Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
"I never met an atheist I could like."
Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo is Professor of Puerto Rican and Latino Studies at Brooklyn College and Distinguished Scholar of the City University of New York.
He also really, really dislikes atheists.
Today in the "On Faith" section of the Washington Post, Prof. Stevens-Arroyo tears into his carefully-constructed strawman "atheist" with a fervor and religious gusto that ends up showing his true colors as a bigot.
[Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo] I never met an atheist I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven’t bumped into one yet.
The atheists who have crossed my path are obnoxious. They create the world in their own image and likeness, where only they are right or reasonable, and everyone else is either a fool or fanatic.
Prof. Stevens-Arroyo goes on to define an "atheist" as someone who is certain that a god or gods do not exist. This is what us atheists call a "strong atheist" or a "gnostic atheist". Some would even go so far as to call them "anti-theists".
However, that is not what the word "atheist" means. Atheists are simply human beings in which god-belief is absent - for any reason whatsoever. Conversely, "theists" are human beings in which god-belief is present.
More below the flip...
This is a simple binary equation. Either god-belief is present, or it is absent.
The words "atheism" and "theism" refer to the presence or absence of god-belief in human beings. They refer to god belief. Period. The end.
The words "gnostic" and "agnostic" refer to whether or not knowledge of the existence of a god or gods is even possible.
"Atheist" and "theist" deal with belief. "Gnostic" and "agnostic" deal with knowledge. Two completely separate areas.
Therefore it is possible to be both and agnostic and an atheist. I consider myself to be such a person. In me, god-belief is not present. Plus, I also do not think that knowledge of a god or gods existence is even possible.
A couple of years ago I drew up a chart to demonstrate this:
This is where the bigoted professor screws the metaphorical pooch in his rant against his imaginary evil, obnoxious atheist scumbags.
Atheists do not adhere to any dogma as atheists. There is no such thing as an "atheist dogma". It does not exist. Saying that it does makes Prof. Stevens-Arroyo sound like an idiot. It is like saying that bald people have a "dogma". "Bald" is a description, not a religion. Atheism is also simply a description, not a religion.
Prof. Stevens-Arroyo seems to be looking for a scapegoat. Someone to blame the ills of the world on as he sees them.
Atheists are easy targets. We are poorly-organized, few in number, and generally try to stay the hell out of the spotlight because of bigots like Stevens-Arroyo.
[Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo] You can’t have a dialogue (sic) with dogmatic atheists. Because they are so sure they know everything, they never listen to intelligent people.
"Those dirty atheists will get what's coming to them, by God!"
Jesus fucking Christ on a pogo-stick, Prof. Stevens-Arroyo. It's theocratic, wannabe prison camp guards like you who put atheists on the defensive to begin with. We become defensive, and yes, aggressive, out of necessity. By being backed into the corner by wild-eyed religious wackjobs like yourself. People who would just as soon round us all up as "enemies of the state" and ship us off to re-education camps where we could be forced to accept the free gift of Christ's perfect love - or else.
[Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo] Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven’t bumped into one yet.
I guarantee you've "bumped into" many thousands of friendly atheists - who keep their lack of belief in your crazy, vengeful war-god a secret because they are afraid of you and people like you.
A good friend of mine, Hank Fox, commented the other day that he had a happy thought:
[Hank Fox] What if the current upsurge in religion we're all witnessing in the U.S. is a mere demographic bubble? Think about it: The Baby Boomer generation is getting old enough to care about their immortality, and maybe the weight of their money and attention has shifted the social balance in that direction. I've been convinced for other reasons that all this godding is temporary, but this gave me a believable mechanism for a coming ebb in religiosity.
Another happy thought is that, given the backlash growing in the scientific and secular communities, people who have become alarmed and active about religious triumphalism in the U.S., this may be the LAST such upsurge.
I think that Hank may be on to something. Hopefully, Prof. Stevens-Arroyo, you and your hateful, bigoted ilk will be last seen on the face of this planet for a generation or two.
That is if we can get through this current atheist witch-hunt.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Proud Atheists
I'm a silent Atheist but will get on the defense if one tries to push their religion on me,I don't go around trying to convert people to be atheist and I think that the so called christians should keep there religion in their church where it belongs.
Bent Rasmussen
Moron! 26,000 children starved to death today. I'm sure you have a lame excuse for your deity. You would be Hindu if you were born in India, Mormon in Utah..... do you get the picture, dumb ass? Religion.... its just a virus of the mind. Have a wonderful day .... Happy Atheists :)
:)
"The atheists who have crossed my path are obnoxious. They create the world in their own image and likeness, where only they are right or reasonable, and everyone else is either a fool or fanatic."
Sounds to me like God is an atheist :)
You proved the professor right.
Since you describe yourself as an atheist, you kind of prove the professor right, because you were pretty mean in your essay. You blew up just like the professor said you would.
I don't think you really proved anything other than that atheists really do jump at people's throats when people get something wrong about the particulars of atheism. Christians get mad when you paint them as "wild-eyed religious wackjobs". And I'm sure Muslims get mad when they're painted as terrorists. Or Jews get offended when you ask if they really have sex through a sheet.
missed a few words... and the point
You left out a few words when quoting Brent, and in doing so, supported his post more than the professor's rant. He said "wild-eyed religious wackjobs like yourself [the professor]". He didn't say that everyone who is religious is a wackjob. This is in direct contrast to the professor who lumped all atheists into the same "obnoxious" basket.
If you're going to take offense to anything, it should be the "vengeful-war god" comment, but that can be supported with plenty of evidence from Old Testament, among other sources. One thing I think most atheists have in common is the understanding of the difference between the words "all" and "most".
Never met an atheist I liked
I can personally attest to the fact that Brent is nice, polite and friendly person who is quick to help others. Brent took more than an hour out of his busy work day to help me with a computer problem. He didn't ask for money. He didn't ask me to worship him. He didn't threaten me with eternal damnation if I didn't obey. The funny thing is, most atheists I know, are just like Brent.
Was Brent mean in his essay? I guess a little, but that is what UTI is for. We don't go around yelling at people in person for the constant misunderstandings of what atheism is and is not. We save our ranting for UTI! UTI is a community of people who understand each other and share common experiences. Brent was blowing off steam and I fully understand because I've been there.
So don't take too much offense to Brents essay, I am sure he would stop and give the professor a hand if he had a flat tire without letting on his lack of god belief. And the next day, the professor would still be bitching about atheists.
Good answer, wrong question
Did you notice this over at Evolving Thoughts?
I left a couple of comments there and then went over to another blog by a fellow commenter from which I will now totally plagiarise myself
--
Ponies are atheists, you know, technically.
mirror anyone?
I suspect that what Mr. Arroyo is seeing in atheists he meets is a reflection of what those atheists are seeing in him. Their militant atheism is probably simpy a reaction to his militant theism.
Unlikable people are easy to spot
'thing is, the most unlikable people of any group - atheist, Christian, Democrat, or union member - are the most prominent. Unlikable people are the ones in your face, the ones who won't listen or try to find any common ground. They're the loudest in every respect. Doesn't make them wrong, but it does make them easy to spot.
Likable people listen, withhold judgment, find common ground, explore differences respectfully. There are fewer of them, and they make less noise. You might look at a group and miss them.
So it's easy to believe all feminists are humorless assholes, or all atheists will jump all over you for saying "merry christmas" to them. A likable person would develop the habit of looking past unlikable people to focus on issues.
Something tells me Anthony Stevens-Arroyo isn't very likable.
Fruit of the Gods
[ Brent, I wrote the following after reading only the top half of your post. Nothing I say below is intended to argue with your definitions for “agnostic” or “atheist.” I was riffing on a popular, and as you say, mistaken, view of the words. Still, there’s some meat here, I think, so I’m gonna post it now and think about reconciling the two thoughts later. ]
The argument may be longer than I can post here, but I think ALL agnostics would end up being atheists – and all atheists would be anti-theists – if they really thought about it.
As I've written elsewhere, I happen to KNOW there is no Batman. Talking about THE Batman, the Gotham City crimefighter, he just doesn't exist. I don't wonder about it, I don't waffle and say "Well, somewhere out there in the Universe, there might be Batman." I KNOW. The superhero comics character created in 1939 by Bob Kane, the one defined by all the attached identifiers -- works with Robin, has a Batcave, is a rich guy with a butler named Alfred, responds to the Bat Signal, etc. -- that guy doesn't exist, and never did. I KNOW it.
In the same way, it's possible to peel open any claim you hear for God or gods, and find nothing inside. For any specific description of a god, it's possible to KNOW the thing doesn't exist.
The first part of that knowledge is a close look at who's saying it, what they're saying, and how they claim to know it.
"The God I'm talking about is the one who ordered Noah to build an Ark and take two or more of every living thing on Earth aboard to survive a worldwide flood." Okay, that god doesn't exist. Never did. I can say this with perfect certainty, and so can anybody else who actually THINKS about the claim. Nope, sorry, no alternate universes, no "out there somewhere beyond human knowledge," none of that stuff gets a pass. The claim is specific, and the specific claim is absolutely impossible and false.
The glib statement “You can’t prove a negative” pops up over and over in discussions about gods, and people who would otherwise be firm atheists back away from it and protectively chant “I’m an agnostic, I’m an agnostic, I’m an agnostic.” Most of us accept it and back away without even thinking about it.
Yet the entire body of argument for the existence of gods depends on things PEOPLE say. And those claims are either SPECIFIC, or FUZZY.
Fuzzy claims constitute no claim at all: “Well, like, I believe in God because I feel him in my soul” makes no real statement about the existence of a god. On the specific claim of god-existence, there is no substance to engage. It’s not necessary to refute the claim, because there IS no claim (other than that this guy “believes” something).
Specific claims, however, have something to get your teeth into. A specific claim is like a piece of fruit – in the real world you don’t just get the fruit, you get the twig, the branch, the trunk, the roots of the tree which bears it.
Considering we’re talking about something some PERSON said, you don’t have to search the entire universe to reach the negative conclusion. If the person saying the thing didn’t go to the ends of the universe to establish the claim, the person listening doesn’t have to go to the ends of the universe to know that it’s false.
The guy making the claim doesn’t get to describe an imaginary fruit and force you to buy a bushel basket of it because YOU can’t find its roots. HE has to provide those roots. If the claim has no roots, the claim has no fruit.
On the human scale, and in everyday life, some things really can be proven to be untrue.
If you say to me specifically “There are 3,000 pencils on your desk right now,” all I have to do is LOOK to know that the statement is false. There are exactly two pencils on my desk right now, not 3,000. I can make the negative claim “There are NOT 3,000 pencils on my desk right now,” AND I CAN PROVE IT.
Given that we live in a real world, you CAN prove a negative statement.
Batman does not exist. There are not 3,000 pencils on my desk right now. Fruit does not pop into existence without a tree.
And ... based on every SPECIFIC claim I ever heard for the existence of White Shell Woman, or Coyote, or Quetzlcoatl, or Zeus, or Loviatar, or Jehovah, or God, or the Big Magic Juju Guy ... none of those things are real. None of them exist now, or ever existed. No roots, no fruit.
Atheists have willingly enslaved themselves to the will of godders, the enforced self-identification as agnostics – the stance of “well, nobody can really know, so keep doing what you’re doing” – through fear of the “you can’t prove a negative” phantom.
Godders have spent probably the past 20,000 years and more running around screaming about the delicious fruit they imagine, forcibly ordering all our lives on the basis of that fruit’s existence, and the rest of us have let them – because we never thought to demand a look at the roots.
You can prove a negative. You only have to look at the real world.
Agnostics and atheists are all really atheists. Some of us just haven’t thought about it enough.
Followup on likable atheists
On the subject of likable atheists, I was seated next to a teacher/principal of a Seventh Day Adventist Christian academy on a flight back from California in November. We talked for about two hours about our respective beliefs, and discovered great swaths of agreement on morals, compassion, pet care, tattooing, television, the fact that Pat Robertson is an insane prick, etc. At one point I jokingly said “I’m a lot less evil than you’d expect, huh?” And she agreed! She’d never talked to one single real atheist before.
I kinda wonder about the approach most of us take in dealing with religious people. Most of the time when the subject comes up, we're on the defensive ... because we’re REACTING to an actual assault. Maybe that’s why some of “those” people see us as angry and disagreeable.
I’ve discovered that if I’m the one to bring up the subject first, in a non-confrontational way, I have more freedom to guide whatever talk ensues. Since there is no attack on me, I don’t have to feel defensive, or get angry – and a truer picture of my usually reasonable, friendly nature is revealed.
When this lady approached my row of seats and asked “Is that seat taken?” I joked “No, you’re welcome to sit here ... as long as you don’t mind that I’m an insurance agent, an Amway representative, and a Christian evangelist.” She laughed and shot back “Well, maybe I can tell you about MY personal relationship with the creator.” We chuckled about that, and after we got settled and the plane took off, I smiled and said “You know you’re sitting next to an atheist?”
At the end of two hours, I think I had significantly changed her picture of what an atheist might be like, and how they think.
Now...
...don't go picking on BM JuJu Guy, Hank. He'll getchya.
I think that you're dead-on in how to approach those conversations. Yeah, you can jump in someone's face over their irrational beliefs...or you can stick to discussions about the practical aspects of morality and ethics, and once that you've established that you're a sane and sensible person, then tell them you're an atheist (of whatever flavor - I like Brent's analysis and model, fall into the same quadrant that he does).
I find that through my behaviour and "works" in the world, I earn the respect and credit of people. When they find out that I am an atheist (I don't wear it on my sleeve, but neither do I shy away from discussing it), it forces them to re-assess their own prejudices in the matter. Particularly if I've just done a full restoration of their 150 year-old family bible or something, the irony is rather savory.
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
Jeez.
You can touch BIBLES??
Every time I try it, my hands catch fire and my head spins around.
...
(Just FYI: I created the Big Magic Juju Guy. He'll never catch on like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but he serves as a comic foil anytime I myself want to write or talk about deities.)
*shrug*
*shrug* It's what I do (I'm a rare book and document conservator. Website here.) OK, not just Bibles, but even after I raised my rates and instituted a minimum, I still wind up working on some family bibles and even more interesting religious items. (Once worked on a leaf from the Gutenberg bible - now, there's a piece of history!)
Of course, I did do some work on someone's first edition of Madonna's "X" some years back, as well. Funny what people will pay for...
Oh, man, that hurts! See, I wear special gloves...
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
I certainly feel sorry for
I certainly feel sorry for any students that takes classes from this jackass or have to work with him in other ways. He most certainly has several atheist students. I guess they know where they stand.
I am
I am also an agnostic atheist or as my wife likes to call us, "scientific atheists" due to how we choose between what is real and what is fantasy (the scientific method).
I'd like to address this part of the Prof's rant, "...only they are right or reasonable, and everyone else is either a fool or fanatic." For my part, this quote is necessarily true. It doesn't (necessarily) make me instantly hostile to those people whose beliefs I find foolish or fanatical but I DO find godders beliefs to be foolish and/or fanatical!
I guess they give partial credit?
"...only they are right or reasonable, and everyone else is either a fool or fanatic."
I've always wondered how the people who use this sort of argument explain all the other religions all over the world. They accuse atheists of believing every religion is wrong, which I can't really argue with. But does that imply then that they, by contrast, give partial credit? Do they keep score?
--
Ponies are atheists, you know, technically.