by Matt Casper, co-author of Jim & Casper Go to Church and a founder of ChurchRater.com
I have no idea how long I have been an atheist. I also have no idea how long I will continue to be an atheist.
The reason I say the former is that there was not some “eureka!” moment, no day I celebrate or honor… it was simply gradual, as is all real and lasting change.
The reason I say the latter is that I am not 100% certain there’s not a god or gods. Gods can neither be proven nor disproven in the empirical sense, so who knows…? Maybe one day something will happen in my life that leads me to become a believer.
BUT! Based on what I currently have seen and believe, I am an atheist. But tomorrow…? Who knows?
ANYWAY: that’s a brief intro to my own atheism.
The difference between me and most atheists is that I talk to Christians. A lot. I write books with them, I go on their radio shows, and I even help run a site for rating churches. Why do I do all this? Just lucky, I guess (my Christian friends would say “blessed”).
I also do it because I am not a complete idiot. Hitchens is an idiot. Dawkins is an idiot.
I don’t mean they’re not smart. They’re waaaaaaaay smarter than me. But for anyone to think they’re going to change what anyone else believes by attacking that belief, well, that’s idiotic. And it accomplishes nothing other than further entrenching people.
I believe that belief is not going anywhere in my lifetime, so I also believe the best approach to people who do believe — in a discussion about belief — is through their belief system. (That’s a lot of beliefs for one sentence, I know…) I have referred to this as “playing the hand I was dealt.” As an atheist, I have no belief system, per se.
Luckily, most belief systems stems from religions. I say “luckily” as most religions have something pretty positive at their core: be kind to other people, don’t be a jerk. And I have found talking about this “core” to be effective both in creating positive relationships and effecting a little change along the way.
I have many, many stories that support my “findings,” but I wanted to start by asking other atheists here and elsewhere: what have you found effective and rewarding in any conversations you have had with people who believe in gods?
Anyone can throw red meat to their acolytes. And that helps shore up defenses all around. So I’m not looking for red meat. Rather, I’d like to hear from you about things you have said or done that create connections, as I believe people being more connected to each other would probably make the world a better place for us all. (Yeah, I know another “belief” from a non-believer.)
One more thing: I did not forget the Hulk. I have two little kids and god comes up from time to time. They ask me about god, and I say — with the greatest of ease — “well, some people believe there’s an all-powerful, un-seen god controlling the world, and some people don’t.”
But we’re watching The Hulk the other day (the one with Ed Norton, though I like the Ang Lee one, too), and my son wants to know “What happened to the man [Bruce Banner.]?” I said, the Hulk IS Bruce Banner.
“But what happened to man’s skeleton?”
“Well, it’s inside the Hulk… they’re the same person.”
“So what happens to Hulk’s skeleton and blood when there’s the man?”
“It stays in the man’s body…”
“Is it hiding?”
“No, it’s there but smaller… see, the Hulk is a manifestation of Banner’s anger. And the Hulk only exists when Banner is unable to contain his emotions, a raging Id as it were. He takes over and only subsides when Banner is able to reign himself in. So Banner does not wish to be the Hulk as he must lose control of himself to Hulk out. Whereas Spiderman is always basically Spiderman… he just changes clothes.”
“I like Spiderman.”
“I have many, many stories that support my “findings…”
Is this the best you can do? And you call Hitchens and Dawkins idiots?
“But for anyone to think they’re going to change what anyone else believes by attacking that belief, well, that’s idiotic.”
It maybe idiotic but there are also “many, many stories” that show they are right (not to mention that your approach has already been tried for years and has been a complete failure). Just a few days ago:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith//2010/03/disbelief_in_the_pulpit/all.html
or visit Dawkins site here:
http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner
I find it hard to believe that you can say that there are “many, many stories” that show they (Hitchens and Dawkins) are right. Have you seen the movie ‘Expelled’? Dawkins boils his belief down to our planet getting populated by aliens. I’m thinking it takes way more faith to believe that than to humble oneself and admit that we are created by God. Funny thing – I asked God that if He was real, to show Himself to me. I’ve had the ride of a lifetime! He’s real, and He wants to show us how much He loves us. Be careful what you ask for though, you just may get it and your life will never be the same. He says, “seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened…”
And you can show this to anyone else how…?
Dawkins isn’t stupid. Neither intellectually or tactically.
You have to remember that he is English. In the UK we have a much more secular society than the US. Only about 7% ever go to church and perhaps 4% regularly. Few people actively believe and most are what I might call “passive athiests”.
What he is trying to change is the ridiculous amount of respect that most people award to religious belief. He is asking the question as to why the state should subsidise religious indoctrination in state funded church schools.
Why as soon as someone invokes the tryptich jewish bloke in the sky you have to regard their delusions as anything but nonsense.
Frankly his contribution to a more rational approach to religion in the UK has been enormous.
We need more like him. And he doesn’t even go green when he gets angry!
I think Dawkins & Hitchens are necessary & good. I don’t think their methods are effective in deconverting hardcore believers, though. They are the hard sell; but most folks need a softer approach at first. I know I did.
Daniel, I think it is pretty clear that Dawkins and Hitchens are not trying to deconvert hardcore believers. Generally, I think they are trying to change the attitudes of atheists, not theists. As Guy said, Dawkins in particular is trying to get rid of the sacred respect people hold for religious beliefs even when they think they are bullshit. I think this is extremely important.
I second Michael.
Dawkins & Co are giving more power to atheists to come out, ‘converting’ the undecided to more strong positions and putting religion on the defensive.
And yes, they are spreading the important message that the sacred must be challenged.
It’s the existence of the moderate religious that legitimizes the nutjobs.
Agree with the two comments above. Sam Harris complains that moderate religion enables the extreme to exist – with the atheist movement it is more the other way around – people like Dawkins and Hitchens allow moderate atheists out of the closet.
This is a great point. Dawkins and Hitchens allow moderate atheists out of the closet…
I never really thought about there being degrees of atheism, really. You either believe in gods and take on all that stuff (How much do you tithe? How often do you attend church? Are you following all 10 commandments? etc. etc.) or you don’t (and simplify). To use an analogy, you either believe in Santa (and write notes to the North Pole, lay out cookies, etc.), or you don’t. It’s not like there are degrees of not believing in Santa. “I don’t believe in Santa.” “Oh yeah? Well I really don’t believe in Santa, and here’s the logic behind it…”
I think the issue this raises is that atheism–the way it’s largely presented to the public–is rarely about what’s good about atheism, but what’s wrong with religion.
So is atheism a pro-atheism thing or an anti-religion thing…?
This is a great opportunity for you to improve your people skills and stop generalizing groups of people. Ivan posted a few links yesterday to an article called “How to be an Ally with Atheists” – this does not mean you have to be an atheist or have to side against Christians (or anyone else). It has a lot of good information in the bullet points, with other articles on the same blog for more information. You seem to have dived in the deep end, no wonder your article bombed! You think you are an exception to a rule you made up.
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/12/how-to-be-an-ally-with-atheists.html
I wouldn’t say it bombed… stirred up some stuff, but bombed, IMO, would mean it passed un-noticed. I don’t think I am generalizing. I have asked what I think is serious question: is atheism about anything in and of itself, or is it merely a stand against religion?
We are people – who do not believe in god or gods. That’s all.
I do think you are generalizing. I think you have generalized. We did not all get here the same way, we do not think all the same things or have some rule book or agenda in common. There are agendas, but I can’t believe you never thought about different “degrees” of atheism. I personally do not like labels, like humanist vs. militant, I don’t think there are two types or three types or 11 types of atheism. We all want different things or some people don’t even think about it much at all.
For me, personally, I was raised without religion in the house, with a vocally atheistic grandfather who (I surmise) was raised Catholic. Other than visits with him, the subject never came up, and yadda yadda yadda, I am an atheist. I feel pretty lucky that I did not have to “deconvert,” but my family is dysfunctional in other ways, and if there is a way to be “culturally Catholic,” I think my mother definitely is. I don’t even know if she believes in god, or the beliefs of anyone in my family. So I am not used to discussing this in the comforts of home much less with strangers.
I don’t go about meeting people on the basis of their religion either. Perhaps that is my next step. I have, after about 20 years thinking things over as an adult all by myself, only begun to clarify how I fit in this world, as an atheist among religious people and other atheists. I’ve thought about it a few times, but never really got into a dialogue with other atheists.
I used to be like you, Matt. I thought the atheists were all a bunch of hysterical idiots, shouting at people and arguing, and I thought it was loud and probably ineffective. I wouldn’t think I would open up and actually listen to what they were saying because they were so obnoxious. That’s what I thought and I don’t think that anymore.
Atheists have a lot of different things on their mind and a lot of different ways to say different things about this or that. We don’t hold a united view of exactly what the problem is or whether there even is a problem. I don’t doubt there are atheists in the world who just never think about it or try to communicate with other atheists, and are bugged by religious people from time to time (or not), but just don’t concern themselves with anything but equal tolerance for all, or whatever they are thinking. They haven’t told me, so I don’t know and I’m not going to generalize the silent atheists.
I’m just trying to find out and hammer out what I really think and what I feel like doing about it. I don’t think converting people is my goal. Someone linked a very good blog that addresses most of the stuff going on in my head, called Atheism: Proving the Negative:
http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/
I read a lot of the old articles addressing agnosticism especially. I am not an agnostic, I guess I have to be, but mostly I’m pretty firm. There’s no reason to believe there is a god. The articles are more scholarly on religious and atheistic ideas than this one is, and I’d been saying a lot of stuff but not really articulating it, so that blog helped me, but also expanded things. That whole problem with “listening to yourself” is pretty cliché. There’s nothing wrong with sorting through your own thoughts and finding someone who has written them down in order for you. And always an opportunity to learn something you never thought about before, like how there are different people who are atheists – we’re not all the same hive mind.
I think it takes all kinds. Notice I did not say “both kinds.” Whatever, calling people idiots to distance your own strategies from their strategies does no one a favor. I’m sure you’re doing the best you can or how you want to go about it that feels most comfortable and logical to you, but I don’t like it when people have to call someone else an idiot to feel better about their approach. Hitchens, ur doin it rong! LOL. Why not embrace their efforts and do whatever you like and stop making atheism into an us vs. us thing.
Also the Hulk is easy to explain. Bruce Banner lets his anger out of control. Overlook the appearance change and focus on why he can’t control his emotions like a normal person.
Whatever, calling people idiots to distance your own strategies from their strategies does no one a favor.
Agreed.
Dawkins, Hitchens, et.al. are also part of “the hand you’ve been dealt.” Hardliners are part of every movement. Deal with it more tactfully, or you’re likely to drive off your own base.
Absolutely. The other thing that the hard liners are good for is opening doors. I have a softer touch myself, and many times I’ve had a discussion with true believers after hearing them talk about how abrasive they are.
When a believer finds out that Im an atheist, they typically have the reaction “But youre so nice?!?” Thats a great way to open a conversation about why some people are so strident about their beliefs
when hitchens debates some evangelical, he’s not expecting to change that person’s mind. no doubt they are too far gone. he wants to reach those who haven’t drunk the koolaid yet — or are wavering in their beliefs.
in addition, there’s something to be said for intellectual honesty. i’d bet dawkins and hitchens, among others, would be just as vociferous about their opinions were there no hope of EVER de-converting someone.
i say, more power to them and thank goodness there are respectable voices countering the constant barrage of god-talk we are subjected to.
IIRC, Bruce Banner was belted by gamma rays. And on the third day, he rose again. The end.
You Win. Pure AWESOME.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think I might have gone a little further. Attacking a person’s belief that the sky is blue (it might be overcast and gray today) probably isn’t going to earn you his eternal enmity. Attacking beliefs that are fundamental to who he is might very well. That’s because you’re, in effect, attacking him. I agree that this is to be avoided, the odd anecdote about success coming from a nasty approach notwithstanding. Such stories, even if occasionally true, are far and away exceptions to the rule.
There’s a difference between being tough and honest and being nasty, and I think Dawkins in particular has a good point about society’s odd adoration of religious belief, making it something so sacrosanct that this particular personal identifier is given a special place in the world despite being based on nothing but superstition and word of mouth. If someone cannot stand a robust challenge to their beliefs, then it is not the fault of the challenger. We feel free to challenge other very personal things, like political beliefs, without feeling we should hang back because it might challenge someone’s identity. Why should religion not be subject to rigorous and frank debate as well? What makes it so special?
I agree that religion shouldn’t be sacrosanct or exempt from tough questioning, but I also think mikespeir raises a good point: that having such closely-held beliefs challenged can amount to feeling personally attacked. JohnMWhite, we do challenge others on their political beliefs, and, as far as I can see, the results are similar: people seem to be more politically polarized than ever before.
I’m not sure what the answer is. I was recently involved in a long online discussion with an evangelical, and while at first we both tried to be respectful of each others’ opinions, by the end of it we had pretty much hardened our positions, with him calling me wicked and me calling him irrational. I don’t know if any good came out of it; we had tried to convince each other with sweet words, and ended up just confirming the positions we had in the first place. We might as well have never argued.
Here’s Sagan’s perspective on it, from his essay “Wonder and Skepticism”: “The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them — the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you’re sensible, you’ll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status. Whereas, an approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition, that recognizes that the society has arranged things so that skepticism is not well taught, might be much more widely accepted.”
I would argue that, in the UK at least (where Dawkins and I are speaking from), politics are not so polarised. Also even in America, while challenging someone’s politics gets their back up, it is still considered kosher to do so. I’ve never got into a situation in either country where someone has become absolutely affronted that I challenge their political beliefs, but as soon as you say something about their religion, that’s crossing a line. It’s a line that I think we have to erase if we are to help pull society at large out of reliance on faith over reason.
I would agree with Sagan that scepticism is not well taught, but it cannot be taught effectively if being openly and frankly sceptical of religion is considered to be somehow socially unacceptable. It’s not about saying “we’re right, you’re wrong”, it’s about having a mature and robust debate without religion having some kind of force field around it that would make us somehow nasty and mean for calling it out for what it is.
It’s not about saying “we’re right, you’re wrong”, it’s about having a mature and robust debate without religion having some kind of force field around it that would make us somehow nasty and mean for calling it out for what it is.
I agree. But both sides need to be mature in order to have a mature debate; if the other side insists on having its force field, how do you think we can convince them to deactivate it? (Not asking a rhetorical question here; I really want to know what you think.) As you say further down this thread: “It’s very difficult to begin a discussion from the perspective of atheism or agnosticism with firm believers because they view you through a very distorted lens, coloured by their own upbringing and the prejudices it has created against those evil, baby eating atheists.”
My guess is that we can’t deactivate it remotely, but we can refuse to acknowledge it, and through time and pressure that will become acceptable public discourse.
if the other side insists on having its force field
We could try to re-route power from life-support and modulate the phaser frequency?
I agree that there’s a difference between nasty and tough. Far too many, though, are ready to be nasty and redefine their actions as merely tough.
What’s the difference? I’ll ask, what’s the motivation? What’s the goal? Do we just enjoy bashing people and find our excuse in our lack of belief? (Yes, religionists sometimes do that, though out of belief. I don’t want to be like them.) Are we hoping to improve people’s lives and think the way to do that is to disabuse them of their fantasies? If so, we’ll choose tactics that are likely to persuade, not alienate. I think you can get a pretty good idea of one’s motives and goals from the tactics one uses.
Ouch! I cant speak for Hitchens but Dawkins is not an idiot;he’s just not trying to do what you’ve assumed he’s trying to do, which is what you’re trying to do. I suspect I’d be frustrated too if I were trying to engage peacefully with Christians and some famous professor’s activities was simply stirring them up and making them defensive. I assume that you’ve chosen to express your frustration by calling him an idiot, but my assumptions could be wrong!
As others have said above, Dawkins’ call is to people who are where I was before reading The God Delusion – on the fence and believing that religious tolerance was a good thing. Without his work, I’d probably still be trying to compromise my own beliefs to avoid offending people whose beliefs are based on patently incorrect premisses.
A little bit of irony here, no?
Irony or hypocrisy?
Yes.
Nicely spotted.
As others have pointed out, neither Dawkins nor Hitchens could be characterized as “idiotic.” Polemical, yes. Hitchens is brash and brusque. Dawkins is elegant and sometimes quite cutting in his commentary about religion in general and Christianity in particular. But idiotic? Because their arguments might piss off entrenched Christians who will brook no theological dissent? Is it their “style” of argumentation that offends Matt? Fine–but that doesn’t make them “idiotic.”
What’s amazing here is that he claims to be forging connections with theists and so forth because he doesn’t use polarizing language…by using polarizing language to describe atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens. And by implication, if you are in the D &H “camp” (if you will), by association you too are an “idiot.” Remember, Matt characterizes an “idiot” as someone who thinks they’ll change someone by “attacking” their beliefs. Gee, here I thought what most of us were doing was asking reasonable questions that merely expose the illogic of the vast majority of religious tenets (y’know, six days of creation, Jesus’ alleged “miracles,” etc.). Thanks, Matt. I’d rather be an idiot.
I think it’s really funny the way some atheists choose polarizing language against other atheists while tolerating religious nonsense and being careful not to step on anyone’s toes.
At least be consistent!
A very good point, Kodie. There’s no need to purposely antagonise the religious but to show them deference while writing off atheists who have no patience for them are “idiots” is rather contradictory. I don’t see anything wrong with being honest about what one thinks of their religious beliefs – to change how one conducts themselves in a debate just to appeal to them seems insincere and is the sort of approach we tend to be annoyed by in those who try to evangelise to us.
I believe an overly accommodating atheist is known as a faitheist.
Concern trolled by a incoherent guest poster! Yay!
You sir, win The Internet Award.
The responses to this post are a bit funny imo. We (atheists) often scoff at religious people for worshiping a deity. Then someone tosses some insults toward a man you appear to worship and everyone flips out and starts correcting him and justifying their position. Don’t be a sheep. If Dawkins is why you are an atheist, he isn’t your savior. He is just a guy who made some good points that you believed.
The man has an opinion of Dawkins. Why does that bother so many of you so much? I thought the post by Matt Casper was a bit refreshing and very un-atheists-blog-type.
Matt Casper is just like every other blogger and author that has ever written about religion, anti-religion, or atheism. He thinks he has a unique point of view and he wants you to hear it. Does he? Probably not. Does Dawkins? Also a probably not. Get off his back about it.
You think this is people flipping out? The poster has an opinion on Dawkins. Other people think that opinion is silly and contradictory given other parts of the post. They pointed it out. This is not about worshipping anybody, it’s about trying to make sense and remain intellectually honest.
No one here “worships” Dawkins, and everyone is free to criticize a blogger to their heart’s content–if you could provide evidence of anyone here “worshiping” Dawkins, I’d love to see it. And funnily enough, you seem to be doing the thing you’re whining about. Telling people to “get off his back” seems to be a roundabout way of saying that Casper’s little missive is somehow sacrosanct and not open to critique. Thank you for telling me to not be a sheep. Now I’ll tell you to not be a blinkered imbecile.
This post is so much fail I don’t even know where to begin… so I won’t.
I think there’s nothing wrong with Matt’s approach if that’s how he wants to put atheism into practice. It’s not that he called Dawkins and Hitchens idiots, and not that anyone considers them their “savior,” to use your word, it’s that he is preaching what he thinks is the “right way” to be an atheist by calling other atheists an idiot, while making special consideration for the feelings of religious people, so as not to disturb their precious feelings. I hate divisive labels and “right ways” and “wrong ways” to be an atheist. Plus, he put in some tangential story about explaining the Incredible Hulk to his kids and how he can’t explain they are the same person with the same skeleton inside them, but his skin turns green and bulges his muscles when he gets mad. It also turns his pants purple EVERY SINGLE TIME. But I don’t know what that has to do with anything.
Most atheists don’t talk to Christians?
I think this post demeans both Christians and atheists. It paints Dawkins and Hitchens as derisive bullies who try to insult Christians into accepting their beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even worse, it paints Christians as hapless and fragile children who need to be led by the hand.
Obviously it is true that very hardline approaches probably won’t change any extremist’s mind. That doesn’t mean it won’t change anybody’s mind. I don’t think Dawkins and Hitchens are targeting people who are totally certain of their fundamentalist beliefs. Obviously it is also true that people are likely to be more receptive to beliefs similar to their own and especially if they are presented by people similar to them. But you are never going to convince anybody of a position you don’t even present at all.
The question of which approach is “better” or “more important” is perhaps not trivial, but I think it is unnecessary. Yes, there are people who claim that people like Dawkins are just polarizing and making things worse. I think given how things have shaped up, they are evidently wrong. There are also people who claim that we should only try to get rid of religious moderates, because they give the extremists context. I think they have a point, but again are taking things too far. To men, any movement towards reason rather than faith is a positive one.
The last sentence should say “To me…”
“many, many stories…” is vague. So, specifically, here’s one example: I met ~100 Christians in Antelope, Oregon. I asked for a show of hands while I was speaking, “Who thinks I’m going to hell?” Roughly 80% said I was going to hell. I continued to be kind and respectful… (even poking a little fun at the notion of me turning on a spit over well-stoked hellfire).
At the close of the event a day later, a young man approached me and apologized. Said he had to no right to say I was going to hell. Said I gave him something to think about. And he was not on the fence. He was “too far gone” when we met.
But by not attacking his beliefs and by focusing on connecting with this guy rather than proving him wrong, I made progress. Perhaps now there is one less person in the world who will… shoot a doctor, hate a gay person for being gay, etc., etc., etc.
That’s lovely and all, but don’t you think Dawkins and Hitchens occasionally do exactly what you just described?
Further, you characterize what you do as “connecting” and not “attacking his beliefs.” To a good number of Christians, your mere statement that you are an atheist is an attack upon their beliefs, no matter how much coffee klatching you try to do. Also, you think that the goddist who said you “gave him something to think about” is progress, but by the implied flip side of the coin, Dawkins who might make someone angry with a book called “The God Delusion” does not? Are you saying that Dawkins isn’t “kind and respectful”? How do you support that assertion?
Finally, you claim that your brief conversation with some random human might impel him to be more kind to gays and lessen an inclination to shoot a doctor. That is a hope, albeit a nice one, and not at all any kind of empirical evidence as to the effectiveness of your methods versus your interpretation of Dawkins’ methods.
“To a good number of Christians, your mere statement that you are an atheist is an attack upon their beliefs”
Well said, Roger. It’s very difficult to begin a discussion from the perspective of atheism or agnosticism with firm believers because they view you through a very distorted lens, coloured by their own upbringing and the prejudices it has created against those evil, baby eating atheists. Saying “I don’t believe in god” is as much an affront as saying “I don’t believe in your ridiculous bearded sky daddy war god!”, it’s just a question of tone, and the latter won’t make a significant different to many when the former is so grotesquely offensive to begin with.
Matt, that may work for you in the good old God fearing US of A.
Very few people in the UK are fundamentalists. Very few actively believe. Most sit on the fence and don’t really decide, don’t really believe but don’t wish to offend theists.
That is Dawkins audience. He makes people think. By proposing the Meme for religion, he doesn’t wish/hope to deconvert rabid Christians. He simply wishes to show that there are other ways to think of the world that don’t invoke supernatural beings and invisible best friends.
I think this conclusion is all warm and fuzzy but not indicative that the people you call idiots are idiots. That’s merely you propping up the way you do things because they seem to work for you by putting down how others approach “the problem.” Maybe you find them off-putting, so you conclude falsely that this approach doesn’t work because you tried it another way and it looked like it worked. Don’t follow their example if it doesn’t feel natural to you, but it’s fallacious to say they don’t get the positive results because you do.
It might have been better to fill out your article with examples of your strategy than to put down that awful other kind of ineffective atheist, or in shorthand “idiot.” I’m sure there are people who would find those “many, many stories” more informative for their situations and their communities. “Hooking” people with an anecdote about how hard it is to explain fictional characters’ physical properties to children helped none whatsoever.
One of the things that’s underplayed in these types of discussions is personality type. Some of us are more inclined to rational arguments with little concern with how the chips may fall whereas others are fine-tuned into social sensitivities. Both are valuable as are other types.
I am so tired of the in-group/out-group bullshit.
“Perhaps now there is one less person in the world who will… shoot a doctor, hate a gay person for being gay, etc., etc., etc.”
Anecdotic evidences are not evidences at all. Are you sure your approach is better deconverting anyone? Wich are your proofs?
Maybe they were only being nice to a nice person who didn’t really challenged their beliefs.
Or perhaps he thinks of you as a nice atheist who may convert if God touches him, a person who may eventually be saved and is not yet totally evil. You should keep in mind that christians are pretty good rationalizing.
Besides, you think a normal person would be able to shoot a doctor, no matters what this person thinks? That was creepy.
His religion still hates homosexuals and abortists. The work you did should be done by other christians and it would be more effective.
Ugh.
I’ll just say that I like that the post was different from a different point of view. Thanks, Daniel, for being open minded.
To answer the question posed, by Matt, I don’t eliminate my faith based friends from any events that I have. I find that listening to them is can be quite interesting. I’ve learned a lot, and they’ve learned a lot from me as well. I will share with them my ‘conversion’ from being a theist, if they ask. Usually, we start with common ground where we agree. This will generally lead to peaceful discussion about issues we don’t agree with. All my friends know, though, if they ask for truth, I will tell them without being condescending. I found that has open more doors for those that are trying to escape more than anything else.
Thanks, Matt, for the challenge.
Cf. #6 in Greta Christina’s essay How to be an ally with atheists:
I am thinking of a movie, “Out of the Past,” starring Robert Mitchum. There’s a great line in it when Kirk Douglas (the bad guy) says to Mitchum (the good guy/anti-hero), “You just sit and stay inside yourself. You wait for me to talk. I like that.” Mtchum replies, ” I never found out much listening to myself.” Atheists reading Dawkins and Hitchens are listening to themselves. Only much more eloquently.
That really what you think? A line from a movie, and you’ve got the whole thing summarized. I think I know what category to put you in. Thanks for all your help.
But there’s nothing wrong with reading things from people who you mostly agree with. I learned things from The God Delusion. I’ve also learned things from reading science books from evolutionists, even though I agree with them. Should I only be reading things from creationists? I’d go insane.
I think it’s good and important to read, talk & listen outside ourselves, but there’s also something to be said for doing the same with those who we agree with, too. ;)
I hope that this kind of sweeping generalization is one of the things you try to get away from when dealing with Christians.
Atheists reading Dawkins and Hitchens are listening to themselves. Only much more eloquently.
To borrow from the 1980 Presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, “there you go again.” First you indict Hitchens and Dawkins as idiotic–an argument for which you can provide only the flimsiest of evidence; and now you characterize those who read them as “listening to themselves.” Here, you characterize those who read them as though they are “followers” of the aforementioned. And you have the rhetorical audacity to imply that the “good guy” doesn’t “listen to themselves–this would be admirable, but for your complete lack of evidence to show that those of us who’ve read Dawkins or Hitchens or both have committed this most grievous of errors.
Simply put, you’ve taken a difference in approach and attached a moral significance to one (which happens to be yours! How fortuitous!) while demonizing the other. This is a simple-minded bit of reductivism that is ill-conceived and, from what I’ve read from you thus far, ill thought out.
Have you even read them? I was an atheist before I read God Delusion, and the book brought up all sorts of things I hadn’t thought of before.
But please, tell me more about my own life.
While I’m all for keeping at least some level of civility I don’t think that the plying nice and being terrified of maybe offending somebody is a more effective strategy. Just look at the healthcare debate. I’m sure that if instead of kissing republican ass in hope of convincing them Obama would have gone in, guns blazing, from day 1 he could have got a much stronger bill (whether such a bill would have been a better thing is a different debate). The so called “new atheists™” have had an impotent role in bringing many of us out of the closet and smashing the myth that atheist are an insignificant minority. BTW, apparently Hitchens can be persuasive .
Link messed up hopefully it will work better now.
The so called “new atheists™” have had an impotent role in bringing many of us out of the closet …
I think you mean “important.” :-)
The dangers not paying attention while typing.
My summary of this post; blah, blah, blah… Hitchens and Dawkins are idiots… BOOM!
Just joking, I like your approach, but I also like Dawkins´approach (except when he insists on calling us ´brights´). Dawkins has written world changing classic of non-fiction. As for Hitchens, he and Stephen Fry are probably the two brainiest non-autistic people in the world. The atheist community is a broad church, a catholic church, you might say.
Except we don’t rape little kids… mostly. 8D
At least we don’t help to avoid justice the people who does
I tried to post a relevant excerpt from Greta Christina’s essay How to be an ally with atheists, but it apparently got eaten by a filter…
The curse word flagged it to be looked at before being posted, but it’s there now. Thanks for posting it.
Curse word?!? LOL.
Why the fuck are certain perfectly good words considered cause for flagging?
I don’t know, it’s not my blog. I get a small share of posts flagged for moderation, but they eventually get posted because there’s nothing wrong with the content. Well, nothing not allowed with the content. It’s not the curse words, it’s just a batch of words that flag so we don’t get to read unmoderated piles of spam and indecipherable diatribes and name-calling rants. I’d rather read the good ones a bit later than have to wait for the bad ones to be deleted.
Because a good number of posts with lots of curse words end up being comments that break comment rules.
Fair enough– ya gotta do what works, I guess.
Perhaps the original post should have been flagged for name-calling? :^P
Imagine there’s a television program called “atheism,” but that its potential audience only has ratty old televisions with bad reception. Many of the TVs, perhaps because of a little more care taken assembly, only require a slight tap on the side for the show to come in crystal clear. But, others can’t cut through the static unless someone raps the TV very, very hard on the side. Both approaches work, and it wouldn’t be very helpful to label one method inferior to the other.
I was one of the persons that had a difficult time cutting through the static created by my religious upbringing. Had someone not rapped me very hard upside the head, I would still be sitting there staring at white noise. I’m certain that Hitchens and Dawkins can point to numerous persons brought to understand atheism through their approach, and I imagine that you can do the same. I therefore just don’t understand why either approach should be labeled idiotic, unless the point of doing so was just to make a contentious statement for contention’s sake.
I didn’t want this all to be about Dawkins and Hitchens, I was hoping for some help with this question: what have you found effective and rewarding in any conversations you have had with people who believe in gods? Anybody? Or are we simply going to be debating the merits of two extremely intelligent atheists whose merits are firmly established?
If you didn’t want it to be about the Dawk and the Hitch, you shouldna called ‘em idiots while beating your chest about how you’re not an idiot, no sir. Your defense of this proposition, if it can be called that, was extremely weak at best.
By calling them idiots, you’re also calling me and a lot of other folks here idiots. And that’s a good way to get yourself first mocked, then ignored.
I only said I wasn’t a “complete idiot.” I embrace uncertainty indefinitely. There’s no proposition here. Only a story. Like all stories, it starts and ends in the middle. (I also infinitely embrace ambiguity.)
“I also do it because I am not a complete idiot. Hitchens is an idiot. Dawkins is an idiot.”
You’re clearly proposing you are in opposition to them – that you’re not what they are.
Uhhh, what?
Now we’ve found something we can agree on.
And so, with this, I realize: I am the Walt Whitman to your Learn’d Astronomers.
How poetic of you. You like to compare yourself to famous people, don’t you?
I like Whitman, but I gotta say, the stars only get more magical the more you know about how they work.
For a person who claims the importance of respectful dialogue, you sure go out of your way to antagonize.
This ‘debate’ has only tangentially been about Dawkins/Hitchens. What troubles some of us is that you claim the high road while slapping around your fellow atheists.
He also claims many, many stories without telling any, and also which support his “findings” (what a weird way to put it), and then switching the subject to cartoons.
Matt, you are a guy with a lot of beliefs, and sort them out in prose kind of awkwardly. You believe you have an answer to the crisis and that all the other atheists only listen to themselves (are “idiots”), while you are on a crusade to make this world a better place for everyone, and assuming this is a common goal, why don’t you tell your kids, Bruce Banner doesn’t really have a skeleton, because he’s not a real guy. Why try to explain what’s going on there, and how does it illustrate your point better than some examples of how you soften the hearts of some far-gone religious people without mocking them?
I would read your article again if you rewrote it. I don’t know what “assignment” you gave yourself, but you didn’t answer your own question! D+
Was my post invisible?
Matt,
Apparently you have insulted the Atheist superheroes and now they can’t see past that one comment. I see this often in Christianity when someone insults someone else’s pastor; The main point is totally glossed over and the conversation falls apart. It’s quite clear that many people on this site have a high respect (and dare I say loving admiration) for Hitchens and Dawkins as leaders. It’s been mentioned that Dawkins and Hitchens helped several people leave the atheist closet, so a personal connection has formed. Ergo, I understand why some people would be angry with you.
All that said, I’m quite fascinated by how flippant the response was; there was very little detailed analysis at first. But like a laser guided missile to “Dawkins is an Idiot. Hitchens is an idiot,” they couldn’t look away from that phrase. Is that really reasonable? Granted Matt’s comments weren’t really backed up concerning the word “idiot,” but that wasn’t his main argument nor the conversation he is trying to spur.
At several points while reading this conversation, I had flash backs to having to listen to Evangelical Christians. And as most of you know, it’s not always fun to converse with fundies. Except I see some similar bean counting going on when discussing this article. You have to split hairs over every detail, put fail to see the extremely pragmatic approach Matt has taken to break down barriers in our society. I understand that Hitchens and Dawkins are respected figures, but when I read this thread I hear the same nonsense I have to deal with when Catholics tell me the Pope is above criticism. Their “faith” is attacked and they become extremely and unreasonably defensive.
You clearly haven’t read the comments if you think this is about adoration of particular idols. It has been said time and again that is not the case. This is about consistency. Matt was not being consistent, and the more he tried to dodge that point, the more it snowballed. No one is saying Dawkins and Hitchens are above reproach.
Also, people have been referring to the main point he was trying to make, and they generally don’t agree with it. You seem to be skimming the discussion and just homing in, like a laser-guided missile, on the facts that there was something bad said about Dawkins and some disagreement with the post and drawing your own prejudiced conclusion.
Hope I wasn’t dodging anything… yes, I name-called. It’s a great way to get attention, yes? (Case in point: both Hitchens’ and Dawkins’ books have name-calling right in their titles!)
My point is and has been that I believe there is little that is constructive about throwing red meat to one’s followers. Period.
Dawkins and Hitchens do primarily just that. And I find that approach to be un-helpful.
Someone who is more of a firebrand might even refer to such approaches as “idiotic.” But not me. I would never do that. A younger version of me–go back in time, say, 8 hours–might have, but not the older, wiser person writing this now.
You name-called, then did the very thing you were calling these people out on, then when called out on this you decided to try to point the discussion back toward what you claim was the main point of your article while, yes, dodging discussion of your contradiction… only to now say that your calling these people idiots was an attempt to get attention. Which is it? Did you really just want attention drawn to your views of the approach of Dawkins and Hitchens (an approach you are misunderstanding) or do you really want the discussion to be about positive communication between theists and atheists?
I personally make no attempt to be any more polite to the people whom I debate about religion than those whom I debate about other issues, and in fact am often quite brash. I do make sure I am respectful and avoid personal attacks, but beyond this I speak plainly, even when my words are not especially flattering.
Now, I am only 17 and do not have tremendous experience conversing with Christians or any other theists, but I do have an internet connection. I spend considerable time debating on parts of the internet most people consider hopeless or completely incapable of changing anybody’s mind. Yet this is not the case. I have received several PM’s on Youtube from users who were fundamentalist Christians whose nonetheless were profoundly changed by my posts. While this is relatively rare, even a few such PMs are very welcome. More commonly, I have found people debating Creationism relatively ignorant of the relative merits of the theory of evolution actually begin to understand it in my debates, and in some rare cases admit to their error.
You say you have caused people to come to you and say they were wrong about atheists, that they weren’t bad people. This is of course of great importance, as there is currently an extremely negative perception of atheists, especially in the U.S. But one thing your approach is likely to never accomplish is a total deconversion, not merely a tolerance of your beliefs but an acceptance of them. This is what I strive for, and while I have few of the tools necessary to do it, I can still on rare occasions be successful.
But my greatest successes I think I will never know about. People are naturally receptive to logic, but even more naturally unlikely to admit it. I will never know how many people walk away from a debate claiming they still believe, but really unsure, harboring at least some doubts. When I ask questions people know they can’t really answer, I think in many cases they aren’t completely able to delude themselves with their nonsensical responses. But although they probably won’t admit to me their minds were any different after the debate than before, in some cases they probably were, and this may be the first step to a deconversion.
And most importantly, these deconversions don’t come from seeing atheists as “nice guys.” What kind of people we are is totally irrelevant to the veracity of our arguments. If people start believing in reason rather than emotion, that is the most important goal for me, even if these people still believe in God. And that is the kind of result you get from debating, not from merely talking.
At least that’s the way I see things.
Uhm… I don’t know what kind of Atheists you know Matt, but I can assure you I am one (actually, a big fan of PZ Meyers) and I do like to talk with believers.
Actually, more than talk, I like to listen, I will just shoot a question or two when they’re done, and maybe see if they’re interested in continuing the discussion.
If they are not, I’ve learned something about how believers think and will just change subject.
I rarely tell anything more than “I don’t believe in any god”, unless explicitly asked to expand.
And what does the Hulk have to do with all the rest of the article?
Poor assumptions, poor arguments, poor writing.
Next please.
Francesco: the hulk is a hook, a personal anecdote, an excuse to write poorly and make poor assumptions and arguments. ;)
It sounds like your conversations with Christians are pretty well planned out, Francesco. Many Christians I have met do that, too. Part of the sales pitch way people often have of talking to each other… “I am going to sell this person on my point of view… I will listen quietly, wait for an opening, and then BOOM!”
Reading your comments, I am reminded of so many Christians I have spoken with… agenda-driven with a nearly overwhelming sense of certainty that leads them to be judgmental. The difference is when I talk with the Christians, I can say, “Hey… Jesus said ‘judge not…’ etc.”
Here, among my “fellow atheists,” I can only say that what I am seeing means you may have more in common with the hardcore believers than you thought. Fundamentalism is not restricted to people with beliefs in deities.
And still, the question goes unanswered: what has been effective and rewarding in your conversations with believers?
BZZZZT. Try again (see #8 at that link).
Uhm, no.
Fail.
I do go for what in my mind are the strongest arguments against belief.
But what happens is that most of the people I ask to give me their answer, that I usually find both unexpected and unsatisfying, and there I stop.
I don’t argue, I have no agenda.
I just like when people surprises me, I have to review my beliefs, usually those about people.
You know what?
Besides speaking with the believers, you may want to spend some time with Atheists, too.
Just to know what you are speaking about, rather than filtering everything through your prejudices.
“The difference is when I talk with the Christians, I can say, “Hey… Jesus said ‘judge not…’ etc.””
I do that all the time. I can read the bible too. I really don’t get what you’re trying to say here. Plenty of atheists are capable of engaging in conversation with theists. It’s not all about beating each other over the head with their bible and our copy of The God Delusion.
It sounds like you’re awfully presumptuous, Matt.
“Francesco: the hulk is a hook, a personal anecdote,”
I think the Hulk example you gave made a fine analogy. On one hand you have a kid asking some pretty straightforward questions about a Fictional Character, and there’s this priest trying to keep up with answering the questions and trying not to sound like its all just make-believe.
So I’m the priest and the Hulk is god… sweet! I am now ordained in Hulkianity or Hulkism. I am a Hulkian or a Hulkist. It is all make believe as it all happens in our minds… yes?
Hulkamaniac is the preferred term I believe.
The similarity of the Hulk discussion to a conversation I had with a theist was striking.
“So Jesus is a man?
He lead a sinless life?
He’s also a god?
Where did the man go when he turned into God?
The man was still inside of Jesus?
Since he’s God doesn’t that mean he couldn’t sin even if he wanted to?
But he died?
When did he stop being god so he could die?
You mean Jesus was faking that he was dead, so he really didn’t die?
So he really died but got tired of being dead and came to life?
Was he still a Man?
Did he get tired of being a Man?
If he’s still a man why isn’t he here?”
And on and on.
That looks like a rather one-sided conversation. I tell you, these atheists, only listening to themselves… :)
Sunny Day,
Wow. Those are good questions. I’m a hard core Christian and LOVE those types of questions! Challenge is just so much fun! I don’t get to talk to a lot of atheist. The people I usually talk to are, I suppose, agnostics. So I don’t get asked questions quite this difficult. (Not going to answer them because you didn’t ask them to be answered! lol duh.)
So, all that to ask you if I could take those questions and put them on my facebook and ask other Christians what they thought and how they would answer. Would that be ok? Some of the people I know have never had their beliefs challenged to that degree and I think that it’s good to have our world views challenged now and then. Whether we “fall away” because of it or not.
If you’d rather not have me take them I understand. =)
It seems weird to “God bless” an atheist, but what the hey! (I hope you don’t take this badly. I mean it in the most sincere way possible. I really do want my God to bless you whether you believe in Him or not!)
God bless you!
Veronica
A fun, easy one to start with: “Does God have a foreskin?”
It’s simple until you think about it a little.
Here, among my “fellow atheists,” I can only say that what I am seeing means you may have more in common with the hardcore believers than you thought. Fundamentalism is not restricted to people with beliefs in deities.
You have got to be kidding. Dude, the words you wrote are being critiqued. You wrote a rather incendiary indictment of Dawkins and Hitchens in order to prop yourself up as a reasonable interlocutor and then, in the preceding comments, have shown yourself to be anything but. When you get called out for the hypocritical nature of your criticism of Dawkins and Hitchens, you then resort to shifting the goalposts and now, calling other atheists “fundamentalists,” knowing just how loaded that term is. With an ally like you, who needs fundamentalist Christians?
I think I’m reasonable… but reason is so often in the mind of the beholder, yes? A willing participant in a room full of snake handlers will look around and see no one but reasonable folks. Ah, subjectivity… my favorite safe-haven.
I don’t know if I’m an ally. Just because I don’t believe in gods, ghosts, or Superman doesn’t mean I’m an ally. Because that would mean we share an enemy. And I don’t think that’s the case.
And even though my bomb chucking got the ball rolling and well, I should not have said “idiot.” I should have said Hawkins is “delusional” and Hitchens is “not great and ruins everything.”
The only delusion I know of that ruins everything is certainty. And whether it’s coming from a Christian or an atheist, it’s always no fun to encounter.
Nothing worse than talking to someone who has all the answers. They tend to be poor listeners.
It has become quite clear that you don’t understand the position you’re attacking. Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens nor any of us here will claim absolute certainty.
The only thing more tiring than talking to someone who has all the answers is talking to someone who apparently denies the existence of (overwhelmingly probable) answers in the first place.
Please cite specific examples from Dawkins or Hitchens of the delusional thinking you so abhor. (Insert coin to continue.)
Aliances are not defined by a common enemy, they are defined by common interest. Often the aliance comes before there is any enemy.
folks, all I am hoping to accomplish here is share what I have found to be effective when talking with people of faith, and that is I don’t attempt to discourage, nor do I ridicule, their faith (and, yes, I used ridicule of atheism’s contemporary heroes as a tool…I prefer Bertrand Russell, but whatever).
I would be a-ok if people stopped believing that our world was controlled by un-seen superpowers… but that ain’t gonna happen. not in this millenium anyway. so… what’s next? what do you do? fight about it? how’s that working out for anyone?
and I thought sharing a story about a dad and his boy (me and my son) would humanize the words on the screen, help see the writer a little more close-up, but it appears that merely created more opportunities for attack.
regardless, this is helpful. I don’t spend enough time with other atheists, even though I probably should as we have nothing in common (that, my friends, is a pun and yet another attempt to humanize this writer’s words on your screens).
I will be offline for a few hours but I hope to chat more later…
Matt
I appreciate what you’re trying to do overall, but you’re sidestepping the issue you brought up when you decided to say certain people are idiots but you’re not. If you want this blog entry to become constructive, it would probably be best to address the can of worms you opened, in a direct and honest manner.
regardless, this is helpful
It is kind of interesting isn’t it? The first commandment of politics in action, “Thy shalt not alienate thy base.” They bite.
Matt, many of us live surrounded by people of faith, and have quite an experience at handling it.
What you are apparently missing is that Mr Dawkins and his fellows do not cater to believers, but to the unbelievers.
They are pushing unbelievers to become more vocal and more self-conscious.
We have black politicians, openly gay politicians, but no openly atheist politicians.
How do you explain that?
How’s that a sign “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone!” is considered offensive?
Unbelievers need to become active and to stand for themselves.
The prominent vocal, angry atheists are giving them the tools and the courage to do so, and this is helping a lot of people.
Unbelievers (me included) want the right to call silly ideas silly, whether this is offensive or not.
I personally find challenging the holy cows far more effective than “converting” people.
one person’s silly is another’s idiotic, yes? and would you say that Dawkins is atheism’s holy cow…?
Atheism has no holy cow and you know it, that’s the entire point of it. Trying to tie criticism of your poorly worded argument to idolisation of figures like Dawkins and Hitchens is just a deflection. It’s ok to admit you chose your words poorly and got tied in knots trying to back it up. Not every article is a winner.
So, you think it’s actually ok to say that a known atheist is an idiot, but we can’t say the same about someone’s beliefs?
Oh, wait, I used a fallacy. But I’m not the first who did, matt.
“The difference between me and most atheists is that I talk to Christians.”
Where did Matt get this info from? Does he know most atheists?
“But for anyone to think they’re going to change what anyone else believes by attacking that belief, well, that’s idiotic. And it accomplishes nothing other than further entrenching people.”
Strangely enough, I know of a few – both locally and online – who have been swayed by the arguments and criticism laid out by Richard Dawkins; tenneral being an online example: http://www.youtube.com/user/tenneral
“Luckily, most belief systems stems from religions.”
I would think that all of our belief systems stem from humans – not religions.
“most religions have something pretty positive at their core: be kind to other people, don’t be a jerk.”
Most prominent religions are also hideously negative at their core – something many “decent” theists tend to overlook when crying over the criticism that their religions quite deservedly receive.
“what have you found effective and rewarding in any conversations you have had with people who believe in gods?”
Only yesterday, I was accosted by two Mormons, who – while approaching in an authoritative and intimidating manner – stated that I needed Jesus. In return, I respectfully stated that I’m an atheist – no thanks. Their tone quickly changed from polite intimidation to condescending intimidation. They started telling me how lost I was without Jesus; how I can’t be moral; how much happier I’d be – and so on. Then came the promises of the afterlife: heaven & the threats of punishment for my disbelief. In response, I said “My tram is due, so I’ll make this short: For one, I’m not so selfish to believe in a god for the sake of an afterlife. Likewise, even if I did believe in a god and the nonsense associated with Jesus, I couldn’t possibly accept his so-called atonement. I’m the sort of person who expects to pay for my transgressions; I’m not the sort who’d SELFISHLY accept the suffering of an innocent – just to avoid any punishments that I rightly deserve.” Seeing their stumped faces, and me holding the moral high-ground, along with the skit about them being selfish, I snapped goodbye – and walked to the tram stop with a grin of my face. I found it very rewarding. To sum it up: keep the high-ground, remain as polite as possible, get your skits in, walk away before they get time to rationalise more twaddle – or you’ll miss the tram.
Strike “most atheists.” Insert “many atheists I have met.”
I am sure there are exceptions who get swayed, people who say, “Wow… you’re right… I will no longer believe X.” But most folks–and I mean “most” this time–simply sink into cognitive dissonance. “God’s not real.” “Yes, he is.” “Is not.” “Is, too.” Is not.” Is, too” until swords are drawn.
Was it really, truly rewarding to give those Mormons a “gotcha!” moment…? How long do you think that lasted…? Did they give up their campaigning and go back to Utah? Probably not, right?
So what’s more rewarding, atheists? Throwing a little pie in someone’s face like Ryedo here, or getting a young believer to soften his views like what happened to me in Antelope, OR (see above)?
They’re not likely to give up their campaigning if you’re superlatively nice to them either. Again, the point is that they already think Ryedo’s lost as soon as he says he doesn’t believe in god. There’s no getting over that hurdle with a lot of people. They presumed he didn’t have any morality and needed Jesus to guide him. No matter how nice you are, if someone thinks you’re a base animal with no moral compass, they aren’t going to listen to you. He said nothing untrue or deliberately offensive, he just outlined his position and they could not respond. If he did so in as nice language as possible, the cognitive dissonance would still kick in.
John I’m still not sure you understand what Matt is getting at. Matt’s point is that he used a different method (from Hitchens and Dawkins) and found that he was both able to not insult someone and gain a little ground.
Your method Ryedo is what is commonly known as priggery. Your not really maintaining the moral high ground, you’re simply trying to show your moral and intellectual superiority. I find that this kind of thing is simply a way to feel better about your own views. I also often most associate it with evangelical Christians and Conservative Catholics who try to “out bible” me.
I understand what he’s getting at, I am just pointing out that he is being hypocritical in doing so. He is presuming that his anecdotal evidence of maybe making some progress with someone without overtly (he presumes) challenging their belief trumps someone else’s anecdotal evidence of doing it a different way. Yet it quite often is the case that just expressing a disbelief in god is enough to rile people up, regardless of the tone and manner in which you do it. You can’t even broach the subject without offending them, unless you are insincere in how you deal with them, and if we’re going to be someone we’re not just to pussyfoot around the theists in the hope of gently coaxing them into some intelligible discussion, why bother?
You think you got the person you encountered to “soften his views.” According to your recitation of events, he said that he had no right to tell you that you were going to hell and that you gave him something to think about. That’s hardly a softening of views. He didn’t say that he no longer thought you were going to hell–he’s just not going to verbalize that thinking. And that you gave him something to think about–who is to say that Ryedo didn’t give the Mormons something to think about? Again, you’re making a fallacious argument by positing your approach over and against Ryedo’s as though Ryedo did something “wrong” and you’re doing it “right.”
Spare us your moral superiority.
Roger I’m not sure what you think about Matt’s argument is “fallacious,” as it does not include a logical fallacy within it’s framework. It’s a serious of questions, some rhetorical, some not; in order to converse with Ryedo.
Plus Roger you are completely missing the point. Matt made a connection at the human level: in which he helped someone be a little less mean in this world. Ryedo continued the “culture wars,” and further entrenched his opponent. Matt’s position creates a better society (a humanistic value if I’m not mistaken) and the other breeds strife.
I disagree that Matt made any progress in making someone “less mean”. As Roger pointed out, the person who spoke simply said they shouldn’t TELL him he was going to hell, not that he no longer thinks people like Matt are going to hell. All we have now is a situation where two people aren’t being honest in how they approach each other. That doesn’t create a better society. What Ryedo did was be honest and polite, it’s up to the people he was speaking to how they react to that.
You’ll all just have to trust me as I was the only one who was there. This guy came into the weekend thinking atheists go to hell. He left thinking maybe he was wrong about that. I would hope we can all agree that’s progress. And the way this progress was created was by an approach that did not involve me telling him he was delusional (for starters). Perhaps I could have explained this in a little more detail… my bad.
I was told I was delusional for thinking I would go to hell for not attending mass. It helped me deconvert. There is a middle path to be found, not one approach is the right way or the wrong way, and you have come out acting like yours is the correct one, which is what has caused the trouble. It’s not the lack of detail in your anecdote or that we don’t trust you, it’s that you don’t seem to get that your presumptive attitude is the problem. Different people react differently to different approaches, judging some people for doing it a way you wouldn’t do it because it appeared to work for you once isn’t really fair.
It’s a miracle!
Matt, how is it that people can only change their minds when you speak kindly with them? I’ve never heard of it happening before.
You’re pretty big on confusing what you think doesn’t work with what you don’t like to hear. Do you have any evidence that no one has ever changed their mind before you came along with your gentle soothing manner, that you keep hidden from atheists? Could I so much ask what was the purpose of this weekend trip? I’m taking a wild guess here, but I think if you get a bunch of Christians (or whatever) on a bus to a religious discussion including an atheist guest, I think you would expect the kind who want to discuss things and meet a real live atheist and see what he wants. I.e., you got someone whose heart was at least partially defrosted already. Good job. What happened with the rest of them, did they throw tomatoes and rotten eggs at you?
Which part of Spare us your moral superiority did you not understand?
I was only giving an eye-witness account. Forgive me if it came off as anything otherwise. Definitely not my intention.
You misread the threading. I was replying to Tyler.
Not to mention the time-travel implications. :^)
And you think your way would have accomplished that, then? Because if not, what’s the difference?
Have you converted anyone? I mean, you have different goals than other people. Getting along with people is a goal. Is that your goal? Are you accomplishing it? Wouldn’t you also like to get along with all the atheists you demonize? Why haven’t you been inclusive in your quest?
Some people’s goal is not to get along with people but to have people get along with them. Or to have people leave their religious beliefs out of politics. Or to just be free to live a secular life without some supernatural idiocy intruding on it – why are atheists the ones to have to pardon religious beliefs out in the open?
Then, why do you think your goal is the only important goal? Perhaps what you do makes you feel like you are playing a part and making an important difference, but you are being narrow-minded about it, and turning about and accusing the atheists of living up to your malformed estimation of us. I think if you gave one Christian guy in Antelope, Oregon something to think about, what have you learned so far listening to not yourself? Because I think you listen to yourself quite a bit, and you haven’t heard any of us really. You’re favoring the religious, you are coddling them with your mild speech, you are in no way accomplishing my goals. Don’t pretend what you do works really great; it only works great for you and what you want to do, and you might have written a great article about this approach and your goals, but what you’ve done is make an example of how not to be nice to atheists, or how to make the world a better place for everyone — except atheists.
*applause*
“Was it really, truly rewarding to give those Mormons a “gotcha!” moment…? How long do you think that lasted…? Did they give up their campaigning and go back to Utah? Probably not, right?”
For me, it certainly was rewarding. From the get go, those particular Mormons had no respect for me at all – if they had, they wouldn’t have approached me in an intimidating, insulting – and condescending manner (tactics they often find useful when preying on the vulnerable and gullible). Now, you may respect people like that; who, in all sense of the word, BULLY the vulnerable. I, of course, don’t. Admittedly, I could have politely pointed out that I didn’t appreciate their approach – but would that have changed anything? Would they give up their most successful methods and go back to Utah? – I seriously doubt it!
Why would you think I may respect people who bully the vulnerable? That’s a strange judgment to make… I hater bullying, in all its forms. Whether its two dudes shoving a bible in one dude’s face, or one smarty pants calling others without his/her intellectual prowess “delusional.”
“Hitchens is an idiot. Dawkins is an idiot”
Then I must be a paramecium.
As mentioned, they’re waaaaay smarter than I am… it’s only their “people skills” that could use some work, in my opinion.
You seem to be still misunderstanding who their intended audience is. They aren’t reaching out to the hardcore believers. They know not to bother.
Do you have a mirror handy, Matt? Your people skills kind of suck.
Folks, this has been fun… crucified by atheists! Who knew?
I only hoped to share what has worked for me in connecting with people with different viewpoints (i.e., Christians).
The irony–which I doubt is lost on anyone–is that in doing so, I held up two widely known atheists as examples of what not to do (e.g., title your book “The God Delusion,” for starters), and in the process made connecting with any of you a challenge.
I look forward to sharing further thoughts with you in the future… perhaps my next post will be “Explaining the Hulk Is Easy… Dealing with the Indignation and Ire of Atheists Is Not.”
Way to miss the point and deflect the blame, again.
As I said before, it’s ok to admit you made a mistake. You tried to draw an analogy, your chose your words poorly and misunderstood the figures you presented. Writers screw up, all the time. I’ve probably made a dozen typos just getting this comment down, but usually we try to correct the errors before we put it out there to be seen. Unfortunately, you left errors, which were picked up on, then your response just made things worse. If you were crucified, you were also your own Judas.
My own Judas… would that it were the first time.
Ok, then, may I please have a dish of cold crow so that I may sink my teeth into it.
Calling names was/is wrong. I should have couched my opinions in better terms. I intentionally threw a brick and got what I had coming–a good old fashioned comeuppance.
We should have more in common, yes?
No-God Not-Bless You All,
Matt Casper
PS: anyone have any stories about effective rewarding communication with a believer that did not end with a comeuppance or the appearance thereof?
There we go.
For your question, I’ve been on both ends of positive, rewarding communication between a believer and a non-theist. Back when I was a believer, my girlfriend spent much time explaining to me in robust terms just how ridiculous what I thought was, with plenty of evidence and no deference spared for my sensitive religious-feelings. Her tenacity really paid off, it gave me the courage to face my cognitive dissonance and to boldly go where my mind had not gone before. Years later, I had a lengthy discussion with someone who was quite a liberal Christian about whether or not Jesus existed, and if he did, what was the point. This was far more tactful in tone, and though we came to an impasse in the particular topic, we came away good friends who each knew the other was good for a solid, friendly debate.
I’m new to this blog, and have been monitoring the comments a little as I’ve sat here working (a lawyer never leaves it at the office). I was initially concerned, based on the article and (a few) of the comments, that I’d fallen into a den of iniquitous name calling. But, I’m glad to see that, despite some elevated tone, it has been altogether civil and well-reasoned. Matt, take it from me and years of experience saying brash things in front of judges, the earlier you retract, the greater your credibility down the line.
As for your question about rewarding communications, I learned awhile back that when talking with believers about the subject, the best tool in my personal shed is science. I’m constantly appalled at not only what passes as science in fundamentalist homes and schools, but at the lack of scientific knowledge on the part of the less fundamentalist public. I find that believers are more civil toward my views if I can calmly overcome misconceptions about natural selection, Darwin, and neuroscience.
This makes sense if we assume that much of the public mistrust of atheists is because believers don’t understand our source of morality, so they figure we don’t have one and are only driven by our base desires. Once I provide them a basis for my morality that arises because of natural selection and brain chemistry, they at least no longer assume they are speaking with someone that doesn’t understand their conception of right and wrong. In fact, I can point to a conversation where I explained my moral compass to an evangelical I sometimes work with as the point in our relationship where we moved from acquaintances to friends.
Cutting through the haze created by the slandering of sound science in some churches can sometimes be a difficult task, and requires a certain level of intellect on the part of the believer. But, telling someone “I do good things and avoid bad things because my brain chemistry has evolved in such a way as to understand the rules inherent in nature that are necessary to live in a civil society with other like beings” works a helluva lot better than “I do right because it’s the right thing to do.”
Dude, we’re not angry with you. Nor is anyone even remotely trying to crucify you, I think. We are, however, demanding that you be coherent in your assertions and deal honestly with others’ positions. (Not to mention that you read the threading correctly. :^P )
Boy you are really still missing the point.
JohnMWhite, Kodie, Ivan, and all y’all…
Kodie said my people skills suck. It’s true, they could use some work…But suck is a bit strong, yes? Like calling someone an idiot. ;)
Kodie asked why I went to Antelope, OR. I traveled there (to the site of what once was Rashneesh Puram) to be a guest speaker at a weekend retreat. Some Christians really liked the book I wrote with a former pastor, “Jim & Casper Go to Church,” and they like the churchrater.com website, too. So they had me and Jim come up.
These are Southern Baptists, so they weren’t softened up in any way. I think they expected me to burn crosses and drink goat’s blood, and when they saw I was a regular guy… well… they still all thought I was going to hell.
But rather than use science to prove them wrong, or condemn their faith, or take a stand against theism, etc., I simply talked about what life is like with no gods, and how it can still have meaning and moments of unfettered joy… and I said this as they sat there looking at me, thinking I would be burning under Satan’s unwavering eye and thorny grip.
And what happened there–as well as in churches in Kansas City, Denver, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and a few other places–was that they got to know me outside of the faith question. And what happened afterward for a handful of people I met (people who still reach out to me today) is that they changed how they view atheism.
And that little change could be a very good thing indeed. Baby steps taken by them today they could pass on to their children until–hopefully in my lifetime–saying “I’m an atheist” to believers like these folks is not akin to saying, “I bathe in Satan’s blood, and I am planning on cooking and eating your children. Does Saturday work for you?”
And that’s how I do it. What has worked for you in reaching across the aisle…?
Matt
I’m pretty sure that I said I discuss science as a way of demonstrating why I believe what I believe and providing believers a path to understand the source of my morality, and not to “prove them wrong, condemn their faith, or take a stand against them.”
I would posit that you talking with them “. . . about what life is like with no gods, and how it can still have meaning and moments of unfettered joy” means about as much to them as when a believer says to me, “I know it’s true cause it’s the word of God.” It’s all just empty rhetoric without a foundation. They are looking for something to latch onto to understand you, and just saying “that life without gods can provide moments of unfettered joy” is so completely removed from their notions of the source of good and bad that they’ll maybe be polite to you, but never understand WHY it is that we are capable of those moments without the presence of the divine. I was hoping that you would listen and hear that still small voice telling yourself that you’ve made some asinine statements, and maybe learn a thing or two from some of the well-thought things said in response, but I’m afraid you’ve proved me wrong.
I think I’m a little angry at myself for having paid attention to the debate this evening. The sum of these posts have led me to conclude that you’re a bit of an intellectual lightweight casting stones and trying to use cutesy analogies along with mediocre anecdotes when you break a window. I’m sorry if that’s harsh, but instead of help bring an important topic into greater clarity, your flailing of mental limbs has just added to the confusion.
That makes two of us that are now a little angry at yourself. Don’t be sorry. Just don’t be harsh. Or asinine. Or flailing your mental limbs. Or insulting me.
Sir, you have been pretty nasty here and that’s not the way. After a hundred posts being nice with matt we were near the goal to change his mind and you put him in the defensive. You should have been more comprimising, something like “hey, I do agree with your way of deconverting people but other atheists may have a different opinion”. That way matt would not shoot Dawkins the next time they meet.
sarcasm off
You’re probably right Francesc, and I considered tempering my comment. But, I ultimately decided that a thorough explanation of why I concluded that Matt is intellectually lacking was the best response I could provide to what I felt were conclusory and unsupported statements.
I suppose what bothers me is that Matt holds himself out as some kind of atheist ambassador to theists, but in my estimation, lacks the intellectual capacity to appreciate the discrete and nuanced elements necessary to perform that role in an effective manner. Granted, telling someone that they lack a certain mental ability is not the nicest thing to do, but I felt it warranted given our wayward son’s insistence that he is somehow qualified where others are not to speak for [non]beliefs held by me and many others.
I thought it was perfect. I like how you put a bunch of words together, Johnny.
Johnny B. Goode. Like it or not, I have been and continue to be an “atheist ambassador” for many Christians if not many atheists. I have spoken to thousands of Christians. I have attended a few of their conferences, written in a few of their publications, met a few of their leaders, etc. I was simply sharing what worked in that context, and what helped many of them overcome their fear of atheists. Johnny: be wise. You must know–given your vast intellect–that a faceless person being pedantic and insulting changes nothing for anyone ever.
Matt “The Australopithecus Atheist” Casper
Kodie and Johnny: I have nothing more to say to either of you as you insist on being insulting, and that wastes everyone’s time. Good bye.
Sorry you couldn’t take any help while you could get it, Matt. It was you who began by being insulting, and have further exposed your ignorance over what atheism is to everyone who isn’t you. It would be great if you were to say you were going to start being nice and trying to understand atheists as people and not some evil group whose reputation you are trying to undo all by yourself. It would help if you started by knowing what you’re talking about. You’re a guy doing stuff, tell us about that and stop acting like a victim here.
If you are calling someone an idiot, make the case they are actually an idiot. If someone’s people skills suck, however, let them demonstrate how much. While you are off on your crusade of heart-softening in the religious communities, you have deemed the atheist either one who gets it (like you), rare and alluring, and demonized everyone else, generalized us, and have yet to extend your harmonious aura in our direction.
Matt, I found this in the bible. It’s also called Matt! I thought that was funny:
You want to bridge a divide, you might want to start with the people you’ve summarily dismissed as idiotic and cranky (I know I’m putting words in your mouth, but you did accuse us of crucifying you). I have not had many opportunities to confer with theists on matters of their belief because it just hasn’t come up and I don’t bring it up. My people skills also do suck. I do not have your patience, but patience isn’t everything. You may have softened one heart, so far. “Many, many stories,” I am still waiting. Also, you failed to recognize Lisa S answered your question and did not get involved with tearing you apart. It is actually making me feel bad for you, but I hope I offered some helpful suggestions in between the easy swings. You are selflessly engaging in a process where you demonstrate yourself as a nice boring person who also doesn’t believe in god in front of people carrying pitchforks and torches aloft. Nice to know that’s the only way we’ll make any strides.
“But rather than use science to prove them wrong, or condemn their faith, or take a stand against theism, etc.,”
Matt, generally speaking, I agree: we should try not to needlessly insult theists – and we should try to build bridges. However, when theists attack and purposely invest millions of dollars to misinform the public about science, scientists – and others in know – need to correct the mess that theists make. Not only that, they have to waste a great deal of resources and energy correcting the BS. NOT condemning faith – and not taking a stand against theism when necessary – can be dangerous; especially for minorities who don’t belong – or conform.
Sometimes, it’s unavoidable that people of faith will attract criticism. Likewise, it’s also unavoidable that scripture will be criticised during the process; especially scripture that perpetuates intolerable, negative views against others. If the “decent” theists can’t deal with these criticisms, then maybe they are in the wrong religion.
I totally agree. Fundamentalist Christians have perverted public discourse on science. I think–based on what little I know about Christians–that such days are on the wane. The younger Christians are unavoidably more informed. And that’s something that gives me hope…
“And that’s how I do it. What has worked for you in reaching across the aisle…?”
I already told you a story of what how I came to make a good friend through civil and polite discourse over religion. I also told you how being battered over the head in the most unflattering of terms with how stupid my faith was created a positive result as well. Horses for courses – different approaches work for different people. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Nothing hard to understand at all. There is no one size fits all approach, hence my asking. Thanks for sharing what worked for you… for me, I think my battering days are behind me (a personal choice). Zen monastery, here I come!
You really didn’t ask anything related to there being no one-size-fits-all approach. You asked people to bolster your personal belief about what worked for you with stories similar to yours. Your approach suggested that you actually did believe your way was THE way to do things, rather than A way to do them.
When I communicate with Christians I call them idiots, it really seems to bring out the warm and fuzzy, and then we have a cup of tea and just smile at each other…
No, seriously, I tell them that I don’t believe in imaginary friends and while I respect them as a human being I think that belief is gobbsmackingly ridiculous and frighteningly immature.
They tell me they will pray for my soul in hell, I mention the point that if there is a hell not only would I be there but so would all the most interesting people in the world, so I’d rather be where the party is at, and by the way, after you’re raptured can I have your house?
That is almost a word-for-word of the last communication I had with a Christian. Shorty after that we finished out beers and I slept over so I wouldn’t have to drive.
That’s cause we are friends first, and atheist/Christian second.
I find that whenever you deal with human beings it is wise to treat them like human beings, individuals who do not always think alike or act alike despite having accepted a common label.
I also make it a point to insult actions, not individuals. A person may do an idiotic thing or say an idiotic thing or believe an idiotic thing or even write an idiotic book, but I would never call the person an idiot. Because that is rude, and my mom brought me up better then that, that’s why.
You know, you could have had an interesting post without the nasty bit. It was unnecessary and distracted from your message and made me really not like you and care very little about anything else you do. If I see you name on a book I’m going to think (to myself, since mumbling to one’s self in bookstores can be kinds weird) “Oh, that’s the chap that called those other chaps idiots. Wanker.” and then I’d probably sneer and walk away, without buying it. Sad, I know, but that is the truth. Mostly because I really hate it when people outside atheism try and divide us in order to marginalized us and make us play by THEIR rules, and I really despise it even more when it comes from within. I don’t have to always like what others do, but at least I see that we are all on a spectrum, that it is degrees that separate a Hitchens from a preacher who no longer believes but can’t figure out another way to make a living. And I don’t fault either, they just are.
Anyway, I communicate with Chrisitans the same way I communicate with non-chrisitans, using language, English to be exact (since that is the language I know) and though I may use smaller words with Christians, I find that many have the ability to return my attempts at communication, also using small words to bridge the gap.
I, you know, talk to them. And depending on the conversation and the individual and if the conversation is taking place over tea or tequila, I may or may not be like those other idiots and just say that belief in a god is delusional and that I don’t think god is all that great.
Nice stuff, Darlene, and I agree. I wouldn’t buy that wanker’s book either. I guess what I have found “works” is not to address the validity of their beliefs… unless said beliefs are hopelessly destructive (e.g., someone who believes the holocaust never happened, or that dinosaurs and people co-existed… oh, wait… that last one applies to handful of Christians… another conundrum!). I have been simply talking with the faithful and (hopefully) de-mystifying atheism for a few. Whether or not I find their beliefs to be immature is, in my opinion, irrelevant. It’s whether or not their actions are constructive or destructive that matters to me (as an atheist, I don’t feel I can lay claim to morality language like “right” or “wrong” as that implies an objective truth… and when it comes to anything that cannot be proven empirically, there is no objectivity). What do you think…? Do you really say you don’t believe in imaginary friends, etc.? That’s so much more specific than “idiotic.”
Believing in imaginary friends is immature.
And believing in something that is wrong-like a 6000 year old earth-is, well, wrong.
Being an atheist is an attack on their beliefs. Full stop. It isn’t even that I was just raised in a different religion and we can discuss those differences: what they consider the foundation of their lives I reject completely. How can that not be, on some level, address the validity of their beliefs?
To give an example from another part of my life: I homeschool, obviously not for religious reasons :)
Many parents of public schoolers take my decision about my family as a commentary on their parenting skills. They either make excuses (Oh, I could never do that) or attack (Socialization!). By me opting out of the system they take for granted, they rightly perceive that what they took for granted as necessary actually isn’t.
The way to fix this is to become visible, so that it isn’t shocking to pick none of the above, and it becomes the new normal.
That is, by the way, why the most strident are so vital: they push the boundries back so that everyone else has room.
I have no problem making judgments, I am just clear that thinking that their belief is bonkers doesn’t mean I think they are totally bonkers.
I don’t really care if I change people’s minds or not. What I want is to keep their superstitions to themselves and stop trying to enforce them as law or affect public policy.
Matt, I think that you’ve had a hard time on here. You used an unfortunate term to describe two people who many of us tend to respect greatly. But.. you’ve been courteous, despite being attacked pretty strongly.
I personally think that half the problem is that your original post was about communicating with Christians. Dawkins isn’t much interested in communicating with them but more with the undecided and atheists. He is English, so writes for a largely secular society. He wishes to see a rational world where logic and science (ie testable ideas) predominate. He finds one of the biggest exceptions to this rationality is Religion. So he is writing for the 96% of the British who don’t go to church. He is trying to reduce the respect with which society treats religion. He isn’t much interested in the views of Christians as their ideas are untestable.
So good luck with communicating with Christians. Here in the UK I seldom meet a Christian to communicate with, so helping empower atheists is much more important to me.
Well this has been very instructive for everyone hasn´t it. The ironic thing is that Hitchens drops these kinds of rhetorical bombshells all the time, often in front of audiences that are less than sympathetic. Yet he always manages to pull it off. I wonder what it is that he does differently?
drinks heavily ;)
Has a far superior grasp of humor?
Has already been written off by the theists as a drunken fool?
Maybe a little from column A and a little from column B?
I wish to see a rational world, too, but I am stuck with this one, and in the US, too, where more than 80% of my fellow Americans profess to be Christian. Imagine living with that… it ain’t easy… when my mom died a little less than 2 years ago, I had one person after another saying things like, “Oh, she’s looking down on you and smiling… you’ll see her in heaven…” and on and on… what’s an atheist to do…? I simply said “thanks.”
I am sorry to hear about your mother. I would say to such sentiments that either way, she’s at peace, so that’s a good thing.
It’s quite a different world in the states. Here in the UK, though religion is still treated as sacrosanct in public discourse (a politician wouldn’t dream of saying something negative about it, for instance), on the street and in pubs and wherever I can have fairly animated conversations about its pitfalls with friends and not draw much more than a glare (if that). In the US, I feel that bit more restrained in my speech, though it may be partly because if someone takes offence to a comment of mine there’s a chance they’re armed.
Where do you go in the US that you think someone would actually pull a gun out on you for saying you’re an atheist? Granted, I haven’t been all over the US, but I tend to just back away from having to have an unpleasant conversation with someone, and maybe having to work with them in the same office and they won’t sit with me at lunch or get everyone in the office to play pranks on me or shun me or whatever. The US is a big place with lots of diversity of culture though. I don’t know how bad it is some places.
If my mom had died and someone told me she was in heaven, I would say to them, ‘if it helps you to think so’ or something like that. I doubt it would be the right time to say, ‘or maybe the other place,’ but that wouldn’t probably apply to Matt. Sorry you lost your mom, Matt.
I was mostly kidding about the gun thing, just a facetious quip which didn’t quite come out right in text. I’ve been to places where every car in the parking lot has some bumper sticker or five proclaiming very loudly what they think about guns, Jesus and “abortioners”, though (in Michigan, actually, far from the bible belt) which has given me pause.
Well, somehow my little icon changed but it’s still me.
Sometimes I just wonder how actually fearful of being shot non-Americans are were they to come here, or were they to come here and say anything controversial. I don’t think we would be as loud as we are if anyone was too much afraid for real. Then again, just like everyone doesn’t have a gun and even fewer actually would use it, most people are not obnoxiously loud or opinionated. Just like the time I was in Times Square on New Year’s Eve, having a tv camera pointed at you changes things immensely. It is actually a boring way to celebrate until about 11:30, and it’s over as soon as the confetti has all landed.
I’ve also not spent much time outside the northeast, but I’m not afraid of the rest of the country (as long as I get to come home – I don’t want to live anywhere else). Hard to explain. I’m probably more afraid of other countries than I really need to be.
Did you use a different email or mistype it? I think that’s how gravatar works.
I’m pretty much like you. I don’t believe in God, don’t feel the presence of a god, and certainly don’t consider possible punishment/reward from God when making decisions in life. But I’m also not willing to say that I *know for sure* that there is no god. (I call myself agnostic though – I thought that was the definition?) Mostly because that would make me a hypocrite.
I used to be a Christian, and it bothered me that Christians were so arrogant as to say they had the answers to the questions mankind has been trying to answer since the beginning. And that everyone else is wrong. I think religion is mostly cultural – it is no surprise when an American is a Christian, an Israeli is a Jew or a Saudi is a Muslim. It has nothing to do with “Truth.” And the practical outcome of One Truth philosophy is war – so it’s not a good belief.
When I left the Church, I was really angry. But I decided to overcome that for the sake of being productive and continuing to grow. I see a lot of anger here in comments defending Dawkins and Hutchins. That’s okay – I do agree that atheists are marginalized, and that’s not fair. But we have to recognize that religious people also play the martyr game. Being exclusive doesn’t make you right. Plus I’m just tired of repeating everything I saw in the Church. Saying “there is absolutely no god and anyone who believes there is is an idiot/evil/wasting their life away, etc” can create just as much tension as saying “if you don’t believe in Jesus, you’re going to go to hell.” Atheists and fundamentalists have more in common than not.
But I digress. What mostly helped me get over my anger is the fact that religious people give more. Whatever their motivations, the bottom line is that they give more of their time and money. They volunteer, the sponsor little kids overseas, they go on trips to try to raise awareness about sexual trafficking, etc. They practice what they preach. I don’t have to look past my own life to see that this isn’t as prevalent in the non-believing community. I used to give a lot – and I’m glad I got rid of the guilt that compelled me – but I somehow threw the baby out with the bathwater. So that is a good characteristic of religion that I choose to focus on. Knowing that I could benefit from the positive influence of philanthropy helps me maintain some balance, which then allows me to have real conversation. I think if you look for the good in people, you will find it, and if you look for the bad, you’ll find that too. I’m tired of judgmental attitudes and would rather focus on the good.
“But I’m also not willing to say that I *know for sure* that there is no god.”
I’ve never believed in a god – not even as a child. Am I willing to say there is no god? Yes – partly because I’ve never been convinced by the vague, convoluted – and often contradictory – claims that there is. Having said that, I’m also willing to make an exception – and say it’s possible a god exists; after all, I don’t know everything. Of course, I think that possibility is small.
“I think religion is mostly cultural”
I think religion is cultural. I also think it’s a by-product of our ancestor’s animistic paranoia. I see religion developing as a form of medication – helping to ease those animistic fears. Unfortunately, the medication, as I put it, didn’t cure condition; it made it worse.
“Saying “there is absolutely no god and anyone who believes there is is an idiot/evil/wasting their life away, etc” can create just as much tension as saying “if you don’t believe in Jesus, you’re going to go to hell.” Atheists and fundamentalists have more in common than not.”
I think much of the name calling is generally in retaliation to the demeaning attitudes that many theists hold for atheists. I’ve lost count of the times that I’ve been TOLD I’m evil and immoral; the times I’ve been lumped with murderers and rapists – just because I don’t believe in a god. Given the situation – and the fact that theists are able to swing their propaganda in the media and from the pulpit – it’s understandable that some atheists are angry. It’s also understandable some atheists call them idiots and stupid. Having said this, I do agree that it isn’t constructive calling them names; after all, it just serves to bolster their hideous attitudes.
“What mostly helped me get over my anger is the fact that religious people give more.“
Yes, perhaps they give more to the church – which in my opinion isn’t a charity, but a very successful business – and donate time on recruitment drives because they have an agenda – but do they actually give more? I’m not so sure. Now, I live in the UK – where religion and god belief isn’t at all popular – but that doesn’t stop people from being charitable. I, and all of my friends and family donate, have taken part, and have (at sometime or another) worked for charities – both secular and religious. And guess what? None of my friends, family or neighbours are theist – they are all atheists and/or agnostic. Philanthropy is a human thing – it doesn’t solely belong to the domain of the religious. Where there’s little religion, people still do charity – most just tend not to boast about it because there’s no agenda to say “Look what I do – aren’t I good.”
“the bottom line is that they give more of their time and money. They volunteer, the sponsor little kids overseas, they go on trips to try to raise awareness about sexual trafficking, etc.”
Secular charities do all of the above – and so do the atheists and Secular Humanists supporting these charities: MSF (doctors without borders), Kiva, Amnesty International, UNICEF – spring to mind.
Of course, knowing that many religious people do do charity, I still don’t understand how this should prevent you feeling any resentment or anger towards the religious institutions that these people support. Especially when those same institutions would happily see you without rights – and call you anything from a pig to a dog. I mean, just imagine if members of the KKK suddenly started doing a great deal of charity – while maintaining their intolerant racism. If you were black, would you say “Oh well, at least they do a great deal of charity – so that’s OK then.” – I doubt it. No, you’d be pissed off – and rightly so.
Hi folks,
I’ll start by self-identifying in a couple ways that might get me into some trouble from the get-go (based on the comments here): I am a theist, and I am friend of Matt. I dropped in on this blog because I saw a link to it on Facebook, and found the post as well as the comments pretty interesting.
I don’t think Matt needs any defending here – if he deserves some lumps, he’ll get them. However, I did think I’d chime in with a couple of thoughts. I apologize if my status as a theist disqualifies me from participating in this discussion – if that’s the case, I’ll step away quietly, with no hard feelings.
Regarding Dawkins, I’d like to suggest that from the perspective of a U.S. theist, it’s not sufficient to explain away his approach by saying that he does his work for the sake of people in the UK who are already atheists. The truth is that both he and Hitchens (along with Sam Harris) have sold massive numbers of books in the U.S. market (to a sizable number of theists, I might add), and he has participated in very public conversations, lectures, interviews, and debates with audiences full of theists. He speaks with evangelistic zeal. Sometimes he comes across as arrogant/condescending. Sometimes he comes across as angry. Sometimes he insults his opponents. He always comes across as incredibly intelligent. He often develops a loyal following of people who are grateful for a public figure who can articulate a position that they hold. (All of these things he has in common with countless theist figures . . . except perhaps the “incredibly intelligent” bit . . .).
Atheists have a very bad, and very unfair reputation here in the U.S. Angry, hurt, immoral, selfish, hedonistic, prideful, and dangerous are all words I’ve heard to describe atheists. There are certainly cases in which any or all of those terms apply, but that has little to do with atheism, and it puts these people in the same company as theists of whom all the same things can be said. In particular, though, atheists are thought of as having a chip on their shoulder, and hate everything that is good and right and moral.
As a theist, I will humbly confess (and beg your forgiveness) to having thought some of those things myself. But I’ll follow that up by saying that I’ve changed my thinking and behavior, in large part because of interactions with people who take Matt’s approach. I met Matt before he wrote his book, through a common friend. We talked, theism came up and he identified himself as an atheist, we proceeded to laugh a lot at some of the cultural creepiness that theism produces, and we became friends. Neither of us tried to win the other over with slick arguments. We just acted like a couple normal human beings – one who believes in a god, and one who doesn’t.
I can’t imagine having a conversation with Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris in which I would have the same kind of feeling. The way they approach their work is deliberately confrontational, and produces a defensive posture on the part of the theists that hear them. I’ve never felt that kind of defensiveness when talking to Matt.
I know that there are some in this discussion that will argue that I am only another anecdotal example in favor of Matt’s approach to dealing with theists. That’s fine. But let me add this: I was one of the organizers that brought Matt to Antelope, Oregon to interact with a couple hundred theists. We did so because of Matt’s “friendly” approach. Many of us theists have begun to realize that the way we’ve treated atheists and agnostics is unfair, unkind, and inconsistent with the faith we claim to live by. People like Matt are helping us develop different approaches of our own when living with and having conversations with atheists.
The debate here is as much about culture as it is about belief. It’s one thing to be convinced of something, and want to share it with others. It’s another to share successfully.
As a theist, I can say for certain that my life is better for having someone like Matt in it. Whether he misspoke by using inflammatory language in his writing or not, I’d really encourage you to look at his bigger point – you’re more likely to make headway in your interactions with theists by relaxing, laughing with, and enjoying the conversations you’re able to have with theists. And trust me, I know that I have a huge job convincing theists that the same is true from their perspective.
Thanks for your consideration. Peace.
One more quick clarification. I realize that it is far too easy for me to suggest that it is the atheists’ responsibility to have a good-natured, good-humored conversation with theists, especially when it is the atheists who have most often been judged and put on the defensive by the theists. I’m sorry for being affiliated with people who do that. I really am.
The first problem I have with your comment is you make to many assumptions. Yes most of the people here are atheist but unlike christians they don’t mind hearing people who disagree with them. Actually many of the ones here want to hear what you have to say as long as it isn’t a personnel attack om them.
You say Dawkins and other outspoken atheist sound arogant but have you really listened to many of the christian leaders. At least the outspoken atheist will talk to all who wish to attend without hiding the decent of those disagreeing with them. I haven’t seen many christian leaders willing to talk to groups that disagree with them.
When dealing with people you agree for the most part, it is fairly easy to come to an arrangement without any kind of confrontation. When have you ever not had some for of confrontation with someone you disagree with? You sound like the kind of guy that will avoid disagreements when you can but will fall back to the persecuted view when you need to.
@Baconsbud – point taken regarding the way Christian leaders come across as arrogant. I absolutely agree (and tried to make that clear).
Regarding your first sentence, and me making assumptions, I’m happy to re-read and re-evaluate that. I was just trying to be careful about wading into a discussion to which I was not invited – I don’t want to be discourteous. I would suggest join me in re-evaluating assumptions, given that in your last sentence, you seem to have made some of your own.
I don’t think I made any assumptions as much as I took your words to mean you expected to be ridiculed and attacked. Had you come on here like some have before you would have been attacked and ridiculed but you came on here wanting to talk not accuse. If you had left your first paragraph out of your comment I doubt I would have responded. What is discourteous about a thought out comment such as you have made? The people that comment here tend to give you a good chance to speak your mind and they avoid any of the hate and name calling you find on some blogs. This isn’t saying it won’t happen but as long as you can support you views you will find that the people here are actually nice people.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t really expect to be attacked. I just hadn’t taken the time to read other topics/conversations on this blog, and didn’t know if I was barging in on a party without knowing the ground rules. I wasn’t afraid, I just didn’t want to be a jerk. I do appreciate the tone and reasonableness of this conversation (with only a couple of exceptions), and will bookmark the site and engage as I’m able.
Thanks again.
I am also an atheist, and I fully agree (with your point about not arguing with religious people, I have never had a debate about the Hulk).
Of the 4 people I am closest to, one is a fellow Atheist, one is a pagan, one is “spiritual, not religious”, and one is a born-again Christian.
I fully support their right to believe, and they respect my lack of belief.
The Christian once introduced me to his cousin, believing that I would have much in common with the guy. Wrong. Raging anti-theist with a chip on his shoulder.
People like Dawkins, while brilliant, are not going to convert believers as believers trust in faith, which is a complete lack of reason. The more you attack, the more they will recoil under the blanket of blind faith.
I am a happy Atheist, but I am not an anti-theist. Belief (or lack thereof) never hurt anybody – intolerance hurts everyone.
“Never hurt anybody”???? You’re quite the Pollyanna.
Thanks for your comments, Heidi. Nevermind the people who name call. They accomplish nothing.
“Pollyanna” is namecalling? Only in the most literal sense.
Belief provably hurts people– it handicaps their innate rationality. Watch the documentary Sex Crimes and the Vatican and then tell me that belief never hurt anybody.
You know what I love? I love it when someone decides they just don’t like your tone, so you must not have anything to say. Albeit, this was Matt’s point when he decided to demonstrate how easy it is to communicate with stubborn religious people who don’t want anyone disrupting their delusions (once you have discovered the “trick”), but it would be nice if Matt also demonstrated the ability to be smarter than that, rather than shield himself from the harshness of reality. Heidi too.
Belief darn well does hurt a lot of people. We’re not going to change everyone’s minds, but it’s pretty immature to stick your fingers in your ears and sing “LA LA LA, I can’t hear you” when someone has another point of view or wants to discuss things the OP seems to be contently unaware of.
I did not get from Matt that he learned anything about atheists that he didn’t “already know”.
PS. Matt, please tell us how to reach out politely to someone who has said something they might not realize is frighteningly ignorant. I’m not trying to offend Heidi or anyone.
“They accomplish nothing.”
For the same reasons you should also pay no attention to Matt Casper.
As a skeptical theist I appreciate Matt’s understanding and sensitivity toward the distrusting and even condemning attitude of theists (especially fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals) toward nontheists. Having once been a part of that particular theistic camp, I know that their fear and judgment are generally born of a combination of indoctrination, ignorant assumptions of a closed community, distortions in the media, and negative personal experience. So when I, as a theist, encounter a high-profile (in the theist community) atheist who is reasonable and not virulently antagonistic, I am intrigued.
I value relationships with interesting people. Therefore I am drawn to people who also seem willing to connect with other people as they are. I have no desire to convert Matt or anyone else here to some form of the Christian faith. Nor am I much interested in anyone trying to convert me to a nontheistic position or a different theistic position. But I do welcome conversation with people who hold views which differ from my own. Such conversations broaden my understanding of people and of myself.
I agree that Matt used some rather inflammatory verbiage in his initial post and that he continued to push buttons at times in his responses. However, I still appreciate what I see as the intent of his message, that there is inherent value in connecting with theists and that an effective way of doing so is to approach us with openness and respect. I used to be a fundamentalist. Then I became a conservative evangelical. Eventually I moved to my current stance, a skeptical, liberal Christian with many doubts and serious questions about doctrine and practice. This happened as I encountered people (in person and in books) where I found understanding of where I was coming from and a clear, cogent, and respectful case for change of belief and/or attitude. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but I am more open to hearing the perspective of people with different views on the world in the context of relationship. And relationship is not going to happen when someone starts out by attacking me. Of course, most Christians need to learn that. But then again, Christians start off on the wrong foot when they begin with the idea that the other person is wrong and their mission is to prove that they are wrong and convince them think, look, and behave like they do.
I hesitate to post this because I am far less intellectual and articulate than those I read here. And from my perspective, some of you write with nasty, big, pointy teeth. But I wanted to offer the perspective of one from the community toward whom Matt’s efforts are often addressed.
Matt,
You are not an atheist, by your own admission. You are open-minded and, I think, searching for ‘the truth’ about God. You have not decided yet what you believe and, again my perception, are aware of a void you feel and are not sure what will fill it. I think you are searching for meaning, purpose and a deeper sense of why and how you came to be and what your existence is all about. As such, you have rightly identified these issues will not have material answers.
As a believer, I am on the other side of these questions now. I was for years a ‘churched’ person. “Things” happened in my life to draw me to an understanding of the void I mentioned above. I embraced that void and became a seeker, convinced my questions would not come from circumstance in the world. That has happened for me and I trust it will happen in your life also. Soon, I think.
Remain open, Matt. Keep asking questions. Keep wondering. Seek the meaning of the void and allow your innate hunger to drive you to the coming realizations. You will become balanced and whole when your heart accepts the truth you seek.