General

I’m under the impression that my message was misunderstood. For clarity, this is my position, quoted from my response to Crommunists article, which is later in this post:

The world is hostile to our point of view, but that doesn’t mean we can’t carefully consider how we present our ideas. If we don’t, it’s not hard to see that we could end up shooting ourselves in the foot when we stand up for what we believe. And, unfortunately, some stereotypes are true, or have elements of truth to them. For example, the vast majority of super-rich and super-powerful people in the world are from certain countries. This is a fact, but it could also be a stereotype. Let me be clear that I’m not advocating stereotypes, rather, I’m pointing out that some have elements of truth to them, and that it might be pertinent to investigate. Another fact is that, in North America, the majority of the criminally incarcerated are males. This could easily be translated into any number of stereotypes.

Just because a claim is labeled a “stereotype” does not mean it doesn’t have elements of truth to it. I’m certainly not advocating racism or bigotry, what I am advocating is an investigation of the stereotype [that atheists are hostile or unfriendly] to understand how it is being promulgated and why. In this particular case, evidence from my everyday experience leads me to believe the claim that some atheists are unnecessarily unfriendly and hostile is true, especially in regards to points of view they don’t agree with. Evidence from this blog has only strengthened that position. My point is that the hostility is, in many cases, not necessary, and that, in some cases, it’s actually profoundly counterproductive.

Unfortunately, the discussion either deteriorated into childish swearing, or people ended up missing my point more or less completely.

Which is fine, but my point still stands: How we go about saying things can be just as important as what we say. And I think we should more carefully consider how we say things to outsiders, both in private and en masse. I’m not advocating that we stop standing up for what is true, rather, that we stop shooting ourselves in the foot while doing so. I think many atheists have been doing a poor job of considering how they go about saying things, and that our long-term goals are being harmed by this.

Someone fairly pointed out that some people are hostile to our positions simply because of who we are, which is certainly true. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t room to turn away the undecided by acting like assholes. The idea that we should just be dicks because some won’t listen to us does not fly with me.

Anyways, I’m going to keep saying what I’m saying, because I’m concerned with the success or failure of the atheist movement, despite what many might believe. Clearly, the problem of counterproductive hostility won’t go away just because we stop talking about it, in fact, it will only get worse.

What follows is a lengthy critique of the responses to my post

First, Cromunist’s response

The fist portion is just insults, whereby the author explains that he thinks I’m wrong, and uses the word “crap” a lot. This is fine, but needlessly inflammatory.

The substantive argument begins here:

My position, boiled down, is that there absolutely must be people who are not afraid to stand up and make their opinions clear, regardless of if those in the majority get their feelings hurt in the process.

I don’t disagree with this position necessarily, nor did my post.  My post questioned whether the position that “firebrand” atheists take is actually making a net positive difference, and if what they say could or should be tempered somehow, to avoid pissing off people who disagree with us, while at the same time challenging the oppositions claims.

Then follows:

But the issue at stake here (in this steaming pile of crap) is not simply whether or not “firebrands” are right or wrong, it’s the complete lie that is painted about atheists.

Really? There’s no truth to it whatsoever? Considering I’ve just been needlessly sworn at several times, I find it hard to believe that no one could possibly perceive that atheists act like caustic assholes quite frequently.

There’s this ridiculous caricature that has been cultivated by believers that atheists are these angry, bitter, misfits who rail against religion and foam at the mouth whenever anyone has the temerity to say “bless you” when someone sneezes. Before I knew anything about Richard Dawkins, for example, I knew that he was a smug, arrogant prick with a bug up his ass about God. Of course, once I actually bothered to read any of his stuff and watch him in debate, I found out that he was a nebbish British biology professor with a soft spot for literature – not at all what I pictured.

So I’m to suppose that it’s a conspiracy promulgated by the religious right? There’s no evidence whatsoever that some atheists are needlessly hostile? I’ve read Dawkins too. I agree with most of what he says. But his tone is often condescending and it wouldn’t be hard for an outsider to perceive Dawkins as unreasonably hostile to religion.

It’s a lie. It’s all of it a lie. Atheists absolutely do not have sour dispositions, any more than the rest of the population. We are not stand-offish or unfriendly in the least.

Well, I spend a lot of time with a lot of different people. I find the opposite. Proportionally, I find that the atheists I know are more likely to be annoying and needlessly argumentative. Certainly not all of them are, and that’s not what I was arguing.

As far as being socially awkward goes… Brent, I say this with great affection, but go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty spike.

Well, in my circumstance it’s perceptively true. Sorry, chap. What do you want me to do? Deny the evidence? It’s not like I’m making this up. The fact that we have people within the atheist movement that spend a significant portion of their time justifying their unnecessarily hostile behavior is only evidence for this claim.

At this point, you’ve completely abandoned any kind of critical thinking and have just wholeheartedly embraced the same kind of ridiculous stereotyping that is enjoyed by anti-gay bigots and racists.

No, I’m not. I didn’t realize I was the same as an anti-gay bigot and a racist. Nor did I realize that’s what I was arguing for. I’m surprised you didn’t invoke the reducto-ad-hitlerum. Calling for a more careful approach to how we present our ideas is clearly tantamount to promulgating hatred. Obviously there’s no possible merit to the claim that atheists are often needlessly hostile.

This is the level of criticism we’re dealing with here. The kind of criticism that is happy to abandon any reasoned investigation into why black people are imprisoned at higher rates than whites, or why gay men have higher rates of HIV, and instead chalk it up to some kind of dispositional issue. It then becomes the job of the stereotyped group to fix the problem:

The world is hostile to our point of view, but that doesn’t mean we can’t carefully consider how we present our ideas. If we don’t, it’s not hard to see that we could end up shooting ourselves in the foot when we stand up for what we believe. And, unfortunately, some stereotypes are true, or have elements of truth to them. For example, the vast majority of super-rich and super-powerful people in the world are from certain countries. This is a fact, but it could also be a stereotype. Let me be clear that I’m not advocating stereotypes, rather, I’m pointing out that some have elements of truth to them, and that it might be pertinent to investigate. Another fact is that, in North America, the majority of the criminally incarcerated are males. This could easily be translated into any number of stereotypes.

Just because a claim is labeled a “stereotype” does not mean it doesn’t have elements of truth to it. I’m certainly not advocating racism or bigotry, what I am advocating is an investigation of the stereotype to understand how it is being promulgated and why. In this particular case, evidence from my everyday experience leads me to believe that the claim that some atheists are unnecessarily unfriendly and hostile is true, especially in regards to points of view they don’t agree with. Evidence from this blog has only strengthened that position. My point is that the hostility is, in many cases, not necessary, and that, in some cases, it’s actually profoundly counterproductive.

The completely false picture of atheists, or blacks, or gay people, or communists, or secularists, liberals, immigrants, etc. etc. etc. is one that is always based on an intentional mischaracterization of that group, from a position of privilege enjoyed by the majority group.

Again, some stereotypes have merit, others don’t. It seems rather ridiculous that it’s all some majority conspiracy. I’ll certainly agree that perhaps we are mischaracterized in some ways. For example, when we are called “baby-eaters,” or when people accuse us of having no morals. However, that doesn’t mean than any claims made against us have no merit. If we are accused of being hostile or caustic, I think there’s good reason to believe that there is merit to that claim.

Whenever someone disagrees with the majority position, if the argument can’t be defeated on its own merits, the next step is to demonize the minority group based on stereotypes – “It seems to me that many people in group X are like this…”

Sure, we are demonized, but that doesn’t mean we can’t carefully consider what we say and how we say it.

Since the majority have never come in contact with a member of the minority, they’re happy to buy into the idea that these people fit the stereotype. The lie then makes its way into the public conscience, becoming more and more popular, until members of the minority can’t even speak up on their issues without someone tagging them with completely false attributions.

But what if the claim has some merit? Then, presumably, some within the minority will be hostile to anyone who actually is willing to carefully investigate the claim to see if it has merit, and try to silence discussion on the issue. This is exactly what Crommunists response is.

The most frustrating part of all of this is when it comes from within the minority group itself. When we’re not fighting against bigotry coming from those who oppose us, but from those who are supposed to be our allies – happy to throw us under the bus in the name of appeasing the completely fraudulent stereotype of members of the majority who just want to be left alone.

Again, maybe that dissent from within the minority is actually legitimate, and shouldn’t be cast aside so lightly, or dismissed as a grand conspiracy.

Utter, elemental, pure mountain springs of crap. I’m ashamed to have anything of this type associated with me, and I will not allow it to pass uncontested.

Needless rhetoric. It amounts to “How dare you.” That’s the kind of silencing rhetoric I would attribute more to the religious than to atheists. But, in light of present evidence, perhaps I shouldn’t be so surprised when this kind of thing happens anymore.

Now I will consider Zak’s response

It seems silly having to defend atheism to atheists but c’est la vie.

I’m not attacking atheism. I’m attacking being unnecessarily hostile to people who disagree with our positions. Being hostile is not tantamount to being atheist, unless you accept that you have to be hostile to be an atheist, which is just silly, because you don’t.

And yet I tend to save my meanness for atheists, since I always thought they knew the difference between a heated debate and a type of emotionally filled bigotry I’m now apparently being accused.

I wasn’t accusing you, necessarily. But if you are been being a dick to people you disagree with, well then what can I say? Your probably aren’t going to make a positive difference if you are dismissive or rude to those whom you disagree with. You’ll feel good about yourself, but you aren’t building any bridges.

it’s unfortunate to see a new bunch of whining accommodationists getting some good press. Oh well, my thoughts are we can just pat them on the head and send them off to bed so that the grownups can keep talking.

Well I apologize for dissenting. I won’t speak up and say what I think next time, since it’s so very clear that your position is infallibly correct.

We have a prime minister who thanks his imaginary friend after every speech. I think that’s stupid and have no trouble calling him out on it. And yet the accommodationists want me to be polite, as if schizophrenia is something I should just ignore because it might make Stephen Harper feel bad.

I think it’s stupid too, but I’m not about to go shooting myself in the foot by presenting my view in a way that turns off everyone (besides atheists) to what I have to say. I don’t necessarily want you to be polite, I want you to stop pissing off people who would normally agree with us.

I can’t even buy into the notion that the new atheists are offensive. Religious people don’t have a problem with our so-called militant atheism. Any religious moderate worthy of the name realizes that writing books isn’t extreme. They may (and certainly do) disagree with our opinions but are fully capable of telling the difference between an extremist who writes a book critical of creationism in the classroom and one who blows himself up on a school bus.

It’s not what they think, it’s how they express what they think. If they are expressing what they think in a way that pisses off more people than it converts, then we aren’t making any progress.

While I realise that accommodationists aren’t bad people (many of my friends are accommodationists, ha), they don’t realise that by condemning me for expressing my opinion is tacit support for our mutual opponents.

Accomodationists are people too? Again, first of all, I’m not necessarily condemning you. And if I was, I wouldn’t be condemning you for expressing your opinion. Rather, I would be condemning you for the way you express what you think. If you are doing more harm than good when you express your opinions in a hostile way, perhaps it’s time to take a look at how you express yourself.

They think I am negatively affecting the cause by saying mean things about my religious friends. And yet, by not attacking the silliness and stupidity found in all religions, they’re denying that the cause even exists, which I find even more damaging and disturbing. Atheist activist groups have PR problems, we all know this, but fluffy feel good sentiments don’t attract donations or media attention.

I think there’s good evidence to support the claim that you are negatively affecting the cause if you are not considering how you go about challenging positions you don’t agree with. I’m not advocating that you stop attacking stupidity. I’m advocating that you do so in a way that doesn’t shoot us in the foot. Media coverage that will make us look like caustic assholes is not good media coverage.

Accommodationists know this and so should be shamed for attacking the only people trying to do something.

This is ridiculous. “Accomodationists” are just as committed to the cause as you are, they just want you to stop screwing it up for everyone.

Perhaps the whole debate boils down to simple jealousy. Anything Dawkins et al. publishes instantly becomes a bestseller while the lethargic boredom published by people like Paul Kurtz is read by no one. Yes, controversy sells, which is why the new atheists are successful. However, it’s also why the accommodationists have jumped on the bandwagon and gone after us. Because they have nothing interesting to say or anything new to add, the accommodationists have had to manufacture their own controversy in an attempt to become relevant.

Why would I be jealous of people who behave in a manner that not only unnecessarily pisses people off, but damages our cause in the process? This is poorly considered, at best.

So to all you accommodationists out there; I will patiently wait for you to grow up. You’re certainly welcome to hang around and do your thing but stay out of the fridge. The rest of us have bigger and better opponents to worry about.

It’s paradoxical that those arguing for a more carefully considered approach to how we do PR are the ones being told to “grow up.” And how should I grow up? Should I start swearing at those whom I disagree with? Should I call them stupid, or tell them to “grow up?”

I’m just as committed to atheism as you are. The bio in the authors section proves that. I just want to stop the inflammatory rhetoric that is shooting us in the foot.