most philosophers actually do bother to "learn the science") yet he has the nerve to publish a book without "learning the philosophy."

I read the book but this was before my education in philosophy and theology and before learning any real academic disciple so I should really read it again, but almost *any* academic who mentions this book shakes their head, mostly because they cannot understand how someone can have and show academic discipline on one end and yet show an utter lack of academic discipline on the other. I've had some professors call Dawkins a paradox and one insofar basically said, if you want to learn how "not" to write philosophy, read The God Delusion. Also almost *all* of the arguments used have already been addressed through apologists and other theologians long before and that he doesn't really present anything ultimately *new*. Anytime the book comes up you can easily just refer them back to Johannes Drey, Augustine, Anselm or Thomas Aquinas and of course Aristotle.

[Bombardana]

Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.

Who cares about building rapport and sympathy! The truth is the truth, it doesn't matter if someone sugar-coats if for you or not. There are plenty of softly-softly types of non-believers out there, and there's plenty of room for someone who is outspoken and knowledgeable, and confrontational. It's needed infact, to show that religion is not some subject immune from criticism or ridicule. Theists can feel free to complain all they like, to take offence at an inconsequential comment whilst ignoring the main point of the argument. I don't think the atheist team really wants people like that anyway.

[7thHanyou]

People always knee-jerk on Dawkins but like it or not, "The Selfish Gene" was still a hallmark book on evolutionary biology. I know a lot of people like to relegate him to an atheist populist riding on the support of juvenile people who want to stick their middle finger to their religious upbringing, but it just ain't that. When you actually read his books you know he thought through a lot of the stuff he says, and there's a reason he's a member of the Royal Society.

rumborak

As a Christian who's read about half of The God Delusion, I don't really understand why people act like he's some kind of relentless asshole.

Mind you, he doesn't make any new points and does resort to simplistic arguments, but I don't find much of what he says offensive.

[Rathma]

It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.

Seriously, this.

[Nick]

@The General Point of This Thread

So black people in 1960 should just have been happy they weren't slaves? I'm not saying one way or another whether or not atheists are prosecuted, but in any case it is really dumb to use a "it could be worse" argument.

[Omega]

Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.

Who cares about building rapport and sympathy! The truth is the truth, it doesn't matter if someone sugar-coats if for you or not. There are plenty of softly-softly types of non-believers out there, and there's plenty of room for someone who is outspoken and knowledgeable, and confrontational. It's needed infact, to show that religion is not some subject immune from criticism or ridicule. Theists can feel free to complain all they like, to take offence at an inconsequential comment whilst ignoring the main point of the argument. I don't think the atheist team really wants people like that anyway.

It's allowable for Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Atkins, etc to posit bitter, emotional, personal diatribes and personal biographical statements on why they hate religion.

It's not, however, allowable to parade their philosophically and intellectually embarrassing bile of books as a product of a sort of contemporary intelligentsia whom are in any position to even address arguments for the existence of God, much less attempt to formulate arguments against the existence of God themselves.