Confronting Our Own Hypocrisy and Repudiating Bad Behavior

[rug]

August 21, 2014
Posted by Jack Vance at 5:08 AM

The last of the four suggestions in my Four Things We Can Do To Make More Atheists post was the one that will probably be most controversial. I said that I thought we needed to take a look at ourselves, confront our own hypocrisy, and repudiate bad behavior we see coming from within our community. While I have been trying to do this for some time, I will not pretend that it has been easy or that I am not conflicted over how best to do it.

When we look at religious believers, I have no doubt that most of us find hypocrisy widespread, relevant, and off-putting. I cannot say that hypocrisy made me an atheist; skepticism and lack of evidence did that. I can say that religious hypocrisy helped to shape by attitudes toward religious belief. I have no reason to think that hypocrisy among atheists will not shape attitudes toward atheism. But I am not looking at this primarily as a public relations issue. My main concern is not with how religious believers may view us; I am more concerned with how our hypocrisy limits our effectiveness and our attractiveness to other atheists.

As I wrote previously,

In the last six months, I have met a few atheists online who went so far as to say that they no longer identify themselves as atheists because they do not want to be associated with the garbage they have seen coming from other atheists online.

This concerns me because it suggests that things have gotten so bad that some atheists are deciding they want nothing to do with the rest of us. This isn't just burnout, shifting priorities, or dissatisfaction with a perceived lack of progress. This is something more, and it may have an adverse impact on secular activism.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2014/08/confronting-our-own-hypocrisy-and.html#ixzz3BB2nzGY3

[xfundy]

1. Agnostic here.

Can't prove it either way.

But when religionists do stupid, cruel, and evil things, I'll continue to point it out.

[cbayer]

3. What in the world does that have to do with the article?

The only interpretation I can make is that the author is saying, "We need to stop being such assholes", and your response is, "Screw you. I'm going to be an asshole whenever I want".

Am I getting that right?

I don't think he is saying that non-believers should stop pointing out the stupid, cruel or evil things done in the name of religion, do you?

[Brettongarcia]

5. This article was posted by Rug; as part of his apparently endless series of posts attacking atheists

The evident intent here, like 3/4 (to be sure, not all) of Rug's OP posts and subsequent responses, is to accuse atheists - and not religious people - of being bad.

This particular article he likes no doubt, because it is an article by an atheist, finding extremity and dissention in the ranks of Atheism. And because it seems to encourage atheists to ... tone it down. To shut up.

Any bad news for Atheism is good news for Religion, therefore seems to be the philosophy behind such posts. Especially anything that tells Atheists to shut up.

Given that probable intent, it is worth responding not just to the article itself. But also the likely intent behind posting it.

Here our first agnostic respondent does respond very well, furthermore. By deftly sidestepping this superficial attempt at using a red herring to after all, divert attention away from the real point and focus of Atheism: noting the sins of Religion, after all.

The real subject for atheists is criticizing Religion of course. Which is full of sins. And no atheist should allow himself to be diverted from that task. Or told to shut up.

Could atheists be more polite? Religion actually, WAS subtly and politely criticized for thousands of years. By academics, and even theologians. But believers didn't hear it; ardent believers just don't do logical subtleties.

That is why some atheists today should often, say it strongly, and repeatedly.

To be sure, I prefer the calm and reasoned approach. But I know perfectly well that Reason just doesn't resonate with many believers. Many of them actually explicitly oppose "Reason" and the "mind" and "knowledge" in fact; in favor of blind faith.

How SHOULD we approach such persons? I prefer Reason greatly. But when people are deaf to Reason? I also see a role for simple, repeated, adamant confrontation.

Should atheists at times introspect, and consider their own sins? Probably. But let's not let that distract them from the main task.

That I take it, is the main point of our first respondent. And it is a very good point indeed.

[cbayer]

6. I think you just made the author's point for him.

Well done.

[rug]

7. Really, posting an article about atheists, without comment, is attacking atheists?

With such thin skin, I expect you'd feel an actual attack instantly.

[Brettongarcia]

8. An article castigating atheists; see it in the context of countless similar attacks posted by Rug.

Yes, this is just the latest in a continuous and apparently endless series of probably tens of thousands of blog attacks by Rug, on atheism.

Including not only 1) anti-atheist excerpts for Opinion Posts; but 2) also his many other comments on other OP's.

60,000 and counting?

[rug]

9. An article, wriiten by an atheist, criticizing Dawkins is criticizing atheists?

Now, I suggest you read every one of those 60,000 posts, see how many of them were written by atheists, and how many of the are critical of atheism and how many are supportive.

Go on, now. Come back when you're finished.

[Brettongarcia]

16. No one of course, will want to read all 60,000 of Rug's posts. Which are overwhelmingly anti-atheist

Of the 1,000 or so posts I've read in the last year - including his hundred or so OP's - it is crystal clear that Rug's work is overwhelmingly critical of, even personally insulting to, atheists. (Even if his authors quote or are atheists themselves, Rug quotes them primarily only when they are being self-critical. Critical of atheists.)

Today of course, computer searches and search technology, combined with simple sociological research tools, could fairly easily rediscover all of Rug's DU and other quotes.

And from that, the pattern should be clear enough: Rug long ago launched an unrelenting, one-sided attack on atheism. One that now extends to fully 60,000 posts; and probably a thousand negative re-postings of other anti-atheist articles.

Moreover, Rug has not been shy about simple, childish name-calling. Here he calls Dawkins an "ass." And he chooses to re-post an self-critical video by atheists, telling them how not to be "Atheist Assholes."

It seems to me that anyone that wanted to can, with just a little semantic sophistication, easily demonstrate some unpalatable things in Rug, and his posts. Just a little semantic awareness, would be enough to start sustaining alerts against him.

Calling him on simple name-calling might not quite be enough. But that will be our first step.

[rug]

19. The overwhelming number of my 60,000 posts are "anti-atheist"?

That is, of course, bullshit. You really can't expect that claim to be accepted without evidence now, can you? Especially since you consider it a question you can "fairly easily discover". After all, there are so many "simple sociological tools" you can use.

No, let me tell you what is in fact going on, Brettongarcia: you do not like it a single whit that your routine bizarre posts clumsily attacking any aspect of any religion are so easily dismissed. If this is the quality of your critiques of religion, (and after 1600 posts I can only conclude that this is as good as you can muster), get used to it.

And this, "Calling him on simple name-calling might not quite be enough. But that will be our first step." is simply laughable.

[hrmjustin]

10. And what about posts calling believers deluded or ill? are they attacking or insulting believers?

[okasha]

12. Cuz Freud! Freud!

FREUD! !!!

[Brettongarcia]

13. Academic articles, published by professionals in the field, cannot be taken to be simple insults

Just because they oppose your own point of view; they have a standing and respect, in the academic and professional community.

[hrmjustin]

14. I can take whatever I want as an insult and some of those posts by members here were meant as

insults.

[Brettongarcia]

17. So whatever you think and say is good?

[hrmjustin]

18. I never said I was perfect but I don't go out of my way to insult atheists.

I don't condemn themnor do I try to convert them.

[Brettongarcia]

20. So what do you think when you hear Rug call many atheists, "ASS"holes?

[hrmjustin]

21. Who specifically did he call that? Every Atheist?

[Brettongarcia]

23. Those who dared to confront religious folks

[hrmjustin]

26. That is complete bull!

Sorry but you should go peddle that with someone else.

[rug]

15. Lol!

[cbayer]

2. While I believe that there are an increasing number of people who don't

want to be associated with the term "atheist" at this point because of the behavior of a small subset, what is even more striking is that this small subset exacerbates that by telling people that identify as atheist or agnostic that they aren't.

If one is not the right kind of atheist, then one is a fraud, a liar and will be thrown off the island in a heartbeat.

The religious left let the religious right run rampant for way too long and it is hard to take it back at this point. I hope that those within organized atheism don't let the same thing happen. As the author says, "those calling for mob justice are making a serious mistake."

[Brettongarcia]

4. So when will religious folks do this?

[hrmjustin]

11. That is a broad brush you paint with.

[Brettongarcia]

22. The irony of the present OP title, is that usally it is religious folks are supposed to be humble;

And to constantly examine their own consciences. To look for sins in themselves. But here in Rug's posts, when "we" are told to examine our consciences, this is construed as applying only to Atheists. Not to Christians.

Rug radically twists the meaning of religion: Jesus constantly warned that it was especially religious conservatives, Pharisees, were too vain; and did not look closely enough for their own sins. Sins even deep in their religion, itself.

When Jesus noted that a "disciple" would betray him, nearly each one of the disciples asked "Is it I LORD?" Most of our highest disciples was willing to consider that he himself would be the evil one that would betray God.

Originally therefore, self-criticism, humility, was supposed to be the pre-eminent virtue of Christians. But here, Rug rather perversely turns that on its head. Now it is never Christians, but only atheists, that are supposed to be self-critical.

Rug is cleverly turning religion, God, upside down.

[rug]

24. Hey, I'm over here.

[hrmjustin]

27. I didn't know rug was here.

[hrmjustin]

25. Your assuming he does not want religious people to do the same.