Why Atheists Are Demonized

[Sophus]

Of course every religion hates every other religion, but I think their followers at least tend to show some respect towards each other in that, aside from the recent rise of Islamaphobia, they explain why their religion is superior to others and not why, for example, Christians are superior to Buddhists. Certainly not the degree that atheists are demonized. Look what Tony Snow writes:

Atheism fails as a creed because it lacks humanity. It destroys the wall of sanctity that defends the weak from the strong. It spawned history's most savage movementsâ€"from the French Terror to the Stalinist purges. None of the atheistic alternatives has survived because reason just doesn't make a satisfying god.
This leads us to perhaps the strongest argument against atheism, which D'Souza makes only indirectlyâ€"the argument from experience. Atheism cannot reach our hearts. A rigorous atheist cannot console in a time of grief, cannot explain love, cannot sigh in happy wonder at life's endless surprises. He can only utter, "What is, is."
Christianity, in contrast, offers the divine "I Am"â€"God, speaking through Scripture, saying what he means and meaning what he says. In the person of Jesus Christ, he taught. He ministered. He saved. He chased away the moneychangers and wept at the news of Lazarus's death. He lived so boldly that he had to be killedâ€"yet did not stay in the tomb.
No other religion dares claim that God walked among us as fully human. None describes the Lord as a servant rather than overlord. None contemplates an Almighty who humbly offers the bread and cup of love or gives his children complete freedom to grasp his outstretched hand or slap it away.
Every child has felt a shiver of God as night closes and the world grows quiet. Adults, amid the bustle and din, know he's there. When trouble comes, we whisper his name. We cannot see, hear, or yet walk with him. But from time to time we experience a presence that defies description. The God of love is also the God of surprise. Atheists deny something profoundly obvious, something deeply unforgettable, that's woven into our souls.

No love, no grief, no sighing at the simple things in life? Why it's as though we're not even human!

 Here is why I think we are targeted like this more often: Most religious leaders have no real threat of losing their flock to a different religion. Usually whatever we are raised to believe we will stick with. The exception being if we find ourselves in a new community later on in life, we may convert for the sake of finding acceptance, but only a few people go on spiritual scavenger hunts like Pete Townshend and Ricky Williams, trying everything out to see if it fits. This means unbelief is the only real threat. By demonizing us they not only make it clear you'll be outcast from their community, but you will be rendered incapable of love, enjoying life, or finding purpose. I think people are genuinely led to believe that if they become atheists they will be not only immoral and mortal, but somehow unable to be happy and fulfilled because they don't believe in God, forgetting that by that logic we're just as out of touch with their God, Yahweh, as everyone else who has a faith different from theirs. Why don't they perceive everyone this way? No one ever answers it.

[Inevitable Droid]

This means unbelief is the only real threat. By demonizing us they not only make it clear you'll be outcast from their community, but you will be rendered incapable of love, enjoying life, or finding purpose.

This explains what motivates the leaders to make the claims, certainly, but doesn't explain why the followers accept the claims, or why the leaders can rely upon their followers accepting the claims.

I am coming more and more to think that there are two kinds of people, those who are able and willing to satisfy their own pschological needs by imagining that their needs have been fulfilled by some imaginary entity, force, or factor - and those who aren't.  Atheists are in the latter category, theists in the former.  Theists imagine that their imaginary God keeps them physically safe, loves them, and approves of them, thus fulfilling three major psychological needs identified by Maslow.  Atheists, by contrast, only perceive themseves as physically safe if they in fact are physically safe to some degree of probability; only perceive themselves as loved if some human or other animal loves them; and only perceive themselves as approved of, if some human approves of them.  Reality is harder to manipulate than imagination.  Atheists have to work and fight to get their needs met, and are always at risk of failing to do so.  Theists can simply drug themselves with daydreams.  I think that at some level, theists are aware that they are drugging themselves, and view atheism the way a junkie views withdrawal; I.e., with dread.

[The Magic Pudding]

Of course every religion hates every other religion, but I think their followers at least tend to show some respect towards each other in that, aside from the recent rise of Islamaphobia, they explain why their religion is superior to others and not why, for example, Christians are superior to Buddhists. Certainly not the degree that atheists are demonized. Look what Tony Snow writes:

I agree but it may vary over time, when protestants were threatening the Catholic collection plate, they were candidates for an ugly death.  
Non belief is more of a threat now, geez we are the one thing that can bring the faiths together.
We deserve a reward, perhaps a hail of sharp stones.

[Croaker]

Atheism fails as a creed because it lacks humanity. It destroys the wall of sanctity that defends the weak from the strong. It spawned history's most savage movementsâ€"from the French Terror to the Stalinist purges. None of the atheistic alternatives has survived because reason just doesn't make a satisfying god.
This leads us to perhaps the strongest argument against atheism, which D'Souza makes only indirectlyâ€"the argument from experience. Atheism cannot reach our hearts. A rigorous atheist cannot console in a time of grief, cannot explain love, cannot sigh in happy wonder at life's endless surprises. He can only utter, "What is, is."
Christianity, in contrast, offers the divine "I Am"â€"God, speaking through Scripture, saying what he means and meaning what he says. In the person of Jesus Christ, he taught. He ministered. He saved. He chased away the moneychangers and wept at the news of Lazarus's death. He lived so boldly that he had to be killedâ€"yet did not stay in the tomb.
No other religion dares claim that God walked among us as fully human. None describes the Lord as a servant rather than overlord. None contemplates an Almighty who humbly offers the bread and cup of love or gives his children complete freedom to grasp his outstretched hand or slap it away.
Every child has felt a shiver of God as night closes and the world grows quiet. Adults, amid the bustle and din, know he's there. When trouble comes, we whisper his name. We cannot see, hear, or yet walk with him. But from time to time we experience a presence that defies description. The God of love is also the God of surprise. Atheists deny something profoundly obvious, something deeply unforgettable, that's woven into our souls.

Simply floored at this whole passage.

Yes, I can console someone in a time of grief, because I am consoling them, not my imaginary friend. At least I might have actually experienced what they're going through, unlike Jesus.

My explanation of love is really that it's two things - the simple attraction to someone + the ability to stay committed to someone else. If love for my wife was given to me by God, then that defeats the purpose - at least I love her for who she is, and am committed to her because I want to be (even at times I may not want to), rather than God telling me to.

I can sigh in wonder - shit, anything involving science makes me go 'ooh' and 'aah.' If anything, a God simply takes away the mystery and enjoyment. That and I'm not so narcissistic to think that the entire universe, in all its endless beauty, was made as nothing more thank a backdrop for my life.

Oh, and I like the

...gives his children complete freedom to grasp his outstretched hand or slap it away...

Because not knowing a hand "is there," like the vast majority of mankind ever born, is just like slapping it away.

Of course!
 

[Recusant]

Tony Snow has "gone to a better place" (yes, that feeble old "consolation"), so I'll try to restrain myself from speaking too much ill of him.  He actually seemed to be a relatively decent fellow, for a perennial talking head and professional prevaricator (George W. Bush's press secretary).  If anybody is interested they can read the entire screed here. It's an attack on atheism in the guise of a review of Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity. He brings some well-worn chestnuts out for yet another polishing.  In fact, I don't think there's an original thought in the entire tedious jeremiad.  

• ...Christian principles of free choice and human dignity laid the groundwork for democratic political systems built on inalienable human rights. They inspired free markets in economics and intellectual pursuit.

Yes, why not ignore the Enlightenment political philosophers.  The fact that their writings were directly contrary to such Christian doctrines as the divine right of kings is completely irrelevant. The democratic ideals of Greece, and the republican ideals of Rome had nothing to do with the development of modern systems of government.  Thousands of years of commerce taking place in more or less free markets are as nothing compared to the inspiration of Christianity.  Burning Giordano Bruno at the stake for saying that the stars were distant versions of our sun, and that there were other worlds than our own in the universe, not to mention holding "erroneous opinions" on Christian dogma certainly inspired intellectual pursuit.

• Christian theologians fathered modern science.

See above re: Bruno.  Don't forget Galileo and others whose investigations into reality were summarily squashed by the Church.  And of course, the ancient Greek philosophers and the Islamic scientists who preserved and built upon their ideas are mere footnotes to the great scientific legacy of "Christian theologians."

• The world even now takes for granted America's uncommon generosity, especially in times of disaster and crisis. These traits spring directly from our faith.

My sense of irony boggles at this fatuous drivel.  I think I'll just let it speak for itself.

•  While atrocities violate Christian doctrine, they're of a piece with atheismâ€"which largely bears responsibility for the bloodiest century in history.

Yes, you heard it here first, folks: Atrocity = atheism.  Atheism probably bears responsibility for WWI and WWII, and certainly is the earth from which Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. sprung forth.  Christians never get tired of this big lie.  Some of them probably even believe it, but something tells me that Snow knew he was regurgitating horseshit.  But then again, that's how he made his living, so I don't expect it gave him pause.

• ...Darwinists...

Even though some defenders of the theory of evolution use this shorthand term which was originated by Huxley, it's generally used in a pejorative sense by creationists, and is inaccurate at best.  Usually when you hear somebody use it, it's a big clue that they think that Darwin, and all of the scientists since who've moved humanity's understanding of biology forward, are in league with the devil.  It implies that evolution is an ideology, and that those who accept it are mere disciples of the godless deceiver Darwin.  Though, to be fair, Snow here uses it in describing D'Souza's entirely reasonable attempt to reconcile evolution and  Christian doctrine.

• Yet science has insurmountable limits. It cannot answer empirical questions about the origins of the universe, for instance.  ...the Big Bang leads us back to a moment when everything beganâ€"and delivers us not to the doorstep of atheism but theology...  If reason can explain everything, why can't it explain where things come from?

God of the gaps much?  That science has yet to unravel all of the secrets of the universe does not mean that progress in that direction is stopped.  In spite of Snow's faith in his own prescience, we simply cannot say what will be discovered and learned through the use of reason and the scientific method in the future.  "Insurmountable limits?" Maybe, maybe not.  Smug pronouncements to the contrary by middle brow blatmeisters notwithstanding.

• Ethics produces an even greater quandary. Moral laws have changed less over the millennia than the recognized laws of physics and mathematics. The ethical principles that undergird the Ten Commandments' prohibitions against stealing and murder are recognized by people in New York, New Guinea, Timbuktu, and even bin Laden's cave, while scientific theory has undergone numerous revolutionsâ€"and will continue to do so.

Hmm, let's ignore the fact that slavery was an approved method of human resources management according to Christian dogma for more than a thousand years, yet somehow Christians changed their view of that particular practice.  And that divinely approved mass slaughter, while it has not yet entirely gone out of fashion, is generally frowned upon these days.  I'll bet it would be a surprise to bin Laden and murderous thugs of his ilk to learn that they actually recognize the Ten Commandments. The tribal people of New Guinea were quite happily killing and eating their enemies until relatively recently.  How that jibes with Bronze Age moral precepts originating half a world away, I'm not sure.  But the fact that there have been huge leaps in the scientific understanding of the universe is somehow a failing.  

The section that Sophus quotes follows the gems given above.  When seen in context, it doesn't seem any less offensive, but I think that context does give some perspective on Snow's despicable yet banal thoughts on atheism.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Snow's dead?  I hope he came clean to the padre about all the lies he told under Bush trying to justify the killing of Iraqi civilians -- or at least has an air-conditioner.

[Gawen]

Non belief is more of a threat now, geez we are the one thing that can bring the faiths together.
We deserve a reward, perhaps a hail of sharp stones.

Can you imagine an Atheist Holocaust? Heil Jesus!!

[Persimmon Hamster]

Can you imagine an Atheist Holocaust? Heil Jesus!!

Yes, I can...no laughing matter.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hey, where's Boobquake when you need him?

Boy, is he missing out!

[Sophus]

I didn't really intend for this to become so much about Snow but those are some excellent points worth making Recusant.

It troubles me that this elitist attitude of only the pious being portrayed as having simple, essential human qualities goes unchallenged by so much of what is considered the mainstream belief in religion. Even by those who are not religious but "spiritual" don't speak out against the leaders and teachers who regurgitate this nonsense. It's a bit unusual because throughout the history of smears and prejudice against a group I don't think claims like "you are incapable of love or grief or enjoying life" have been concepts used to defame any "enemies". Which is why I don't think it's actually formulated to defame us but to scare their flock from becoming us.

As I reflect back on my youthful years as a Christian I remember being convinced for the longest time that if I were to consider taking atheism seriously I would be considering the downfall of everything good about life because if I lose God I would lose all the virtues and grands feelings he must evoke. For me at first, the thought of hell was never quite as terrifying as this: becoming a zombie among men.

Now, preachers are painting my portrait, and this upsets me. Honestly, as much as we speak out to correct them it won't be doing any good until we can convince members of their flock to correct each other. A daunting task to me, because I could never fully convince my own mother of it.

[SSY]

I always thought it was to do with differences. Christians and Hindus and Olympians actually agree about a lot of their faith, at least in general structure (powerful god, pray to them to receive rewards, your deeds in life go towards judging your position after life, these tenets are very common in religion), yet we wholesale reject the lot. This radical departure from their way of thinking must be shocking to them, they can attribute a Hindu's beliefs to misplaced faith, but to have no faith at all is simply too big of a deviance for them. Presumably, if we lack the faith, we must lack other things, lacking these other things allows them to prop up their own beliefs, as we are defective, we can't possibly be right after all.

Also, excellent post Recusant.

[Recusant]

Thank you, SSY.

Though I will acknowledge that my responses are generally as time-worn as Snow's talking points.

[Sophus]

Palin writes in her new book that the media and academia view religious people as "alien beings". Then what do they see us as if this is their caricature of us?

(Pardon the generalization. Of course I don't mean all religious people but I would dare to say most of them in America portray us this way.)

[Thumpalumpacus]

I doubt Palin speaks for any majority.

[Letra Runt]

Yes I've heard of many people who consider religion to be a fundamental part of their humanity. Typically they then claim that religion is the one, and only thing that makes humans special or something like that. I think that some people need to feel special to feel "truly human", and that without religion they feel less special.  And then there's the belief that without religions guidelines that people automatically can't be moral, or something along those lines. Remember all those times you heard a believer claiming they would do unspeakable things if Hell didn't exist? The belief that fear of punishment is the only way to keep the masses from violently rioting/murdering/etc isn't necessarily a religious belief.

However a lot of religious people believe that without the fear of Hell that people will automatically lose all self control, and start doing whatever for their own gratification regardless of the consequences. We know that some people can be kept from rioting/etc/ simply through fear of a legal system with consequences. And a few individuals simply because they couldn't have it on their conscience. This doesn't explain everything though. Because there's a certain form of disrespect directed towards atheists religions without a form of Hell don't get. There's also the commonly religious view of humans being an inherently flawed species. I'm not saying atheists think humans are perfect, but a lot of religions go deeply into how very flawed humans are and what not.

So if they believe humans are inherently flawed or something, then they probably believe humans can't make truly moral guidelines without a deity being involved. And that, well I don't know if that explains everything.

.  I think that at some level, theists are aware that they are drugging themselves, and view atheism the way a junkie views withdrawal; I.e., with dread.

Since you brought up that subject I know someone who couldn't stop drinking without religion. Always EITHER addicted to alcohol or religion. So yeah, I think religion can definitely function like a drug.

Palin writes in her new book that the media and academia view religious people as "alien beings".

She really wrote that? Well if anyone could say that with a serious look on their face, I suppose it would likely be Sarah Palin.