Beware of those ‘In Your Face’ Atheists!

[jamesatracy]

While reading a news article profiling a Unitarian Universalist church (Church promotes universal appeal: Congregation says it’s open to all, even atheists http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080906/FEAT04/809060347), presumably somewhere in Fort Wayne, Indiana, I came across these statements:

Cynthia Powers has attended the church since 1971. She considers herself more agnostic than atheistic, partly because she doesn’t like the connotations associated with atheism.

“To me, an atheist is sort of an in-your-face person. I don’t want to put down something that helps people get through the day, because we all need help sometimes,” said Powers, of Roanoke. But, “I think I prefer not to have supernatural explanations for things.”

Let’s be clear about something. Atheism has a simple meaning - disbelief in gods - and this disbelief has nothing to do with the personality of the person disbelieving. I don’t know if such connotations are fabricated by believers or non-believers, but it doesn’t matter. Rather than helping the image of atheism break free from such connotations, by buying into them Cynthia is helping to propagate them. And, as is often the case, Cynthia chooses to use the word ‘agnosticism’ as a protective shield because it allows her to be an atheist without being an atheist - thereby perpetuating further connotations and misunderstandings. Rather than buying into these falsehoods let’s do what we can to stop their spread.

Cynthia, you’re an atheist - be proud of that!

The next thing that Cynthia said that bothered me was this line: “I don’t want to put down something that helps people get through the day…”

Now, it may seem like Cynthia is just trying to be respectful to other people for whom religion makes up a large part of their life - and I am sure she thinks so, too. But I think that this is highly disrespectful. Why? Cynthia is basically saying here that, while she is intelligent enough to dismiss supernatural explanations, the religious people that she encounters are too stupid to understand this and must be allowed to continue in their religious ignorance without interference. But why should we assume that religious people would necessarily have problems living out their lives if their religious beliefs are challenged? I have met many ex-Christians who feel that their lives are better and more fulfilling since they released the shackles of faith and religious dogma.

No - we are doing a disservice to religious believers if we are not willing to engage them in conversation - notice that I wrote conversation, not putting them down. After all, many of these same religious believers feel like it is their god-given mission to evangelize and convert the entire world. But, you know, if it helps them get through the day…

The Conversational Atheist puts it this way:

You respect a person by engaging people as humans who have the capacity to think and change their minds. If a person believes something patently false and absurd, you are not respecting the person by letting him pass through the night without being corrected. (http://conversationalatheist.com/why-engage-in-religious-debates/)

The fact of the matter is this: purposefully keeping our arguments and reasons against religious belief from religious believers because, for whatever reason, we feel that they cannot handle it, will never help enact a positive change in our society.

And if you are still doubtful, just keep this in mind: These same people who use religion to help them get through the day are probably going to vote for Sarah Palin.

[Jolly Sapper]

She's still in the closet.  Maybe one day she'll stop being afraid of what over people think.

[Steve Reason]

I'm doing my part, although not very well, apparently. I guess my method needs to be tweaked a little bit.  

Btw, I lived in Ft. Wayne for over 25 years.

[dodgecity]

hey, jamesatracy, I don't believe we've met.

I agree completely with everything you said and would have had the exact same reaction if reading that article. I've said before that I am afraid that many accept nonthinking under the guise of tolerance.

I didn't think about:

But why should we assume that religious people would necessarily have problems living out their lives if their religious beliefs are challenged?

That's a very valid point. It is very disrespectful. Part of pronouncing your rationality is believing that humanity is smarter than this, that they have a chance. I have enough respect for the Christians I know to hope that their reason will one day free them from their delusions.

[afreethinker30]

I swear it's in the water here.  

[jamesatracy]

hey, jamesatracy, I don't believe we've met.

Nice to meet you

[LARA]

Interesting take, very well written. I see your point, but I don't agree that she is doing anything wrong by not calling herself an atheist.

1.  Unfortunately, God means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  Whether someone else's definition of God and mine are the same is not important to me, but until society gets a more concrete definition for what God is and more accurately defines the parameters of what atheism is and isn't, the label might not be accurate for some.  For example, in this forum atheism is described as a person who doesn't believe in god (God?) or gods and doesn't believe in the existence of supernatural forces.  These two things might not be mutually inclusive.  I can think of people who believe in supernatural forces, but don't believe in God or even a deity.  Also since natural is defined as our physical realm from the subatomic scale to the galactic and beyond, I'm not sure if this encompasses information or other dimensions that quantum physics is trying to prove/disprove.  Information plays by different rules than matter although we can only acknowledge information through pattern when it affects matter.  I'm open to clarification and discussion on this subject. Also some people just use God as a metaphor for their own conscience.  I don't think that metaphor is valid for me personally, but metaphors are art not science.

2. Connotations are important in the labels one chooses to publicly carry.  Like it or not, people judge others and from my best understanding of people in my life and what I read on the net and in books,  people who say they don't believe in God or god are currently outnumbered by those that do.  We all have to eat, and we have a right to understand the implications of the labels we choose to carry and place on others before we do so.

3.  I don't want to attack those who are closest to me.  I will defend this near-atheist's stand and support her decision not to call herself an atheist.  Her viewpoints are far closer to mine than the scary people who believe God is literally real, the bible is rote truth and desperately, sometimes violently want me to believe as they do.  If atheists and near-atheists fight among themselves about pittances, we are only weakening ourselves.  When someone is ready to take the label of atheist, then they will do so, and they will do so when the label fits.

4. I don't withhold discussions from the religious because I think they are stupid.  I talk to them and ask them questions.  In my experience, these people have made a choice to believe a certain way and stand by it no matter what reality may bring or others may say.  They are determined that their own imagination is reality and they absolutely refuse to prove it with any other evidence other than a single book.  This isn't stupidity, it's insanity.

[jamesatracy]

LARA,

A couple of things:

(1) Cynthia, based on what I read in the article, is confusing the terms agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge, atheism with belief. If she doesn't believe in god (and the article seems to imply that she doesn't), then she is an atheist. But my biggest objection was with the reason she cited for avoiding the term. By accepting these connotations, she is helping to perpetuate them, not remove them.

(2) I don't want to attack people who are close to me either. But I did not say that we should be on the "attack" - I said that we should be ready and willing to enter conversation - especially with people close to us. Religious people generally don't hide their religious beliefs. Why should we? Why should WE feel like we have to keep quiet all the time?

(3) Finally - I don't know Cynthia. What little I learned about her came from a few lines in an article. Maybe she is not quite an atheist yet. That's fine. My points are raised not necessarily against Cynthia the actual person but the "Cynthia" as expressed through the article.

[rlrose328]

But my biggest objection was with the reason she cited for avoiding the term. By accepting these connotations, she is helping to perpetuate them, not remove them.

Religious people generally don't hide their religious beliefs. Why should we? Why should WE feel like we have to keep quiet all the time?

I agree with these two statements entirely.  These are the two reasons I stick with "atheist" come hell or high water.  I will not hide my non-belief because they don't have any problem displaying their belief.  And I am here to eliminate those negative connotations, not perpetuate them through silence.

I know, though, that my life is different than others.  I'm not in the workforce (yet) and at my son's school, I'm accepted for who I am, not what I believe.  Maybe this is because I'm in Oregon?  I don't know.  Were I to live in the south or find that those with whom I come into contact weren't as accepting as those I do here, I might not display my non-belief as prominently, I'll never know for sure.  I'm an out-there kinda gal.  

[LARA]

jamesatracy, thanks for the response.  I said that I don't think that Cynthia is doing anything wrong by not calling herself an atheist.  I don't think she is an atheist. You said that:

1) Cynthia, based on what I read in the article, is confusing the terms agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge, atheism with belief. If she doesn't believe in god (and the article seems to imply that she doesn't), then she is an atheist. But my biggest objection was with the reason she cited for avoiding the term. By accepting these connotations, she is helping to perpetuate them, not remove them.

(2) I don't want to attack people who are close to me either. But I did not say that we should be on the "attack" - I said that we should be ready and willing to enter conversation - especially with people close to us. Religious people generally don't hide their religious beliefs. Why should we? Why should WE feel like we have to keep quiet all the time?

(3) Finally - I don't know Cynthia. What little I learned about her came from a few lines in an article. Maybe she is not quite an atheist yet. That's fine. My points are raised not necessarily against Cynthia the actual person but the "Cynthia" as expressed through the article.

All we know of Cynthia's beliefs are in this quote:

 

“To me, an atheist is sort of an in-your-face person. I don’t want to put down something that helps people get through the day, because we all need help sometimes,” said Powers, of Roanoke. But, “I think I prefer not to have supernatural explanations for things.”

I would classify Cynthia as agnostic, not atheist,  Her words:  "I think I prefer"  is not a very definitive statement. I don't think she is confusing the terms if she calls herself agnostic.  I do think her characterization of an atheist as an in-your-face person is incorrect and unfair, so I agree with you on this point.  As we know, an atheist may be very calm and quiet and not in your face at all.  When large numbers of atheists lay down a doctrine that is part of atheism that includes coming to my door to convince people to believe as they do, then I might categorize them in this way. But I have never ever heard of this happening.

I think we should engage people who hold beliefs closest to ours in conversation, too, rather than attack them.  If I unfairly characterized your first post as an attack, let me change my words to criticize, rather than attack.  I apologize if what I wrote mischaracterized your words, that was probably too strong a term to use.  I have in the past read what I would consider attacking statements against people who hold agnostic viewpoints from atheists.  I don't agree with this position.

If we take the term atheist as a label, there isn't much to that label except for a disbelief in God.  There isn't a moral doctrine to follow, there isn't a history of tradition along with it.  Please don't take this as criticism, it is simply true. If you know something to the contrary, please do inform me.  The term does not cover very much ground as far as a person's personality is concerned, which I think was the problem you had with Cynthia's quote in the first place, since she assumed a negative connotation.

The problem for atheists that I see is to separate the true and simple meaning of the term atheist from the negative connotations that much of society associates with it.  I can see how people who are atheists standing up and saying "I'm an atheist" can help that, because when people learn that many different types of people hold this viewpoint they will see how simple the label is.  There isn't anything wrong with being an atheist, it's just a belief.

[jamesatracy]

LARA,

This is the only issue that I have with your post:

I would classify Cynthia as agnostic, not atheist.

These terms and the concepts they represent are not exclusive. As I said in my previous post, "agnosticism has to do with knowledge, atheism with belief." Knowledge and belief are not the same concepts. Depending on what one believes and what one claims to know, one can be both an atheist and an agnostic. Atheism is without belief in god. Agnosticism is without knowledge in god (technically, it just means 'without knowledge'. you can be agnostic about many things, but you have to be agnostic about something). Cynthia is likely both without a belief in god and without knowledge in god. She is an atheist who is agnostic.

Separating these concepts rather than making them exclusive is useful because it brings to focus a number of interesting distinctions. The opposite of agnosticism is gnosticism, or "with knowledge." Some atheists claim to know that god does not exist - these people are atheists but are not agnostics. On the other hand, some theists believe in god's existence but admit that they do not know if god exists or not. These people are both theists and agnostics. Rather, they take god's existence on faith. Then, of course, there are theists who claim to know that their god exists. They are theists but are not agnostics.

These are all important distinctions that get lost if we start confusing the terms atheism and agnosticism or insisting that they are exclusive of one another.

[dodgecity]

@jamesatracy: You hit the nail on the head. Just because Cynthia is agnostic does not mean she's not atheist. For Cynthia, these terms are not about what she believes, nor what she knows. They're about how honest(or straightforward, rather) she is willing to be to others like the members of her Church.

[jamesatracy]

Agnosticism is a subset of Atheism.

Actually, I am claiming that agnosticism is separable from atheism. Hence, even theists can be labeled as agnostic if they claim no knowledge of god yet believe in one anyway (faith all the way).

[dodgecity]

Hmm, I didn't really catch that the first time around. That's actually something I've never heard of. Makes sense, though. Edited.

[curiosityandthecat]

The Dawkins scale, ranging from opinions of 100% theistic to 100% atheistic. Separates atheism and agnosticism, but Dawkins himself does point out that it could definitely be expanded to beyond seven items.

• Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
  
• Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there
  
• Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
  
• Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
  
• Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
  
• Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
  
• Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'