The hypocrisy of atheism
I'd like to share a recent... revelation? New insight? Sudden outbreak of common sense? Whatever you want to call it, I have recently decided that I shall no longer identify myself as an atheist. To anyone that has ever asked me about my religious inclinations, that has been my response, but I have realized that it does not truly fit my beliefs and what I think is right.
Atheists are, for the most part, hypocrites. Any "atheist" who is not should probably call themselves agnostic instead. The same people who constantly criticize Christians, or Mormons, or <insert _religion_here> for trying to force their beliefs down everyones' throats are essentially doing the same thing by telling them there is no god. Admit it, whether you like it or not, you are still engaging in something like a form of theism by not believing in a higher power, and then being just as much of a jerk by telling those that do believe that they are wrong and you are right. I do not believe in that, I believe in tolerance. I think everyone should be free to practice any religion they choose, believe in any god(s) they want, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if they are so inclined, as long as they are not stepping on anyone else's toes in so doing. By engaging in the anti-religious practices that I see many so-called atheists doing these days, you are no better than the Jehovah's Witnesses that wake me up at the crack of dawn to talk about god.
For now on, if anyone asks me, I will instead tell them I am tolerant, not atheist. And I ask other atheists to really think about this and what you are standing for. It is not right to force someone to believe in something, and it is not fair to tell them not to in response. Unless we're talking Scientology... but that is a subject for a different day :)
Update: It seems I may have inadequately expressed my message here. Let me state that I do not believe it is wrong to criticize others beliefs. It was pointed out to me that if that were the case, many things in our society would fail... politics, economics, etc, which I generally tend to agree with. I did not intend to impart on anyone that criticism was a bad thing, what I am trying to say is that it is no one else's place to interfere with another's beliefs so long as those beliefs do not include bringing harm to others.
Update 2: To all those following the comments on this post, I now have comment RSS feeds enabled (here's the feed for this post), so you may subscribe to those to get the latest comments right away in your feed reader.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://justin-hayes.com/trackback/502
Posted: November 6, 2008 at 11:50pm
Comments
November 7, 2008 at 1:58am
"The same people who constantly criticize Christians, or Mormons, or for trying to force their beliefs down everyones' throats are essentially doing the same thing by telling them there is no god. "
And so were blacks for telling that to racists. The differance is one belief is based on reason and one isn't.
"Admit it, whether you like it or not, you are still engaging in a form of theism by not believing in a higher power, and then being just as much of a jerk by telling those that do believe that they are wrong and you are right."
Fallacy of golden mean.
'I do not believe in that, I believe in tolerance. I think everyone should be free to practice any religion they choose, believe in any god(s) they want, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if they are so inclined, as long as they are not stepping on anyone else's toes in so doing. "
And if the religion requires hurting other people? Like they all do. Or leads to hurting people... like they all do.
'By engaging in the anti-religious practices that I see many so-called atheists doing these days, you are no better than the Jehovah's Witnesses that wake me up at the crack of dawn to talk about god."
yeah and abolitionists were assholes to. It has nothing to do with the truth of their assertions.
"It is not right to force someone to believe in something, and it is not fair to tell them not to in response."
That is the WHOLE POINT of the school system. And rasing children.
November 7, 2008 at 3:50am
Please do not confuse my thinking that anyone can believe in what they want as me saying they are right to believe in it, I just do not think it is anyone else's place to interfere with anothers' beliefs unless, as you say, it leads to violence or persecution. Atheists are just as capable of war and violence as any theist, and anyone can worship their deity without interfering with those that choose not to.
November 7, 2008 at 4:41pm
So we shouldn't stop parents from letting their kids die because they don't believe in medical treatement?
Atheists may be as capable of violence as theists, but they DON'T do so in the name of religion. It is like how making someone non-racist removes one more reason for violence.
November 7, 2008 at 10:37pm
The line must be drawn where religion causes harm to others, it is the law in most cases, and common sense. No religion gives you the moral right to bring harm to others, and that should be obvious.
November 8, 2008 at 6:53pm
Except that they disagree that their actions are causing harm. In fact, you have to assume they are wrong in order to condemn them!
And isn't there harm in teaching people that faith is an acceptable way of reaching conclusinons? Doesn't it make them more susseptible to con artists and things like homeopathy?
November 17, 2008 at 11:11am
Good post my friend.
I have called myself an Atheist for years, but i feel it to be valid to my lifestyle. I do not lash out to, or otherswise criticize those who have a system of belief, which ever it may be, i may not agree, but i feel it to be their right as human beings. But myself, i reject theism, and deny the existance to a deity which has power over all beings. Nontheism could be an accurate term to describe ones who feel the same way, but i feel Atheism is also accurate to describe such persons. Those who are uneducated in the actual meaning of "Atheism", and parade around like you have described, more likely then not they are, unbeknownst Agnostics.
November 17, 2008 at 11:32am
I have another word for them: Assholes. They give people like you and me a bad name.
November 17, 2008 at 11:48am
Very much agreed. I hate being wrongfully associated with people like that.
November 19, 2008 at 11:35am
It's a pet peeve of mine when people call themselves Atheist. I personally find it very hard for one to be truly Atheist. At some point in time, near everyone has had doubts in regards to if there is a higher life form or not. I personally find myself classifying 'Athiests' under the same category as Mac Elitists and Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo fanboys; There is minimal logic and maximum stubbornness.
That's my little ramble. Good day to you sir.
November 21, 2008 at 12:45am
The burden of proof is on those that wish to prove that something -does- exist. Otherwise, you'd have to believe that our reality is filled with an infinite number of impossible things, where problems come in once you need to deal with these things. Consider the case where theory X cannot be proven true or false, but which happens to be false. This system of belief handles it correctly, as it will make the correct assumption. Now assume theory X happens to be true. Since it cannot be proven, one can assume that it has no noticable effect, and thus no good or harm can come of it in any event. Therefore the penalty of assuming incorrectly is null, and it is safe to beleive its nonexistence.
Therefore, under all circumstances, it is perfectly safe and just as correct to put the burden of proof on existence.
Until such time as the existence of god is proven, I am a solid atheist. This only means my belief is logical, and I am not arguing the morality of its effects.
For -that-, my argument comes down to the effect of one's actions. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is not acceptable, because it is merely a bad gamble that paid off. Giving morality due diligence is the -safest- way to acheive moral actions, and thus a careful logical approach must be taken. It is therefore also moral to encourage others to persue a logical viewpoint of their decisions. To say this is as bad promoting religion is false, because any sanely moral decisions reached by any religion will also be reached by atheism. The problem is that religious ethics tend to miss a few rules, and add a few bad ones (such as, say, killing all of race x), and the participants of the religion do not give it due diligence, which would invariably lead to a rejection of such rules.
In conclusion, it is more ethical and sane to be a logic atheist than -any- religion, and most importantly more effective at producing moral actions.
November 21, 2008 at 12:53am
Very well written Christian, I do agree with this viewpoint. Now can we get the church-burning atheists to calm down and see reason?
November 22, 2008 at 5:18pm
"I'd like to share a recent... revelation? New insight? Sudden outbreak of common sense? Whatever you want to call it, I have recently decided that I shall no longer identify myself as an atheist. To anyone that has ever asked me about my religious inclinations, that has been my response, but I have realized that it does not truly fit my beliefs and what I think is right."
To you HOLD a belief that one or more gods exist? If no, you are an atheist.
"Atheists are, for the most part, hypocrites. Any "atheist" who is not should probably call themselves agnostic instead."
Do you KNOW there are one or more gods? If no, you are agnostic.
A Venn Diagram of atheists and agnostics would be a 99% overlap. Don't make the pop culture mistake of thinking that agnostic is a middle ground or soft stance. One is about *belief*, the other about *knowledge*. Most people who do not hold a belief in gods also would not claim knowledge of gods. It would be strange indeed to say "I don't believe in gods, but I know they exist".
"The same people who constantly criticize Christians, or Mormons, or for trying to force their beliefs down everyones' throats are essentially doing the same thing by telling them there is no god. "
That may be a response to a LIFETIME of theist doing the same. Why is it ok for theists to do it, but not for atheists?
"Admit it, whether you like it or not, you are still engaging in something like a form of theism by not believing in a higher power, and then being just as much of a jerk by telling those that do believe that they are wrong and you are right. I do not believe in that, I believe in tolerance."
Being a jerk has nothing to do with belief in a higher power.
"I think everyone should be free to practice any religion they choose, believe in any god(s) they want, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if they are so inclined, as long as they are not stepping on anyone else's toes in so doing. By engaging in the anti-religious practices that I see many so-called atheists doing these days, you are no better than the Jehovah's Witnesses that wake me up at the crack of dawn to talk about god."
All Nazis were German, but not all Germans were Nazis, right? SOME atheists are jerks about, like i said, because of a lifetime of harassment. So doest it follow that because some atheists are jerks that ALL atheists must be jerks? Consider the possibility that someone jerkitude might be independent of their atheism. Maybe he was a jerk before he rejected religion.
"For now on, if anyone asks me, I will instead tell them I am tolerant, not atheist."
Fine, but keep in mind, by being a closet case you're helping fuel theist bigotry and privilege. If theists start to understand how many of us there are, and that we're tired of their crap and hiding from them... maybe they'll behave better. Maybe we can unify and try to stop politicians from legislating their beliefs upon us.
"And I ask other atheists to really think about this and what you are standing for. It is not right to force someone to believe in something, and it is not fair to tell them not to in response. Unless we're talking Scientology... but that is a subject for a different day :)"
Update:
"It seems I may have inadequately expressed my message here. Let me state that I do not believe it is wrong to criticize others beliefs."
Are you sure?
It was pointed out to me that if that were the case, many things in our society would fail... politics, economics, etc, which I generally tend to agree with. I did not intend to impart on anyone that criticism was a bad thing, what I am trying to say is that it is no one else's place to interfere with another's beliefs so long as those beliefs do not include bringing harm to others.
Many Xians don't see a difference between criticism and attacking. That's part of being a privileged class. When anyone asks to be treated fairly, the privileged group take offense and cries "persecution".
"Very well written Christian, I do agree with this viewpoint. Now can we get the church-burning atheists to calm down and see reason?"
Do you have any evidence that such a thing has happened? The only church burnings i've ever heard of are white Xians burning down black Xian churches. There is nothing about atheism that encourages, requires or is ok with burning churches. Atheism isn't a dogma with rules or even suggestions. i'm no more responsible for what other atheist do in the name of atheism than i am for white supremacists do. Yeah, i'm white, but that doesn't mean i'm anything like those people.
Instead of calling atheists assholes and hypocrites, you could just say "I'm not like them. It would be wrong for you to blame me for what they do just as it would be wrong for me to blame you for what other Xians have done to me".
"It's a pet peeve of mine when people call themselves Atheist. I personally find it very hard for one to be truly Atheist. At some point in time, near everyone has had doubts in regards to if there is a higher life form or not. I personally find myself classifying 'Athiests' under the same category as Mac Elitists and Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo fanboys; There is minimal logic and maximum stubbornness."
Atheist is capitalized ONLY if it is the first word in the sentence. It's not a dogma. And just because you can wrap your "mind" around it, doesn't mean that we're faking it. The last sentence could apply to anything. Though for every stubborn atheist you can show me, i'll give you ninety stubborn Xians.
November 23, 2008 at 2:15pm
I'm not going to question the fact of you being an Atheist, but do understand that I have never personally met a true Atheist in my life. They all seem to be kids that have hopped on the 'cool bus' and tried to be rebellious, but in turn just end up looking like fools.
November 23, 2008 at 5:14pm
EXACTLY! It is these punks mostly that I have a problem with, perhaps I should have said that in my original posting. Thanks to Dan as always for helping me clarify what I mean :)
November 24, 2008 at 1:35am
Since being a "true atheist" involves only the belief of the person in question, I can honestly and accurately describe myself as a true atheist. There may even be horrid glaring flaws in my logic, but it's what I believe. While my earlier argument only points out the logical wisdom of atheism, it fails to provide an adequate definitive proof -against- the existence of theistic entities. Luckily, this one is much easier to prove.
I propose that the impossible can happen. Such reasoning exists that deities are beyond the rules of reality (impossible, but happen anyways), and can therefore exist. If such a circumstance were possible, an entity could exist which - by nature - exists despite being impossible, and also happens to be a bomb capable of destroying all existence if anyone utters the word 'cheesecloth'. If the impossible could happen, this entity could and would exist, and all of existence would by nature be destroyed. Proof by contrapositive (if A -> B, Not B -> Not A); existence is here, therefore the impossible cannot happen.
You could argue that only that one case is impossible, but it still proves that impossible leads to "absolutely cannot ever happen, under any circumstances, no matter what". It is up to 'science' (lack of a better word) and logic/math to define what impossible is. All too often science tries to define what is impossible, when science has no right or authority to do so. Hence the scientific declaration of flight's impossibility was wrong. Math, on the other hand, has the right and authority to do so, but now I'm getting off topic.
All that remains now is to individually prove that each religion defies at least one rule of reality. Any theism fits this criteria, and is therefore false. Because no theism is correct, atheism is. Note that a 'religion' lacking any elements of impossible entities and the like does not require belief, and is usually just a set of rules on the participant. To my knowledge, buddhism exhibits these traits. It is therefore impossible to be partially christian (one believes or does not believe. One can even believe but not follow any of the rules and be a christian (explaining why satan worshippers are christians of some form)), but one -can- be a partial buddhist. I am a partial vegetarian because I ocassionally eat fish. Often, people will claim to be christian because they follow the rules, but do not hold the beliefs. There are probably far more agnostics than all religions put together, but most people follow the rules of a religion.
As for punk sorta-atheists. We have much bigger fish to fry. While doing the right thing (atheism) for the wrong reason (lacking the foundational logic) is bad, doing the wrong thing (religion) for the wrong reason is much, much worse. In the theoretical case of a logically religious person (mistaken as they are, they base their views in logic), they are even doing the wrong thing for the right reason! Obviously converting them to logical atheism would be prefereable, but would we be better off if they were an illogical atheist?
It all comes down to the biggest generic moral question of my life; Which is better? Good for the sake of bad or bad for the sake of good? Are actions or intentions more important? Is there any basis for comparison of the two, for the purpose of calculating compramise? (interestingly, one can be arrested for accidentally illegal behavior -and- legal actions with illegal intent. This fits my view that neither is exclusively sufficient, but I'm cursious about where they draw the line)
November 28, 2008 at 4:02am
Many militant atheists are just as dogmatic as theists; they don't take exception to the pushing of beliefs in general, they take exception to the pushing of beliefs that aren't atheistic. After all, religion causes all the misery in the world, killed their cat, took a big dump on their doorstep... and is WRONG. Theists have no right to be pushing religion!
For my part, I don't let the doctrinaire assholes who sound just as rigid and dogmatic as the worst kinds of religious extremists ruin a perfectly good word. There's nothing wrong with being an atheist- I don't believe in God, dammit, and I don't want to have to pussyfoot around with "well, I don't believe in God but I'm tolerant..." because nobody assumes all Christians are like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, so why in hell should I have to put up with being thrown in the same category as PZ "I stabbed a rusty nail through a Eucharist and threw it in the trash" Meyers or Richard Dawkins?
Not sure what you mean by atheists engaging in a form of theism- do you mean we're taking a stance on theism?
November 28, 2008 at 4:10am
Of all the anonymous comments/emails I've received, yours makes the most sense and contains the least bullshit. I like you. Keep commenting.
Post new comment