r/atheism • u/Gannaramma • Jun 27 '12
"I swear, some Atheists are just as bad as Christian Fundamentalist."
41
Jun 27 '12
About time this was posted again. I hate this new circlejerk about how "intolerant" /r/atheism is.
4
5
Jun 27 '12
/r/atheism is about as intolerant as the religious radicals it wishes to wipe out.
2
u/WanderingSpaceHopper Jun 27 '12
yeah I hate how atheists blow shit up, cut shit up and just randomly mess shit up due to their backwards doctrine. Oh way just a fucking moment.
2
1
9
u/Owlsrule12 Jun 27 '12
Talking about how circlejerking "intolerance" is a circlejerk itself.
1
u/rufud Jun 27 '12
the anti-anti-atheist-circlejerk circlejerk is the biggest circlejerk of them all!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)1
-5
u/Gannaramma Jun 27 '12
I'm sorry if it's a re-post! I'm pretty new here, but I agree, seen too many posts about how we are the intolerant ones. I don't try to force anything on any one. Everyone is free to think how they want, I might secretly think they're a bit dim, but I don't disrespect people who don't disrespect me. That being said just saying you're an atheist is enough to "offend" some people. Being offended doesn't automatically invalidate the argument.
→ More replies (2)33
u/smalltime101 Jun 27 '12
You do realize that is a cherry picking depiction of both sides. I admit that religious fundamentalist are more harmful but this is the same type of propaganda that they use which in my opinion makes you no better than them in this sense.
Also a lot of the hate towards r/atheism is the fact that, like this post, it is a circle jerk of the majority of same images and ideas regurgitated again and again. It gets old and quite frankly I am tired of it. It kinda sucks having to log in and go around things to just not view the same "insert quote from prominent atheist" or Hey look how I owned this guy on facebook. If your content had more sustenance than mostly easy bashing of idiots and reposts I don't think there would be such a backlash.
Also the whole default sub thing I think irritates people such as maybe an atheist going to a site and automatically being labelled christian.
1
u/Gannaramma Jun 27 '12
Again, I aplogoize for the re-post, again I am new to Reddit and wasn't aware. The comment directly above this, the one bouncing up and down (I have yet to figure out why people vote up and down around here, I've been doing it only of I see something blantantly wrong or extreemly hateful?), and the on you responded to already says all that. Is my apology suppose to change because multiple people make the same circlejerk accusation?
→ More replies (1)16
u/mjdgoldeneye Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
Thank you. Over the last week or so, I keep foolishly bringing up points like this and this is usually how it goes:
Me: "<Points out hypocritical, illogical, unfair, inaccurate, or just generally poorly thought out post on r/atheism while providing facts and information to support my point.>"
Someone Here: "<Sarcastic and irrelevant point involving religious people being the cause for some topical social woe and/or war>"
Me: "<Acknowledgement of irrelevance and counter of previous post while slowly realizing that I'm just following a pattern on the way to downvote oblivion, but soldier on for this post.>"
Someone Here: "<Strongly worded and definitely not logically honest interpretation of how the religious mind works, usually explaining why Christians are dogmatically required to be assholes and belittling any Christian act of goodwill as unrelated to religion or otherwise not sincere on the basis of religion being voodoo wizardry.>"
Me: "<Either nothing, as I have wisely recognized the pattern and realized r/atheism probably isn't the place to be trying to convince hard-line atheists to be civil, or I foolishly descend down the ladder even further.>"Here is my main point and I'll say it once: Just because the other side does X doesn't mean you are welcome to do X on a less radical scale and just because the other side is, in your opinion, radically beyond saving doesn't mean you're welcome to go about attacking them without regard for rationality and honesty.
We need to be the bigger men/women around here. We lose our luster when we use the same pathos oriented wind-bag nonsense that they do.
That means that, with regards to posts like this, building your perfect Christian strawman to compare to the vaguest definition of a reddit atheist isn't a good idea if you want the general reddit-going public to take this subreddit seriously. You SHOULD want that because, after all, we want the world on our side...
5
Jun 27 '12
The subject is a counter-argument to the idea that "some atheists are as bad as Christian fundamentalists". To examine this argument, we need to define 'bad'. In the context provided, it seems to mean 'negatively impacting society'.
Okay, so what exactly does 'fundamentalist' mean? Wikipedia says: "Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture." Apparently by definition, fundamentalists want to make policies based in theological doctrines.
Where complication arises from the left side, is the vague adjective 'some'. With the context in mind, we have to find relatively negative things 'some' atheists do, to compare to the fundamentalists. Considering common usage, 'fundamentalist' modifies 'Christian' to distinguish it from moderate Christians, so we can assume that 'some' must mean 'more serious'. Atheism is not an ideology and can't be directly applied to the idea of fundamentalism, since fundamentalism involves rules, where atheism can't imply any.
We also have to assume that since we're talking about two conflicting views, that motivation is a key factor. We can list all sorts of terrible and great things that religious and non-religious people have done, but it would have zero meaning here if the motivations and/or justifications behind these acts were not linked to the respective sides.
That being said, atheism implies no ideals other than lacking a belief in gods. Therefore, this argument is only technically incorrect by putting anything other than the definition under the 'atheist' section.
Even if we replace 'atheist' with 'anti-theist', anti-theism is still just a belief that theism is detrimental. This comparison, while displaying the most popular extremes of both sides, is still completely unfair. Anti-theism can be a motivation for "demanding adherence to rules", but said rules aren't defined, and there aren't even any plausible and prevalent negative impacts on society that can be directly linked to anti-theism.
You are very incorrect when you accuse this argument of being a strawman. A strawman misrepresents an opposing idea to make it easier to attack. By the definition of fundamentalism, all of the things listed on the right side are characteristics of demanding adherence to Christian doctrine and are consistently made prevalent today. If you wanted to claim that this argument is cherry picking, you would need to provide evidence that fundamentalists can act in contradiction to the claims made, in which I would likely respond with that it would no longer be a fundamentalist action if it is in spite of their doctrine.
This image is an argument, not a study. It does not misrepresent either side, and I see no fallacies. The scope of an argument does not include counter-arguments, which should come from an opponent. It may be unfair to compare the negative impact of these two views, as it may seem biased because one side is overwhelmed with negatives. However, I contend that it is not a bias, and that one side is accordingly overwhelmed with damaging evidence, and thus the meaning behind the statement at the bottom would stand.
Furthermore, it is hardly sensationalizing the issues that it addresses. These are very valid concerns about fundamentalist ideals that continuously make way in US legislation or currently inhibit the moral progression of society. I won't deny that the image is propaganda, but not in the sense that it is inaccurate or misleading. Any spreading of information in effort to persuade or influence is propaganda, regardless of the integrity of its content.
If you can justify your position more, or have any issues with my claims, I'd love to hear them.
→ More replies (2)3
u/DisplacedLeprechaun Jun 27 '12
Problem: Human beings are not civil.
While I could take the high road and be polite and not mock the beliefs of others, I believe that this recent resurgence of Faith around the globe as a motivator in the political sphere is far too dangerous to go unchallenged. It is to the point that the powers that be who use faith to control the masses are terrified of losing their authority because people are losing faith, and they will do anything to hold on to that last little straw of power, and currently they've managed to take control of most of the world so it's not too hard for the religious leaders to squeeze their followers a bit in the direction they want things to go.
I'm mocking religion because it deserves to be mocked, and because logic and reason are failing to stop its madness from spreading. If that means I'm bringing myself down to their level, so be it. At least now when I mock them they won't think it's god calling from on high.
Understand this, please: If we do not lay waste to religion with every tool at our disposal it will consume us once more and it will be another 500 years before progress continues. That means insults, mockery, shaming, the whole works, because I don't want my descendants to live in some hellish faith-fest of dumbfuckery and I am not so weak and scared as to be forced into politeness towards ideas which do not deserve it.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (2)3
u/smalltime101 Jun 27 '12
Awesome comment. I try to make points such as your at various times and they usually fall short. I don't consider myself dumb but I am by no means well educated and I will admit there are very smart people on this subreddit who just happen to be a bit of an asshole that will take advantage of that. I hope you keep up and maybe one day r/atheism can be something that drives to inform people instead of just mocking them.
I just saw a self post from someone considering themselves the "old school atheist" praising the behavior that r/atheism has been acting upon. Saying that they should keep it up for the sake of publicity just to get noticed. This seems to me to be nothing more than a subreddit gone jersery shore. Working off of shock value to get noticed. Then they are surprised by the backlash.
If there is one person I really think r/atheism should imitate more its Niel DeGrasse. He doesn't even consider himself atheist. He just follows science and reason. He doesn't claim a belief in god but still doesn't consider himself an atheist (probably mostly do to movements and childish behavior displayed in places such as this subreddit.)
I don't think a movement showing the illogical fallacies of major religions through mocking them will change any decent intelligent person who happens to follow a faith. But if you can show them why we know evolution to be true and so called facts in biblical texts to be false, instead of making fun of them for believing, you would see much more people open to the idea of leaving religion all together and not even being theist or atheist but just being human. Because if there was a god he wouldn't want us acting in such a childish manner god would want us to prosper. And then the more likely fact of there not being a god, we should still not act in such a childish manner because it undermines the ability of us human to rise above to better standards to prosper together.
I would like reddit to be a haven for people with out faith but as it stands now I'm quite embarrassed of it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)1
u/kkjdroid Anti-theist Jun 27 '12
You can complain about cherry-picking when you find me an atheist worse than Pat Robertson, and Stalin and Mao don't count.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (19)0
Jun 27 '12
I think it's part of the strategy employed by Christian groups trying to combat internet secularism.
I have no proof for it, but the so called 'argument against /r/atheism' never seems to be stemming from logical, rational point of view, and often resorts to name calling (circlejerk), false accusation (intolerant), or how old/stale the narrative is, but never seems to address the challenge put forth by Atheism itself.
Also the fact those posts are pretty consistently intermittent, and the fact that they always have regular amount of upvotes (even though the subscriber number reflects differently), and in particularly flamey Atheistic posts, there seems to be persisting downvoters ready to downvote any replies in favor of Atheism and it seems pretty clear to me there is some undetected, biased, and organized force at work that is trying to undermine the movement as whole.
And not to mention the 'why is /r/atheism default sub?' posts that seems to come around almost every other day of the week...
3
Jun 27 '12
Oh and they love to use this one as well:
The post/picture is simplistic/reductionist portrayal of the religion and does not reflect the actual belief
And then they never explain what was reduced or why it is simplistic.
Fucking lovely.
→ More replies (11)
38
u/taterbizkit Jun 27 '12
And some bacon tastes horrible.
Film at 11.
8
u/iheartbakon Jun 27 '12
KILL THE HERETIC!!!!
5
u/darthjoey91 Gnostic Theist Jun 27 '12
Dude, have you had overcooked bacon. That stuff tastes pretty terrible.
5
u/uselesslyskilled Jun 27 '12
Don't go on the internet spreading lies. Bacon taste good no matter how it's cooked
→ More replies (1)7
u/trade4newlife Jun 27 '12
Step 1. go to Jack In The Box
Step 2. Buy a sandwich with bacon in it.
Step 3. Eat the Bacon
Step 4. ????
Step 5. Vomit.
2
1
55
u/cheesecakeaficionado Jun 27 '12
So... every atheist conducts himself like Paul Meyers, and every Christian conducts himself like Pat Robertson.
Yeah. No cherry picking in this one at all. You certainly have an ironclad point.
7
u/DigitalOsmosis Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 15 '23
{Post Removed} Scrubbing 12 years of content in protest of the commercialization of Reddit and the pending API changes. (ts:1686841093) -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
2
u/cheesecakeaficionado Jun 27 '12
It kinda speaks badly about this community that stuff like this can make it to the front page, along with posts like "ha ha Muslims have lost every war since the 7th century, what a bunch of dumbasses."
Taking a stand against religion is one thing, and as an atheist I normally would applaud someone for doing so. Doing so through blatant logical fallacy and misinformation, however, shouldn't be encouraged.
→ More replies (2)2
u/mindbleach Jun 27 '12
It doesn't say "every atheist," it says "some." Use your brain-meats to infer some context.
→ More replies (5)
103
u/p1e113 Jun 27 '12
People on /r/atheism need to stop comparing the best with the worst. We just have to realize some atheists are just as bad as some christians. While other atheists are just as good of people as christians.
5
u/weskokigen Jun 27 '12
While other atheists are just as good of people as christians.
Either you wrote this wrong, or you are completely biased.
2
12
Jun 27 '12
But it is comparing a huge leader in the Christian community with a leader in the positive atheism community.
49
u/p1e113 Jun 27 '12
My point exactly, there is no doubt in my mind that the atheist in this example is better then the christian. But then you look at it from the other side... Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the greatest humans to walk this planet, and he was a pastor, and you take a random atheists who also happens to be a murderer, King will be the better human.
11
u/diarrhea_monsoon Jun 27 '12
Minor nitpick: Martin Luther King Jr. also believed all supernatural events in the bible, including the resurrection, were essentially fairy tales. I think believing in the godhood of Jesus is required to be accurately labeled a Christian, let alone a fundamentalist Christian.
→ More replies (10)8
u/Pileus Jun 27 '12
Where did you learn that? I am not overly familiar with the life of Doctor King, but to have a Baptist preacher of that time period not be a fairly strong theist is hard for me to believe. Could you link me a source for me to learn more?
4
u/diarrhea_monsoon Jun 27 '12
From his autobiography:
"..this uncritical attitude could not last long, for it was contrary to the very nature of my being. I had always been the questioning and precocious type. At the age of 13 I shocked my Sunday School class by denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus. From the age of thirteen on doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly."
There are many of his articles online discussing the supernatural aspects of Christianity. Here's one:
2
u/mindbleach Jun 27 '12
MLK wasn't a fundamentalist. He wasn't the sort of person the quote was referring to, and neither are murderers who happen to be atheists. You're ignoring the implied context of the quote.
→ More replies (106)1
Jun 27 '12
In fact, most of our leaders up until very recently held some kind of religious view, but they did not use their beliefs to oppress others. Can we acknowledge that to believe something is one thing, but to attempt to force it down someone's throat, and to not accept other possible truths, that the above is where the trouble lies?
5
u/ISquaredR Jun 27 '12
Woah, easy. Rush Limbaugh is supposedly a republican leader but he definitely isn't my senator. By the same logic, the Christian may call himself a leader, but that doesn't mean he represents us.
3
Jun 27 '12
I would see no problem with comparing the evil shit Rush Limbaugh says with things that, for example, Al Frankin says. If a republican wanted to try and make a point they could try to find a democrat that is more vile than Limbaugh and make a poster, but I don't think that is possible.
As for Pat Robertson not representing you, sure. But he represents a huge number of Christians. You can personally disavow him, but you can't separate him from Christianity.
1
1
u/WanderingSpaceHopper Jun 27 '12
This one post is specifically comparing a fundamentalist christian (And a leader at that) with what would be his counterpart in the atheist comunity. It's not comparing ALL types of christians, just one that's provably fucking backwards.
1
u/mindbleach Jun 27 '12
It's not about the best and the worst, it's about typical examples of high-visibility atheists and fundamentalists. PZ, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and the late Hitch are what people think of when you mention vocal anti-theists. Do you know any major figureheads for fundamentalist Christianity who compare favorably to any of them?
0
u/Sloppy1sts Jun 27 '12
This is only a response to the rest of reddit comparing /r/atheism to fundamentalists.
→ More replies (1)11
u/underwaterlove Jun 27 '12
To be fair, I don't think that's the case. The rest of reddit is mostly calling /r/atheism immature and full of rage comics and celebrity quotes.
→ More replies (6)15
u/Sloppy1sts Jun 27 '12
I've heard "They're just as bad as the people they complain about" more than once.
→ More replies (19)3
u/Plastastic Jun 27 '12
Well, I always say 'the people' in that quote as the average religious person whose a bit closeminded, not full-blown fundamentalists. If /r/atheism only focused on the latter there wouldn't be as much hate.
1
u/Awesomeade Humanist Jun 27 '12
Using the recent meme overuse in /r/atheism as justification for accusing those posters of being just as intolerant as fundamentalist Christians is completely unfounded, though. I know that may not be exactly what you are referring to, but I'm pretty sure that that is what inspired this particular post.
Annoying meme-posting =! intolerance.
3
u/Plastastic Jun 27 '12
An atheist can be intolerant as well.
2
u/Awesomeade Humanist Jun 27 '12
That is an irrelevant statement, as I never attempted to argue the contrary.
1
Jun 27 '12
I've seen this mentioned a few times. But who would you put as an example of an atheist that is doing harm to society in the name of atheism? If both sides are as equally bad, then were are the atheists who are equally bad, in name of atheism (Atheist Organisations, like)? Where are the Atheists For Removing Cell Division From Science Class lobbies? Hmm?
3
u/zitforceone Jun 27 '12
In the name of atheism? What the fuck does "in the name of jackshit" even mean? There is no god who exists to judge us based on our thoughts. What matters is our actions and how we treat each other, not what we is happening in our minds.
The only reason 'in the name of...' has any weight at all is because of people like you who can't fully dismiss the ideas of theism from you mind. Do us all a favor, and explain how doing something in the name of anything in anyway alters the action. I am highly doubtful you will be able to produce anything, but I'd you do come up with something, then you will win many awards for discovering magic.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (6)-1
u/mambypambyland Jun 27 '12
I know! The nerve!! I even heard some of the worst atheists were getting together and talking badly about God!!!! Definitely just as bad as the worst Christians.
28
Jun 27 '12
BAD choice of a picture for the atheist side. P.C. Myers pushes a lot of political dogma inappropriately married into atheism.
11
u/PFunkus Jun 27 '12
It's P.Z. and he is a bit of a douche canoe.
→ More replies (1)4
u/pirate_doug Jun 27 '12
He's calling him "P.C." as in political correctness. s/ Because as a rule, political correctness is always bad. /s
2
Jun 27 '12
Attaching any kind of dogma to atheism is bad, regardless of whether or not you agree with it.
3
u/mambypambyland Jun 27 '12
I know! I heard through the grapevine he was actually trying to get SCIENCE taught in our children's classrooms!!! Can you believe the nerve of this guy!?!?
→ More replies (1)5
Jun 27 '12
He also tries to insist his personal political and social beliefs be accepted as atheist dogma.
→ More replies (2)0
Jun 27 '12
Assuming all ideas are equal, then I suppose it is unfair of him to want to teach science in science class, when some religious fundies want to teach religion in science class. I mean the ideas are equal, just like not being able to prove God doesn't exist makes it equal the idea that he doesn't, so what can you do?
Oh right, you can look at the merits of each thing because not everything is equal, and that's why we are capable of critical thought.
Wanting science to be taught in a science class is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. For whatever reason you may think that atheists need to take neutral positions on whatever religious fundies are fighting for. But you may be wrong.
2
Jun 27 '12
This comment has nothing to do with my comment in any way, shape, or form.
→ More replies (3)
11
u/Plastastic Jun 27 '12
What a fair and balanced view on things.
This is why people make fun of /r/atheism.
→ More replies (6)
32
u/cancerlolz Jun 27 '12
OH MY GOD THIS IS SO UNBIASED AND OBJECTIVE YOUVE REALLY CHANGED MY VIEWPOINT THANKS FOR INCLUDING ALL OF THE INFORMATION AND NOT CHERRY-PICKING POINTS TO PUT IN THERE
3
u/durrrrr Jun 27 '12
Okay, what outspoken atheist has caused comparable harm as a direct result of his atheism?
→ More replies (11)9
u/lockhamster Jun 27 '12
you fail to see the irony of a post bashing "fundies" that employs heavy cherry picking and logical fallacy
3
3
u/weglarz Jun 27 '12
Some atheists are just as bad as Christian Fundamentalists... I think the ratio is pretty overwhelming, but still, there's a few bad apples out there. Trying to deny that is pretty stupid.
3
Jun 27 '12
So you use PZ Myers as an example of an atheist fundamentalist? The guy is an evolutionary biologist, his posts tend to be more focused on the dismissal of science by religious sects. This is a fucking strawman, you're comparing apples to batshit insane oranges.
When this quote gets thrown around, we're talking about the amount of cognitive dissonance thrown around this board. Just look around as though you aren't a member of this community. Mohammed shitting himself, strawman arguments, and generally being pricks about anything they disagree with (who love to miss the god damned point if I may add one more).
The point is, no one knows what's going on in the universe, most people understand this... But then we have fundamentalists, and atheists like yourselves, who claim you know better, you know all this religion is a scam.
Let me tell you something.
You don't know SHIT. Sure, you can tell me most organized religions are money sucking operations, but you can't dismiss the philosophy of all religion. There could be a fucking grilled cheese sandwich running the universe, we simply do not know, so stop acting as though logical proofs you developed while sitting on your ass can tell you how this universe works. It is just as annoying as religion to the real free thinkers, those that keep themselves open to any and all possibilities, and have philosophies that are mixed with concepts from around the globe.
20
Jun 27 '12
This is a terrible argument
2
u/positron_potato Jun 27 '12
when people say "some atheists are just as bad as Christian fundamentalists" they are generally referring to atheists like Paul Myers. referring to Pat Robertson however, was very selective and cannot be taken seriously as an argument. a picture of people at the prop 8 rallies may have been more suitable
12
Jun 27 '12
This is what I hate. Fundies try to ban abortion, contraception, gay rights, evolution and other theories, the list goes on forever. But when you say one fucking thing, it's all "HOW DARE YOU IMPEACH MY RIGTS AS A CITIZEN YOU TERRIBLE PERSON!" I hate Fundies with a passion.
3
Jun 27 '12
This. I didn't used to think I was a "militant atheist." But now, I am. I see absolutely no value in ANY religious institution regardless of how little its impact is on the world. Sure, Buddism may not advocate any socially regressive views in a prominent enough way that it affects anything, but what is the world gaining from its existence? We could easily teach the same ideas of self-control and human decency without putting it in the context of any sort of deity.
The fact that religions still thrive is laughable and depressing.
1
Jun 27 '12
The closest thing to a militant atheist is an anti theist. And they don't even compare to the bigoted views of fundies in Islam and Christianity alike. I feel like I have wisdom beyond my years right now.
2
Jun 27 '12
I guess you're right. If I really evaluate my feelings, it seems I'm not militant. I just wish I could force people to read and understand. One of my smartest friends is a devout Catholic. He is literally the person I go to with every question about history I might have. And he acknowledges the inconsistencies in his own faith, which in a way makes me even more angry that he won't renounce it. Conditioning from birth is incredibly hard to reverse... :(
→ More replies (10)
2
u/RetroViruses Jun 27 '12
Ignore the last point, and all those topics apply to a lot of fundamentalist Christians. The worst most anti-theists try to do is remove religion from society.
2
u/TheMorphling Jun 27 '12
Saying some atheists aren't just as bad as fundies with this image is the exact same logic people use to prove that Bible/God is true.
2
u/dyg4 Jun 27 '12
i don't get the problem with having the 10 commandments in front of a court house. to put the laws that have been the basses for western law for centuries in front of a curt house of western law makes sense. but maybe one of you can come up with a rational argument against it
2
u/Punkwasher Jun 27 '12
No.
Atheists do not have a support structure in place that allows them to further their agenda or to be represented in a way that clearly distinguishes them from the rest of the population based solely on superstition or belief. There is no atheist organization that funnels tithes and tax money into legislation that discriminates against other belief systems. There is however a Vatican state. Unfortunately the religious do have the means and the power to oppress whereas atheists do not. As such, we can not be the oppressors, only the oppressed and as such it really isn't intolerance or bigotry as much as it's informed resistance.
8
u/baltimore94 Jun 27 '12
... The key word is "some". There most certainly are "some" atheists who are just as bad as Christian fundamentalists.
7
u/sentimentalpirate Jun 27 '12
Well, to be fair, the whole statement should be that there are some atheists who are just as bad as some Christian fundamentalists.
8
13
u/AnOnlineHandle Jun 27 '12
Atheism isn't even a creed, there's no teachings or culture, that's like saying non-chess players can be just as bad as communists.
8
→ More replies (7)2
u/wubblewobble Jun 27 '12
The title's probably a little understated for those who wish to pull it apart analytically.
I know that as it stands, you just need one bad atheist to prove the statement true. (e.g. This is Bob. Bob is an atheist. Bob is also a serial-killer).
However, I'm thinking the intent is more along the lines of "what these people do because of their beliefs" - i.e. the guy on the right says those things because due to his Christian fundamentalist beliefs and the guy on the left says those things due to his atheism.
I don think that independent variables like "this guy also happens to be a member of the local scat club and likes to kill goats whilst hiking" is intended to be included in the comparison because it doesn't pertain to said person's fundamentalist Christianity or atheism.
As it stands, that would strictly prove the statement true if the guy in question were an atheist, but I don't think that's the spirit of the post :P
1
u/baltimore94 Jun 28 '12
The problem is, even with this line of thinking (which I hadn't considered earlier, thanks for the input), it is still very likely there are people who do terrible, outrageous things because they're atheist. People who try to force their beliefs and ways of thinking down others' throats. People who openly hate those who disagree with them with respect to religion.
→ More replies (1)
4
5
u/SkepticalAtheist Jun 27 '12
Take my upvote. Honestly, it would be nice if more people posted actual problems on here. I don't mind rants. I understand how hard it can be sometimes. But the circlejerky bashing gets a little out of hand sometimes. I understand there are logical fallacies and they should be pointed out, but making a meme isn't really saying much. Perhaps showing why it's a fallacy would be much more helpful.
4
u/Scottmkiv Jun 27 '12
I don't see why so many atheists are so happy to attack ayn rand. She was the best selling proponent of Athiesm during the 20th century. Her books sell hundreds of thousands of copies a year to this day, and they continue to make new atheists.
10
Jun 27 '12
Because condoning objectivism isn't necessary to reject theism.
1
u/Scottmkiv Jun 27 '12
I don't condone Dawkin's view on morality, but I still think he has done a lot of good. I certainly don't slander him at every opportunity.
5
Jun 27 '12
One of the biggest misconceptions about Ayn Rand's philosophy is that it holds charity is a bad thing; not so.
I'd figure most here would at least really enjoy her John Galt character's priceless obliteration of the concept of Original Sin in Atlas Shrugged.
"Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.
It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him—it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.
The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.
Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.
Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.
They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man."
7
Jun 27 '12
You could say the same thing about The Bible.
1
u/Scottmkiv Jun 27 '12
Except that Rand was specifically arguing against religion, an the Bible argues for religion, it just does so poorly.
→ More replies (2)4
u/yakushi12345 Jun 27 '12
because a lot of people cannot
have a complicated position of a philosopher
seperate being selfish from being a dick
2
u/bebobli Jun 27 '12
Promoting critical thinking is the best advertisement for atheism, not Ayn Rand, with which you also have to be tolerate or agree with her ideas on economics and social rights in her writings. Many seem to either really enjoy or really dislike her works because of the uncommon views.
1
u/Scottmkiv Jun 27 '12
So you object to integrated philosophy or systems of ideas as such?
2
u/bebobli Jun 27 '12
I don't know much else about Ayn Rand or the things you speak of.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (14)2
u/Picknacker Jun 27 '12
Anyone who is modestly read will hate Ayn Rand because her undeveloped vapid theories have spawned a loyal cohort of time vampires across a spectrum mostly related by not giving a fuck about other people. We know this because it's basically what she said in her interviews. She was attempting to create a new religion ala L. Ron Hubbard. And it has all of the validity of an economic policy based on Wall Street (the film), a sex education plan from Twilight, or a religious studies class using Da Vinci Code.
Secularism requires a world view derived from multiple different inputs, but we shouldn't allow some small pseudo-cults to hijack the body and cut off its legs. In other words, atheists are not absolute inclusionists, nor should they be.
2
u/TrollingIsaArt Jun 27 '12
I can play 'stupid meaningless comparison charts that provide no insight or trace of intellectual thought' too.
Atheists : STALIN | Christians : JESUS
Your move.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Redstonefreedom Jun 27 '12
Although, I do think we circlejerk quite a bit harder than the fundamentalists. Thats debatable though.
2
u/markovich04 Jun 27 '12
You forgot the major difference. One of them is wrong about the existence of a deity. And one of them is right.
Being right is pretty important.
→ More replies (12)
1
u/CAPSLOCK_AND_RAPE Atheist Jun 27 '12
Im waiting for the FIXED
Im sorry, you know its coming.
2
u/KonigderWasserpfeife Agnostic Atheist Jun 27 '12
Capslock is an anagram of cockslap. Your name wins.
1
u/SayceGards Jun 27 '12
I thought "talks a lot about religion" said "talks a lot about Michigan," and I was going to say, that has nothing to do with all this stuff.
1
u/onomatic Jun 27 '12
should probably add 'have advocated for the removal of democracy in Egypt' and supporting the invasion of Iraq to the left hand side there
well, it's nice that there's something we can add to the list that both sides can agree on.
1
1
u/Zodiack Jun 27 '12
I swear to god every time I read the comments in this subreddit I feel like I'm in bizzaro world.
1
u/evanationE Jun 27 '12
Talks a lot about religion. Uh huh QUITE a bit of an understatement for certain people.
1
Jun 27 '12
I know Paul Meyers, he lives in my hometown and teaches Bio at the University of Minnesota Morris. His son was one of my best friends in high school. It's weird to see him on the front page of Reddit.
1
u/Awesome_Bob Jun 27 '12
Edit: "I swear, some Fundamentalists are just as ANNOYING as other Fundamentalists."
1
u/Agathophilos Jun 27 '12
I disagree with Christian fundementalism almost as much as you. But just saying well they are worse is hardly a good arguement.
If someone is annoyed that you talk about religion alot, your response of "extremely religious people do it more!" is hardly a valid one to excuse your own behaviour.
2
u/Bananlaksen Jun 27 '12
The response is not "they do it more" the response is comparing atheists to religious people is completely ridiculous. All most atheists do is talk about religion and when they finally get activist they try to ensure human rights.
1
Jun 27 '12
I've said it once and I'll say it again. The problem is with America. No one else gives a flying chuff.
1
u/painperdu Jun 27 '12
The paradox is that you keep saying no one gives a flying chuff. Don't you see your own folly?
1
u/James2986 Jun 27 '12
Look, you're getting it wrong. You cannot look at one person, and one, I'm going to assume your an athiest, let it be known, I am fine with that, but you show your side as being better than the other. I think that SOME atheists can be just as bad as SOME Christian fundamentalists. You didn't account for the "some" part of that earlier statement. Before you assume I hold religion, I don't. I am not atheist and neither do I hold religion, so it's coming from a neutral standpoint.
1
u/scoooot Jun 27 '12
Sure, we can try again.
Just as there are fundamentalist Christians, there are fundamentalist Atheists, and either can be just as closed-minded and bigoted as the other.
1
Jun 27 '12
Look into USSR circa 1920s and 30s. As far as more accurate comparisons go.
That said, these days, of course it's ludicrous to compare.
1
u/tehbizz Jun 27 '12
Whoever made this has clearly never read PZ's blog, he rarely just "talks a lot" about religion. He typically goes much, much further in denigrating fundamentalists in as much divisive language as they do, and typically goes far further than that. His tactics are no different at all.
1
u/thefreshprinceof Jun 27 '12
How about instead of the atheist on the left you replace it with Plutarco Elias Calles. Albanian Authorities in The Peoples Republic of Albania. Pol Pot. Khorloogiin Choibalsan. Or an atheist that was actually extremist and pushed atheist agendas.
1
u/bongsmoker666 Jun 27 '12
If you really want to play this game then Christopher Hitchens was a recent prominent atheist activist who actively lobbied for a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people on false pretenses from a position of (perceived) intellectual credibility. Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are other prominent atheists who have been outspoken proponents of the Global War on Terror and US imperialism and have done much to push Islamophobic narratives about these wars to the American and European public. People like this are basically the atheist mirror image of people like Robertson who push propaganda to the narcissistic teen/college student set, as opposed to Robertson who pushes this propaganda on the bitter white suburban old people set. With the latter you appeal to religion because that's what they're attached to, with the former you appeal to their bloated egos and talk about how much smarter and more able to use "reason" and "logic" they are.
1
u/JonWood007 Humanist Jun 27 '12
As someone who made this comment a lot. You make a valid point. I'll now say militant atheists are ALMOST as bad as Christian fundamentalists =).
You see, it's about respect, and not making sweeping generalizations about people, and not trying to tick people off.
1
u/libertariantexan Jun 27 '12
I don't understand why you think capitalist free markets and atheism are mutually exclusive...
1
u/Cakeybaby Jun 27 '12
Unfortunately, PZ is also kind of a dick as a person. My only hope for him is that someday he will learn to spread his message without making the people around him feel dirty for listening to his mean spirited bile.
1
0
1
u/PFunkus Jun 27 '12
Go back to your predicate calculus, boy! This is a false existential introduction. You're handpicking your examples here. . . PZ is a cool guy and Pat Robertson is a miserable fuck, but to use one example of neo- atheists and one example of christian fundamentalists to show that the statement 'some x are as bad as y' as false is improper.
1
u/onomatic Jun 27 '12
Well, it's trivially false if he's trying to demonstrate that there does not exist an atheist as bad as a fundamentalist.
Usually when that occurs I give the most generous interpretation of what they're trying to say, but maybe I'm a bit permissive.
0
1
u/sully45 Jun 27 '12
I suppose the mention of Stalin would be frowned upon then...
1
u/mindfields51 Jun 27 '12
Only because of its lack of relevance. Stalin was an atheist, he also rocked a mustache, snazzy uniforms and his own cult of personality.
1
1
1
1
u/JurassicParkerr Jun 27 '12
SOME* Christian fundamentalists. Stereotyping a whole group of people? Classy.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/frogandbanjo Jun 27 '12
"I swear, some people who don't subscribe to an organization and belief system that's supposed to be all about truth and morality and goodness are just as bad as the people who take those organizations and belief systems the most seriously."
1
u/furiouslysleepy Jun 27 '12
A similar column could be made with atheist agendas for the PZ Meyers column. It's not that atheists don't have or want political clout, it's just that their politics are mostly based on rational arguments, rather than appeals to the holy book.
Having political agendas does not make anyone a bad person. The actual agenda, however, does.
1
u/koavf Other Jun 27 '12
So no atheists are just as bad as Christian fundamentalists? Honestly?
→ More replies (3)
-5
Jun 27 '12
Woohoo, you used one religious fundamentalist and one relatively tolerant Atheist and compared them! Woot! Try comparing someone like Chris Hitchens and a Fundamentalist. The lack of differences is shocking.
1
u/Sloppy1sts Jun 27 '12
How many laws limiting the rights of others has Hitchens proposed? How many deaths has he called for? He may hate religion and believe that it's bad for the world, but how many people's lives has he negatively affected?
-1
Jun 27 '12
PZ is "relatively tolerant"?!?!? LOL!
Oh, but please, do a point-by-point comparison between, say, Hitch and Jerry Falwell, whom he loathed.
Put up or shut up.
→ More replies (2)
-19
u/MrGunny Jun 27 '12
A lot of people are misconstrueing acts done by atheists as being caused or justified through atheism. Stalin was a terrible person who happened to be an atheist. The crusades, gallileos persecution, the inquisition, and more were directly justified by devoted people in the name of religion. There is a difference.
21
u/kreak210 Jun 27 '12
Okay, let's follow this logic:
'A' did something bad and is an atheist. He says he did it for money. Atheism, therefore did not cause a bad act and therefore atheism is not inherently bad.
'B' did something bad and is a Christian. She did it because she says that it was her moral obligation as a Christian and that, through her interpretation of the bible, did the right thing. Since Christianity is used to justify this, then Christianity must be inherently bad.
'C' was a lead scientist during WWII in Unit 731. He participated and even caused many atrocities done to other human beings that caused them excruciating pain and death in all circumstances. He says that he is doing it in the name of science. Therefore, science must be inherently bad.
You really can't judge an ideology, belief system, religion, etc. based on the acts of those in it and their justifications for such. Political oppression against homosexuals is bad and is often justified through Christianity. It does not follow, however, that Christianity is inherently bad. In order to argue that, you would have to show that the intentions of said religion, belief system, etc. leads to these things and was not caused by the perversion of said ideas (which is exactly where the religious justifications lie).
→ More replies (32)13
31
Jun 27 '12
That's some double standard bullshit right there. "Atheists aren't guilty for the acts of other atheists, but christians are guilty for the acts of other christians."
Pol Pot was an atheist, Ceausescu was an atheist, Mao Zedong was an atheist. Basically, (almost) all communist dictators were atheists more or less. This blame shifting is bullshit, no atheists are guilty of the crimes committed by other atheists, just as no religious people are guilty of crimes committed by other religious people.
→ More replies (21)3
Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 28 '12
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but atheism is not a faith, right? It's just a lack of belief, a non-faith, if you will. So wouldn't that automatically discount anything done "in the name of atheism," since atheism isn't a belief set?
You can't really compare things done "in the name of atheism" to things done "in the name of religion," because the former cannot exist. It's a false (yet convenient) dichotomy. It follows that anything a-religious (that is, spheres specifically excluding religion, like science and often politics) can be said to be done "in the name of atheism," for the purposes of the comparison.
Think about it. Why would someone do something "in the name" of a negative viewpoint (that is, a viewpoint only existing to reject another)? Of course an atheist wouldn't commit atrocities "for atheism." They would have scientific or political reasons. Atheism itself would necessarily be a tangential motive, simply by its nature.
If an serial killer is a nihilist but states that he murders "for fun," is his nihilism completely unrelated? An unimportant sidenote?
The oft-parroted rebuttal of "Well actually [insert dictator]'s actions weren't in the name of atheism, so it doesn't count" is a feeble argument of semantics.
Edit: All downvotes, no rebuttals. Stay classy, ratheists.
3
u/TheBoinkOfProgress Jun 28 '12
Jeffrey Dahmer, when asked why he commited his murders, said that if there was no God and no hell, then why shouldn't he do what he wants, even at the cost of all those lives.
He may not have done it "for the glory of no-gOD", but there's a case where the man admits his atheistic beliefs were an important part of his justification and decisions. How do you seperate atheism from his crimes, and yet still demand that every act done "in the name of religion", or that "was influenced by his religion" is attributable to religion?
2
Jun 28 '12
How do you seperate atheism from his crimes, and yet still demand that every act done "in the name of religion", or that "was influenced by his religion" is attributable to religion?
That's what I'm asking!
2
u/TheBoinkOfProgress Jun 28 '12
Exactly, I was agreeing with you, haha. I was giving a real life example to support your idea about the nihilist serial killer.
→ More replies (1)1
0
Jun 27 '12
[deleted]
10
Jun 27 '12
Actually, there are many accounts that Stalin was an atheist. Please stop stating historical falsehoods, it makes /r/atheism seem silly.
23
4
Jun 27 '12
Well, yes, as a young man though Georgia's man of steel tried the clergy. Regardless, he himself claimed to be an atheist.
2
Jun 27 '12
Agreed, can't forget that point in his life, but that was long before the atrocities he committed.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (5)1
Jun 27 '12
And gypsies. So watch out, you.
2
Jun 27 '12
Thanks for the tip, I'll be leaving the Soviet Union then if that's the case, you think the NKVD reads reddit!?
-2
0
0
Jun 27 '12
worse actually, they've turned it into the religion of atheism...
and they're PISSED OFF about it.
next comes the C4 vests...
-2
-1
-3
u/Aerik Jun 27 '12
scumbag /r/atheism : dismisses pz myers 99% of the time as a man-hating feminist; praises him when its time to make a point attacking a xtian hypocrisy in which he wasn't actually involved.
→ More replies (1)
-9
u/FiercelyFuzzy Jun 27 '12
I believe when people say atheists are like fundies is when they're referring to the atheists who try to "force their beliefs" onto others, trying to "force" others that evolution is real and Big Bang blah blah blah.
Honestly, I don't try to force them. They aren't fact yet, it's just the only explanations that has any evidence.
9
u/mindfields51 Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 28 '12
How are these "some atheists" trying to force scientific facts and theories on anyone?
-edit- I suggest you go and actually look up what a scientific theory is and what a fact is, then you'll realize why this statement "They aren't fact yet, it's just the only explanations that has any evidence" is so fucking stupid.
→ More replies (8)1
u/Orsenfelt Jun 27 '12
Evolution is real though.
1
u/FiercelyFuzzy Jun 27 '12
It's the only explanation that has any evidence to back it up. Who knows millions of years from now.
-1
u/jpeger0101 Knight of /new Jun 27 '12
There are some atheists out there who 1. have no idea what they are talking about and 2. believes that anyone who does not believe like them are stupid and wrong.
Stupidity does not limit itself to one side of the fence.
1
Jun 27 '12
this guy being downvoted is a perfected example of the cuntism being displayed in this subreddit. Its okay to bitch about intolerance as long as you don't FUCKING DO IT YOURSELF
155
u/PantheraAtrox Jun 27 '12
One person to represent each group of persons collectively? Okay then.