This video is a couple years old, but it makes a worthy point for those of us who sometimes get weary of hearing how foolish and vile we are when we are accused of these things by people who don’t even know us.
Foolish and vile atheists
- Post author:Erich Vieth
- Post published:February 22, 2009
- Post category:Bigotry / Religion
- Post comments:183 Comments
Erich Vieth
Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on civil rights (including First Amendment), consumer law litigation and appellate practice. At this website often writes about censorship, corporate news media corruption and cognitive science. He is also a working musician, artist and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in St. Louis, Missouri with his two daughters.
Karl wrote: "I have no doubt that there have been untold numbers of people who have claimed to be theistic/Christian who are not, just as there are untold numbers of atheists who claim to be humanitarian as such, but are not.
"What bothers me is when anyone tries to say that those of a specific religious faith or even those who are atheist are somehow less prone to force their values and their image for society upon others. They become blinded to the very motivations and activities in themselves that they would condemn in others."
Right on, Karl. I'm with you 100%.
Any group can fall into a totalitarian mindset. The will to power is within us all, to one degree or another, and when we're part of a group, the tendency is for group members to reinforce shared beliefs and discourage criticism. Add to this hostility towards those outside the group and CERTAINTY (I/We know the Truth! Do everything our way and all our problems will be solved!)and things can get scary.
One of the best things about the secular humanist/atheist movement, to my mind, is that it encourages critical thinking and skepticism. These are methods of thought that take common human perceptual errors into account and try–imperfectly, of course–to correct for them.
But that does NOT mean that atheists are immune from the same scary tendencies all human communities share.
I'd hate for that spot of common ground to get lost in the midst of all our disagreement.
Mindy, you stated concerning the use of emotional language by leaders and preachers –
"The only reason you don’t see it as anything but wonderful is because you agree with it."
Using emotional appeal to get people to see the offensive nature of their own worldview is not the same as using emotional appeal to get people worked up into a frenzy to go out and attack their fellow men/women.
If you don't see the difference, I'm sorry – but there is a clear one that any humanitarian should be able to see.
The first is simply bearing one's own honest grief and emotions concerning one's own personal shortcomings and failures. This doesn't try to shift the blame or guilt to society or some other group that you may consider responsible for the matter. This sends the message that a person sees at least a portion of their problems as being related to themselves, and not solely to other people and society at large.
The second apposite but opposite use of emotionally charged language is focused at trying to shift personal responsibility for matters away from the listeners and onto others who are labeled as being evil so and so's that need to be taught a lesson so they change into the right kind of non-condemning people or else simply somehow get removed from our society as that would make us all better off without them around to cause us grief.
Those who use blame and shame tactics to incite hatred towards scapegoats don't even understand the nature of scapegoats. In the Bible a scapegoat is suppose to be innocent like Jesus was. Those who try to think they can remove evil from the world by killing more and more scapegoats are delusional. Those who think they can really remove evil bey displaying the very nature of evil are even more delusional.
This shows most sane people that the only interest most emotionally controlled people have in attacking scapegoats is to somehow appease their own conscience by thinking they are removing their own guilt and hatred because they have convinced themselves that the problem is not in themselves, but is directly related to even the existence of the scapegoat. Hitler found others to blame, and the German people were ready to believe him.
Most non-Christians have a similar love-hate relationship with Jesus for this very same reason.
There aren't many completely innocent people walking around the earth today, so that should not be a reason to try to transform any other people into scapegoats either. Jesus, if he was nothing else, showed us the true condition of everyman's heart, in need of forgiveness and compassion.
Karl writes:—"Anyone that thinks the use of language that sounds theistic but appeals to the baser instincts in man or the hatred of man for his fellow man is not a negation of the religion they hold to, is easily swayed to believe anything their leader(s)will tell them."
And? So you just made the case for the vast bulk of humanity being essentially lemmings. I won't argue with that. But how does that work? Basically by spoonfeeding people a line one component of which is that there's this special group—called priests, I think—who have the real skinny on what god wants. They swallow that, they will swallow the rest up to the point where their cousin is taken away from them by the purity squad.
And somehow they still won't see that it was the whole basis of the propaganda they were fed that allowed them to swallow that bait.
Lemmings. What can you do?
and—"The same goes for atheists. Those who claim to hold to a humanitarian form if atheism or even a non-standard theism by appealing to the baser instincts in man or the hatred of man for his fellow man is a negation to the very humanitarian beliefs they hold to and are easily swayed to be intolerant while claiming they would like to see more toleration in others."
You have one major problem with that. Atheists by definition separate themselves from the group. That requires an independence of thought lacking inside the group. I'm sorry if you'd like it to be otherwise, and one day this may change, but even today most atheists arrive at their conclusions alone and independently. There simply is no church of atheism.
Which means that we generally are not suckered by charismatic speakers. Atheism is a position reached by intellectual steps of recognition after a long period of consideration, which by its nature distinguishes itself from the general group-think of the vapidly religious.
I know you'll take this wrong—you will think I'm claiming for atheism an innate superiority, which I'm not—but we really are not prone to the same gullibility as those who readily hand over their neocortex to the nearest religious orator who makes us feel that Jesus loves us. We tend to be loners. We tend to decide for ourselves.
You keep attempting to equate atheism as a movement to every other movement in history. It just isn't. When I say "I don't believe that" it includes not believing in the leaders. I don't believe in leaders. I listen, I assess, and decide.
Frankly, I don't see a lot of that in the bulk of the fervantly religious very often.
If Hitler twisted religion, well, the material was ripe to be twisted. Antisemitism is based on a violent animosity toward a group who reject a given religious view. Martin Luther started off as a tolerant priest who did not hate Jews and ended up hating them because THEY WOULD NOT CONVERT. He's a case study in becoming a bigot, you can follow it, step by step, in his writings. The Jews rejected his version of the truth and over time that made him intolerant and eventually spiteful and hate-filled.
This is a religious constant. By its nature, religion requires—REQUIRES—absolute conformity to its message. Those who reject said message are de facto unbelievers, infidels, not to be trusted, subject for major efforts at conversion, ultimately enemies of the faith. That is built in. That so many religious people ignore that part is not so much a testament to their faith as it is a hallmark of their rationality in opposition to their faith.
I know you don't accept that. You can't. Because you've swallowed the line and believe it. The world can't work that way, because if it did that would mean you have the wrong take on it all.
All religion is twisted in some way. Most of it seems to be benign, so it's not a problem. But it doesn't take much to move it into malignancy.
You are in error if you think atheists are basically the same but with a non-god at the core of their system. I'm not saying they couldn't some day become rather nasty autocrats, but in this society, at this time, we don't have either the power or frankly the inclination. Warping other people's perceptions is exactly NOT what we're about. We leave that to the religionists.
Karl, you can say that emotional appeal in "good" churches is being used to inspire the flock to look within themselves, etc. rather than cast blame elsewhere, of course. I never equated that emotional churn to Hitler's motives, only that emotional appeal is part of the method. I hold that many preachers who appeal to the base emotions of their congregants do so, though, in order to inspire allegiance to their particular brand of religion. The primary difference is only that the religion does does not exist to spread the kind of rampant evil that Hitler wrought.
However, the goal is to incite obedience to an all-powerful being, and in the process, quash the kind of critical thinking that might bring otherwise intelligent people to question what they are following. I'm not suggesting that is necessarily bad – as we've discussed in other threads, faith can be a positive influence in our lives.
But when the emotional appeal is used to further political causes, which it is constantly being used to do, and when those political causes equate to bigotry, well, I see a big problem there. Thinking out the window, blind obedience without knowing, the goal.
Karl writes:—"Using emotional appeal to get people to see the offensive nature of their own worldview is not the same as using emotional appeal to get people worked up into a frenzy to go out and attack their fellow men/women."
Sounds suspiciously like the end justifying the means. Emotional manipulation is emotional manipulation, period.
Mark and Mindy,
The lust for power, the lust for pleasure and the simple pride of being who you are all parts of being human.
If you deny this there is not much point in our discussing anything further concerning how emotion is such a prime factor in everyone's life, including the atheists. Hank certainly is an excellent example of a modern atheist that prefers to be in your face and would gladly push his way to the top if others didn't moderate his perspective.
The only thing that I find redemptive about any use of religion is when it follwers willingly sacrifice both individual and group lust for power, lust for pleasure, and the simple pride of being who they are.
I don't take pride in being a heterosexual, not do I take pride in telling others they are foolish to be homosexual.
Karl wrote:
"Using emotional appeal to get people to see the offensive nature of their own worldview is not the same as using emotional appeal to get people worked up into a frenzy to go out and attack their fellow men/women."
Actually Karl, the use of emotionally charged language is a political tool, and it's only purpose is to appeal to the mobile vulgaris in a way the shifts their worldviews into alignment with the worldview of the leadership.
In cultures that believe in some forme of predestination or manifest destiny, the masses are conditioned by their own society to deny their own failure, and to reassociate said failures with something beneficial to the leadership. An example of this are the large numbers of people that believe they can only be successful if they tithe to their church.
It's a matter of perspective. Hitler's worldview, was shaped by the emotional language of an antisemitic group in Vienna he joined as a young man, and the flavor of Christianity he professed was was already well established in Austria and Germany at the time.
He didn't twist the religion. It was already twisted for him. Hitler actually owed he life to an elder Jewish couple in Vienna who gave him food clothing and shelter one winter when he was literally a starving artist.
What set Hitler apart was his charisma. He became the face of the Nazi movement, but the driving force was not Hitler, but those who were closest to him.
Karl writes:—"The only thing that I find redemptive about any use of religion is when it follwers willingly sacrifice both individual and group lust for power, lust for pleasure, and the simple pride of being who they are."
Sacrifice them for what? Just to sacrifice them?
"I don’t take pride in being a heterosexual, not do I take pride in telling others they are foolish to be homosexual."
No, but it seems you take pride in not taking pride.
No one here yet has denied the importance of emotions. But they are poor stand-ins when what is called for is reason. They are not logical, they do not provide grounds for ratiocination, and are not to be trusted as substitutes for independent thought.
Oh, Karl, what kind of baloney was that about Hank "pushing his way to the top?" I am fairly certain Hank does not get "reigned in" around here. Erich? Correct me if I'm wrong. Good grief, Karl, because Hank has strong opinions and expresses them forcefully?! Sometimes what bothers us most in others is what we dislike most about ourselves, ya know? Perhaps you are a bit frustrated with your own failed attempts at being "on top" here and somehow saving all of us heathens?
I certainly never said that anyone does not possess a lust for power, pleasure, etc. Of course we all do – yes, we are all human. But managing that lust does not require religion or any kind of higher power. A bit of self-control and compassion for your fellow man – as in, "he is as good as I am, I do not need to control him" – those go a long way in keeping those lustful desires in check. We all like to be appreciated, celebrated, cared for, pleasured, loved – none of that is wrong until by seeking it out for ourselves, we hurt or discriminate against or subsidize others. Then, we must make a choice. Do we push forward at the expense of those others to self-satisfy, or do we exercise some self-control, find a different path, modify our goals – make personal changes that will serve the common good as well as our own motives?
Some of us do not need religion to make those changes. Some do. Some who depend on their faith would still be quite capable of living compassionate lives without it, but would not be as fulfilled.
I have no idea what your "pride" point is supposed to be, but it rings hollow. You take no pride in calling others foolish for being true to themselves, but call them you will. That is just a load of hypocritical nonsense, Karl, and as Mark said, you do seem to take a lot of pride in not taking pride.
Right.
Karl (and Mindy):
Please put one finger in one of your ears, so that this doesn't just go in and out of your head:
I don't moderate the authors at this site. I never have. I don't tell them what topics to write or what opinions they can express. Hank is entirely in charge of his writings that appear at this site, although I will admit that I have gently hinted that he'd be a more effective writer if he used fewer f-bombs. Having said that, I DO find him to be a gifted, forceful and highly creative writer. I really enjoy his work. I make no apologies for Hank. I'm glad Hank is Hank.
But perhaps Karl is suggesting that I "moderate" Hank's perspectives in other ways. I'd only suggest that teepee-ing Hank's house is out of the question, since I live in Missouri and he lives in Australia.
Karl saith, in his all-too-finite wisdom:
"Hank certainly is an excellent example of a modern atheist that prefers to be in your face and would gladly push his way to the top if others didn’t moderate his perspective."
Thanks for the first part. As for the second part, you're going to need to explain several things, Karl. I know justifying your odd little theories or answering peoples' questions aren't your strong points, but do have a crack. After all, it's just not cricket to make a character assessment about someone else and not justify it, is it?
So:
-Exactly what am I pushing my way to the top OF?
-Who am I pushing aside?
-In what way is my perspective being moderated and by whom (if not me)?
-Why would such moderation be necessary?
-What in Cthulhu's name are you smoking?
I can tell you unequivocally that my perspectives are NOT moderated – they are completely my own and I present them as clearly as I can. I don't swear as much as I often feel like in my posts (comments are a different story) because I know how that can turn a person off a point of view or argument, even if they agree with it. Apart from that concession to propriety and social decency, what I write is what I think. No filters & no moderation. It's presumptive and disrespectful to think I need some kind of leash, both to me and to whatever leash-holder you envision. Not everyone needs to be surveilled as though from above.
Once again I find myself having to correct you after you, once again, see fit to assume things about me which are false (I'll bet you're still stunted enough to think I'm religious despite my detailed explanation to the contrary).
One thing's for sure though: I love getting in YOUR face, and in the face of any fool who presumes, as you do, to know the minds of men and gods alike.
I hope more atheists start getting in the faces of the pious, the credulous, the fundamentalists, the apologists, the gay-haters, the doctor-killers, the non-questioners, the followers and all the other different brands of objectionable bastard who deign to paint themselves with a holy brush. It's way past time people stopped tip-toeing around religion. Noone tip-toes around science or politics, why should religion continue to be treated like a frail child?
The only real danger in challenging a sacred cow isn't that you might get kicked, it's stepping in a steaming mound of bullshit!
Bravo, Hank!! Beautifully said.
Thank you. And it's the last thing I'll say to (or about) Karl on this website, notwithstanding my earlier statement about enjoying getting in his face. I don't have the time or energy to do so any more! I am post-Karl.
LOL – Hank, I keep telling myself I'm post-Karl, and then he says something that makes me seethe and I get sucked back into the ridiculous discussions. I must stop. I reallyreallyreally must stop.
Hank, Mindy,
Karl is an excellent whet stone.
Sounds like some here need a group recovery session.
I'm a bit sorry my comments offend Hank and others but that was not my primary intention. It seemed to me that I needed to use an individual example to make my point concerning emotions and values. I've yet to meet a purely stoic atheist who really made that choice based upon strict logic alone. This is why I have a hard time when someone says that are not religious about something, and that something is what they base their values and outlook on life upon.
I'm not accusing Erich of trying to moderate Hank, I meant that if society was full of people like Hank what chance would there be for much moderation?
Please accept my apology Erich, I was wrong to make it appear I was accusing you of censorship.
Many here realize that they need to acknowledge their own individual personal offensiveness to certain other people, but then defend the rights of others to treat others as they do because they see nothing wrong with someone else doing it. Some are pleased that they offend people with differing worldviews, because they are very biased towards their own worldview and make no qualms about it. This is what I mean by Hank's push to have his views known and then left at that.
Prime example: Hank asks me questions and then says he's not going to respond to any answers.
This is the crux of moral living.
I need to monitor myself, but when do others need to know I'm not about to suggest they need to be accountable to other people and society as a whole? do I let others think they can let pass any old thing they think, say or do, with no comment from others because that would tell them I'm sticking my nose into someone else's business.
Hank is not personally pushing himself to the top of anything he just states things as he sees them and lets the chips fall where they will. That is one way interacting with people that must be moderated to some degree in any society.
I could use such comments as well; that I will no longer respond to such and such as person, but that only reveals to me my discontent in having to discuss my ideas, opinions and beliefs.
Karl writes:—"I’ve yet to meet a purely stoic atheist who really made that choice based upon strict logic alone. This is why I have a hard time when someone says that are not religious about something, and that something is what they base their values and outlook on life upon."
I get the impression from this, Karl, that you think all emotion either comes from or should be directed toward a religious source. If that's how you feel, then no wonder we've been talking at crossed purposes.
Bottom line is that Karl believes anything that inspires values and a moral compass MUST be religion. He considers atheism a religion. He is wrong, but this is what he thinks, and religion is apparently the only thing that can inspire positive emotion.
He thinks that because I and others get frustrated with him, WE need to recover. Ummmm, no. I just need to stop engaging with Karl, because he has become a toxic presence in my life. He is, as you say, a great whetstone, sometimes. But I allow myself to be repeatedly stunned at his inability to accept as valid ANYTHING but his own narrow belief system, and his insulting, patronizing tone that I have allowed him entirely too much power over my state of mind – particularly since I don't even know the man. Really, I need to move on.
Just to be clear: I never said I wouldn't read Karl's answers, such as they are – I wouldn't have asked those questions otherwise. I said I would no longer engage in discourse with him. Why bother attempting a discussion with someone who's so goddamned arrogant that he thinks he knows what you're thinking (and why) better than you do? Crikey, the guy's so clueless he doesn't even realise when he's insulting you. Seems like he's the one in need of perspective moderation. Or at least a proofreader.
I am perfectly content to express & discuss my ideas and my beliefs (it's precisely what I do here at DI, in case noone's been paying attention). I do so without apology and without pulling any punches when it comes to responding to foolishness, bad logic and presumptions to know my thoughts.
However, responding time and again to the boneheaded idiocy, disrespect and childish stubbornness displayed by Karl is far beyond the limits of my time and energy. I quite literally have better things to do and more interesting people to talk to. Writing for DI takes up a small amount of my time and I'd rather it not be tainted time and again by getting drawn into pointless arguments and needless re-justifications and re-explanations of my points of view. Yet here I am, doing exactly that. Responding to that time-honoured creo tactic of saying things so ridiculous that they deserve a response! Well, no more.
Karl writes: "Many here realize that they need to acknowledge their own individual personal offensiveness to certain other people, but then defend the rights of others to treat others as they do because they see nothing wrong with someone else doing it. Some are pleased that they offend people with differing worldviews, because they are very biased towards their own worldview and make no qualms about it."
Karl, you really need to try and express yourself more clearly.
As best as I can decipher you, you're saying that people on this site have offended you, and that people offending other people is a bad thing and needs to be moderated by society.
To which I reply: Bullshit.
Hank "states things as he sees them and lets the chips fall where they will." Good for him. How does that hurt you? You're free to do the same.
You're a big boy, Karl. And I don't imagine that you're a fragile flower; if you were, you wouldn't keep posting here, outnumbered as you are (I do admire you for that!)
"I’ve yet to meet a purely stoic atheist who really made that choice based upon strict logic alone."
Leaving aside the questionable assertions buried within this statement ( 1)How can you know the basis of anybody's choice about anything–are you a mind reader? 2)What does that fact that atheists are not Stoics have to do with whether or not atheism is a religion? Why should atheists be Stoics, anyway? Do you know any atheists who claim to be Stoics? I don't)
Reason can never be utterly divorced from emotion; the best any of us can do is to realize that emotion, like any other form of perception, can be misleading.
In any case, this line of argument is a red herring. The question is, whose claims stand up better to the demands of reason: theists' or atheists'?
In re-reading my last comment, I realize that I babbled a bit. I made it sound, when I said that Karl believes atheism is a religion as well as that he thinks only religion can inspire positive emotion – as if Karl thinks atheism can inspire positive emotion. I don't believe he thinks that. I believe he thinks only HIS religion can inspire positives, and that atheism is directly responsible for hate, anger, lust for power, etc. etc. He will deny this, of course, but it won't matter. He has made it clear all too many times.
I have made it clear in many ways that theists and atheist have way more in common than many atheists would like to admit. I would say that the greater percentage of all people are capable of lust for power, lust for pleasure, and a basic pride of being who they are.
I have made it clear that there have been innumerable "theistic" leaders (some in favor of theism and others against theism) as well as those who claim to be agnostic and atheistic. Theistic leaders use "religious terms and metaphors" to influence culture, politics and public opinion. Agnostic leaders use social, humanistic, and other presumed "non theistic" language to influence culture, politics and public opinion.
I have made it clear in many ways that both theism and atheism have no way of being separated from those who claim to believe one way or the other.
As such it is the common ground of chosen premises and presuppositions that each has to begin with.
One can not reason from abstraction or unemotive logic that God does or does not exist. Each of these is a presupposition that one can either find evidence in support of or ascribe there to be lack of support for. The best logic can offer is to compare which accumulated interwoven deductive reasoning has the fewest contradictions or the least amount of cognitive dissonance.
It is of course easiest to claim that contradictions exist in the premises that God exists because everyone knows that people sure don't measure up to what in the blue blazes they are talking about when they try and express or describe who or what God is.
Why do you think Mindy dares not discuss who or what God is from her perspective. When she describes who God is in some human terms, everyone can gut the ideas as irrational because a person couldn't possibly have a clue about such things.
Then there's always the “don't tell me” who you think God is like because if He/She/It is anything like you I don't want anything to do with such a belief system.
Some are very content to sit back and say I can imagine there being enough overwhelming evidence in support of evolution, but none what so ever in support of a universal flood of Biblical proportions.
If this doesn't go back to the premises and presuppositions then our heads truly are out of sink with the inductive nature of nearly every premise we ever hold to.
Karl, you are a pompous ass.
"Why do you think Mindy dares not discuss who or what God is from her perspective. When she describes who God is in some human terms, everyone can gut the ideas as irrational because a person couldn’t possibly have a clue about such things."
First of all, I "dare" not discuss my God, because my beliefs are personal and private. I can't describe my God in human terms, because I don't believe in a supreme being that is human-like in any way. I couldn't give a hoot whether someone sees my beliefs as a rational or irrational – I DO NOT IMPOSE THEM ON ANYONE ELSE. They are mine, and mine alone. You have no freakin' idea why I don't discuss them, and I find it more than a little offensive that your closed mind would spew out the above paragraph as if you alone know the answer as to why I don't discuss it. I don't BECAUSE IT IS NONE OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS BUT MINE. I have shared my beliefs with a very few close personal friends who have asked, but that's it.
Do not, Karl, mention me again. I will not mention you.
Wowser!
Karl, you said, "One can not reason from abstraction or unemotive logic that God does or does not exist. Each of these is a presupposition that one can either find evidence in support of or ascribe there to be lack of support for."
It is possible, though it isn't easy, to evaluate the evidence for and against a thing, leaving one's own emotions aside. That's what critical thinking is all about.
Critical thinking is a method of evaluating arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking). Anybody can learn critical thinking skills.
Critical thinking is vital. It's used and touted a lot by Skeptics–who also learn the cognitive pitfalls we're all prone to in order to recognize and avoid them–to evaluate paranormal and other extraordinary claims (including those of religion).
Science, especially, utilizes critical thinking. Science also has checks and balances built-in to its methodology–such as peer review, experimental replication, falsification–which are intended to limit the powers of presupposition and wish-fulfillment, among other things, in the evaluation of evidence.
Furthermore, I can introduce you to a number of atheists who were happy as theists–but just couldn't swallow the irrationalities they were being told to believe. Their respect for truth overcame the warm fuzzies of their religious belief.
Saying that we all just believe what we want to believe is a cop out.