News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

"What you should know about the Atheism subreddit"

Started by Will, January 29, 2009, 09:56:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Will

I got started reading this earlier and suddenly found myself enthralled. Basically, there's a site called reddit, which is a news aggregate that has sub-aggragates, one of which is about atheism. Recently, the atheism section has seen a lot of comments, and this individual is responding to them. Enjoy:
QuoteBoy, if I had a dollar for every time I saw the word “Circle-jerk” on the Atheism subreddit this week…

Look, I’m just a regular guy, and I probably won’t express this as eloquently as someone else could, but I feel like I have to get a few things off my chest about this latest little meme. I'm also admittedly a sorta bitter person, so I'll note that I only speak for myself here. Apologies for wall of text and mediocre formatting...In any case, here goes.

Question: Why is the Atheism subreddit little more than just a bunch of circle-jerking, theist-bashing links? Wouldn’t our time be better spent organizing in a way that portrays Atheism in a positive way to society?

Answer: Sorry, I don't come here to have a grand, high-minded discussion. That's what the philosophy subreddit is for. I come to the Atheism subreddit because it is a comfortable community where I can find people who look at the world the same way I do. Does this make me closed-minded? Maybe, but I spend most of my day around an endless variety of people, all of whom, for all of their differences, share one thing in common: The majority of them base their most important life decisions on a fantasy, and expect those around them to do the same. And according to both personal experience and major studies, they also share a disdain and distrust for Atheists far more than they do for any other minority in America. So things like being polite about my beliefs or not speaking my mind in public are something I have to learn to deal with in social life, particularly during the holidays. It drives me nuts. So I come here because it's a place where I can lay my guard down and not feel like I have to hide the fact that I feel like the only sane person in a sea of delusional sycophants.

Sometimes I come here to be enlightened by some particularly insightful discussion. Sometimes I come here to see the new ways our political leaders are subverting the constitution, and marginalizing our separation of church and state in this country. Sometimes I come here to find or give advice on how fellow atheists are dealing with life issues like visiting their relatives at Christmas time, or raising their children in an oppressively religious society, because I honestly don't know how I'm gonna make it. I come here for a variety of valid reasons, which tend to go ignored when someone tries to blow the circle-jerk whistle, and belies their intentions of having a reasonable, balanced discussion.

Then again, I will admit that the community does spend a lot of time making fun of theists. So what? This community isn't here to impress you. So what if sometimes I like to just kick back and laugh about the latest crazy thing a religious person did this week. So what if sometimes I like to see a cartoon or video or story or debate that mercilessly rips religious idiocy to shreds? So what if sometimes I like to engage in all these activities if only to remind myself that I'm not crazy? We Atheists don't have the luxury (and neither do we want it) of lobbying our government into giving us tax-exempt echo chambers erected in the middle of our towns, so I can’t really talk about these kinds of things anywhere else, or with anyone else. Is it so criminal that I might want to do it in this isolated little slice of the internet?

Question: But aren’t you just stooping to their level by bashing people with different belief systems?

Answer: First of all, I disagree on the point that “bashing” is really even all that bad. We're allowed to speak however we want. I'm allowed to bash Christians, and they're allowed to bash me. I don't have a problem with that. That's the first amendment. But if someone's acting like a moron for whatever reason, you don't automatically "stoop to their level" by the act of pointing it out, even if you get a laugh out of it. Seriously, try to live by that standard any time you read or see something ridiculous on TV or in the newspaper.

The difference is that you're not going to see an atheist start a war, or complicity fund a war over a holy land, because atheism doesn't have an inherent call to action. You're not going to see atheism-inspired violence, or the curtailing of civil rights justified by atheism, or anti-religious ideology driving our nation's foreign policy. We're just talking. When you do see those happening, then you can come in here say we're "stooping to their level". We're poking fun because with the political and cultural situation being the way it is, it's really the only recourse we have.

Question: All this talk about stripping “Under God” from the pledge, or “In God We Trust” from money, or the invocation at the inauguration just makes Atheists look pompous! Why can’t you pick your battles and fight over the important stuff?

Answer: We are merely asking our political leaders to follow that which was written in the constitution. There is nothing pompous about wanting our elected officials to follow the law.

Beyond that, I’ll try my best to explain why I do sweat the small stuff. The way I see it, I am picking my battles. I don't see us winning the important battles any time soon. For example, I don’t imagine a cracking down on church tax exemption happening in our generation. I only see it happening in a future where my impressionable children did not grow up being forced to spout government-sanctioned falsehoods every single school morning. I only see it happening in a future where my children did not have to see a state-paid chaplain giving a Christian invocation before every legislative session. I only see it happening in a future where my children did not have to feel ashamed about being rational human beings. I don’t see real change being made until the government-sponsored propaganda has been put to rest. And I believe these are battles that we can win in this generation. If you think religious folks get so upset over their publicly financed nativity scenes that we should avoid ruffling their feathers, you have no idea the hell they'll unleash upon us “pompous atheists” if we were to try push for real change in today’s political culture. America needs to come to terms with atheism ideologically before we can hope to change real things like tax exemption law. Of course, that doesn't mean we should stop trying on either front.

Question: Don’t you think you’re making mountains out of molehills?

Answer: No, because legally, all of these little molehills are what have allowed the mountain to be built.

Legislative prayer before senate sessions and at presidential inaugurations have been used to excuse government funded nativity scenes, "In God We Trust" as the national motto (how is this not a violation of the Endorsement test, btw?), and "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, as well as the National Day of Prayer. And vice-versa to the nth degree. The Establishment Clause has been thrown out in these cases without any actual judicial scrutiny merely because certain acts have become part of the "fabric of our culture". Instead, the courts have devolved into using a holistic “I’ll know it when I see it” gut-check system when ruling on such violations.

And generally, it always boils down to this flawed "Any more than..." syllogism:

IF legislative prayer is constitutional (clearly it must be because nobody's complained about it even though they get death threats when they try)... AND "under God" is not any more a violation than legislative prayer... THEREFORE "under God" is constitutional.

Every time one violation of the Establishment Clause comes up in court, the court simply cites a similar violation as precedent for excusing other conflations between church and state. Read cases like Lynch v. Donnelly or Marsh v. Chambers, or Justice O’Connnor’s formulation of the legal construction of “Ceremonial Deism” in the Newdow v Elk Grove cases. What you’ll find is the court has perpetually been bending over backwards to accommodate religious entanglement, allowing new molehills to pop up on the argument that nobody managed to declare previous molehills illegal in time. For example, the courts have recognized that the statute that created “under God” in 1952 was illegal, but because we went fifty-some years without doing anything about it, it gets grandfathered in as part of the “fabric of our culture.”

Furthermore, because “under God” is now legal, any similar violation of the Establishment Clause can cite “under God” in order to justify its own legality. The sad part is that this can be done pre-emptively. For example, in Lynch v. Donnelly, which occurred sometime between the signing of the 1952 “under God” statute, and the Newdow case when “under God” was contested, the government-sponsored nativity scene was actually found to be legal partly because it was no worse a violation than “under God” in the pledge or “in God we trust” as our national motto. Mountains out of mole hills? I believe the snowball metaphor is more appropriate.

Question: All right, but why do you have to be such dicks about it?

Answer: Name me one minority that ever got equal recognition by merely shutting up, sitting down, playing nice, and trying to talk with the few supposedly open-minded representatives of the hateful majority that marginalized them. Of course I’m angry, and if you’re holding that against me, well…fuck you. What minority that ever tried to get equal rights in this country wasn’t called “uppity”, or “pompous”, or “radical”, or “militant”? Likewise, when in the history of civil rights has the majority not used the same excuse to deny rights to the minority, citing the same tired argument of “Oh, if only they’d be more agreeable in their protests, they might actually make progress…”? It happens every single time.

The dominant religious majority in America isn't going to be talked into pulling its head out of its ass, and it should not be our responsibility to gently coax it out for them. Offering the olive branch and trying to play nice carries a significant risk for us. It means waiting in silence for years while the religious majority makes up their mind as to whether to accept the peace offering or not, and judging by their past behavior, chances are they won't.

Question: If you put as much effort into coming together a-

Answer: Let me stop you right here. Don't expect Atheists to ever come together to form some kind of "united front" for the positive advancement of atheist beliefs. That's never going to happen because we all happen to have all kinds of different beliefs that would make such an organization impossible. I know it's hard to picture what it's like not being around a crowd who shares your metaphysical beliefs, but that's what we have to deal with, and what we'll always have to deal with because we're never going to come to a consensus, and neither do we want to. Sure, you might get a chapter of some “secular humanist” organization popping up here or there, but on the whole, organizing atheists is generally like herding cats.
Maybe this is why we as a subreddit choose to focus on the ridiculous and hilarious fact that we're living in this ass-backwards society that chooses to make world-shaking decisions based on folklore. Again, somehow a little levity doesn't sound so criminal. It's what we choose to focus on because truly, it's one of the few things we actually have in common.
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comment ... subreddit/
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Ihateyoumike

QuoteMaybe, but I spend most of my day around an endless variety of people, all of whom, for all of their differences, share one thing in common: The majority of them base their most important life decisions on a fantasy, and expect those around them to do the same. And according to both personal experience and major studies, they also share a disdain and distrust for Atheists far more than they do for any other minority in America.


What a great assessment of the situation, and this shows just why it is so hard to be an atheist in America.  


Thanks for the great read Willravel! Good find.  :beer:
Prayers that need no answer now, cause I'm tired of who I am
You were my greatest mistake, I fell in love with your sin
Your littlest sin.

oldschooldoc

I agree, this was a great find. We need to find this person and get him/her on HAF. It sounds like their slightly agitated point of view might be fun when we get some fundie or troll stomping through our forum!
OldSchoolDoc

"I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose freewill" - Neil Peart
"Imagine there's no Heaven, it's easy if you try..." - John Lennon

curiosityandthecat

-Curio

Kylyssa

I'm fortunate that some kind individuals  have posted some of my articles to the atheism subreddit where they usually do well for a day or so.  It's an amazing page view bump when they do.

karadan

QuoteI find it mistifying that in this age of information, some people still deny the scientific history of our existence.