@cityofprogress Since apparently we're still all having this discussion, I feel comfortable chiming in that this is a bullshit analogy. If a significant majority of the country golfed and loved golfing so much that a vocal minority of them tried to pass laws based on golfing principles despite clear separation of Country Club and State in the Constitution, I guarantee that there would be some sort of non-golfer support group. They wouldn't sit around discussing how much they don't golf, instead they'd discuss how their lives are impacted by living as non-golfers in a world where most people golf, expect them to golf, and in many cases look down on non-golfers for their lack of athletic inclination. I bet they'd call themselves a-TEE-ists because I like puns and this is my fictional reality, dammit.
For a real life example, how about we look at colleges with significant greek life? Sure, you don't have to join a fraternity/sorority, but that doesn't mean they don't potentially impact your college culture. If you're a GDI and think that frats are bad, is it possible that you might try to prevent a friend from joining one?
I don't think this concept is so difficult to grasp. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a really, really smart guy, but he failwhales pretty hard with his analogy here.
@Klathrin All I'm saying is that I think a lot of these macros seem, well, they seem like dickhead things to say. I happen to agree with most of what you've said here, which is that religion (or any ideology, for that matter) shouldn't be shoved down anyone's throat. I do not like laws that are passed to impose a belief system on others, and I find things like the Roman Catholic church getting organized to oppose contraception mandates highly offensive (especially given that I don't recall seeing any of those folks at the anti-war and anti-poverty actions that the rest of went to).
That said, let's be honest here: none of these macros that are being posted around in the name of atheism are done with the purpose of getting organized to keep religion out of government, or to make the case that maybe we should respect each others beliefs and not try to force others into the little boxes we've built for ourselves. The overwhelming tone of these images is that the people that have "discovered" atheism are clearly superior to those that hold some form of spiritual belief and those people are obviously dumb and unworthy of much more than derision and belittlement. It's insulting and not a little humiliating, and it does a tremendous disservice to your purported cause.
Look, I live in Chicago, and while there are plenty of churchin' types around these parts, pretty much everyone just leaves each other alone. But you know, I've lived in West Virginia, rural Ohio and northern Indiana as well, and I've known plenty of people of faith, at work, in neighborhood and on picket lines, that aren't at all like faithful people are portrayed in these images.
Lastly, I'll say that because such posts/images/statements paint the faithful with such a broad brush (and let's be honest here, that brush is aimed squarely at North American Christians, and isn't applied evenly to Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims or any of the other major world religions) that they wind up being downright ironic - they do the very thing that they claim to oppose, which is present a binary either/or view of the world and demand adherence to that viewpoint. I'm sorry if you've been persecuted in the past by people claiming religion as their reason, but I don't think that gives anyone the right belittle and humiliate someone else for their beliefs. It's unsophisticated at the least, and it's a jerk thing to do, especially when you're saying that you've been persecuted in the very same way in the past.
@cityofprogress I commented here specifically to point out my issue with this macro and rebut Neil DeGrasse Tyson's seeming perplexity with atheist gatherings. I think you might be arguing with the general community of responders here instead of just me, which makes it kind of tricky to respond.
1. I cannot speak for any other atheist, agnostic, humanist, non-theist, etc unless he or she has specifically told me his or her motives. A lot of casual ignorance spreads when people try to do that, so I don't think it's productive to ask one person why another person does something. People like Richard Dawkins have written whole books elaborating their positions, so I'd encourage you to read them if you're honestly interested in understanding the 'evangelical' atheist position. I'm not one of them, so I cannot answer for them. Nor can I answer for macro-generators or posters.
2. I don't think you're intentionally doing this, but the way you're coming off is to minimize atheist experiences and community diversity while focusing on the diversity of your own tribe. That's normal human behavior, but just like its rubbing you the wrong way, it's also rubbing us the wrong way. People tend to overemphasize their own tribe's differences while assuming other groups are homogenous.
3. These macros span a wide variety of attitudes and I suspect you're referring to the more offensive ones. There's a similar level of diversity in, say, Christian macros and literature (see: "fundies say the darndest things" for examples). Asshole comments are asshole comments, no matter who says them. Maybe there's more of a background here that I'm unaware of, but to me it seemed like you were bothered by the Ricky Gervais image and chose to ask why 'so many' atheists are trying to convert the religious. That was confusing to me, personally, because the image seemed pretty tame and a funny response to the privilege many religious people act on unwittingly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... for an example). I attempted to explain why atheists would post affirming messages for each other, because that's what that macro was. I wasn't defending anything else. If you found what was posted offensive, then that's something I'm willing to discuss with you and maybe we can see eye to eye. I think a lot of the confusion over on that image was most people didn't find the image offensive or an attempt at conversion, so your question came out of left field.
3. When discussing diverging viewpoints of individuals and groups, it's important to be very careful with phrases like "most" or even "a lot" without qualifying what those mean. I've attempted to be clear in saying "vocal minority" because generally that's who causes fights on both sides. I'm trying to respect the religious tribe, but to be honest, I don't necessarily feel like I'm receiving the same respect from you. I don't think that's intentional (or I hope it's not), but it's a byproduct of careless word choice. If I AM being belittling of your beliefs, let's discuss that--I don't mean to be! I just I need examples.
You're not the only one doing that sort of thing, but your image ended up in the popular feed and I saw it, so I'm responding to it. I don't mean to single you out.
I hope I'm not coming across as pedantic--I do value your opinion and would welcome a discussion, but it's hard to do when I feel like I have to defend my own viewpoints and everyone else's. If you specifically disagree with something I've said, then let's talk about that. I'm not Ricky Gervais, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or anyone else. I'm just some chick that likes cat gifs and dubstep.
@Klathrin That's cool. I'm sick of talking about this here on mlkshk. You or anyone else (@LocalStain, @feckless_animus, @blood23) find me on twitter, we'll do the whole DM thing and then we can do this discussion all proper-like via email.
We are all riding on the same bus and the driver is currently heading for a cliff. Most of the passengers don't believe in the cliff and think the driver has magic powers. We are out of time. We can no longer afford to indulge the delusions of the masses. It's time that those of us who recognize the reality of the cliff and the incompetence of the driver to step forward and take the wheel and the's no time to be polite or patient. This is end game, folks.
No, wait. Dafuq are you even talking about, @blood23?
Who's the bus driver? Obama? We used to think he had magic powers, but most of us have recovered from that delusion by now. And the cliff? Economic collapse? Environmental meltdown? These aren't theistic problems. Greed? Ignorance? Arrogance? Selfishness? We're all afflicted by them, theist and atheist alike.
For a real life example, how about we look at colleges with significant greek life? Sure, you don't have to join a fraternity/sorority, but that doesn't mean they don't potentially impact your college culture. If you're a GDI and think that frats are bad, is it possible that you might try to prevent a friend from joining one?
I don't think this concept is so difficult to grasp. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a really, really smart guy, but he failwhales pretty hard with his analogy here.
spot on
That said, let's be honest here: none of these macros that are being posted around in the name of atheism are done with the purpose of getting organized to keep religion out of government, or to make the case that maybe we should respect each others beliefs and not try to force others into the little boxes we've built for ourselves. The overwhelming tone of these images is that the people that have "discovered" atheism are clearly superior to those that hold some form of spiritual belief and those people are obviously dumb and unworthy of much more than derision and belittlement. It's insulting and not a little humiliating, and it does a tremendous disservice to your purported cause.
Look, I live in Chicago, and while there are plenty of churchin' types around these parts, pretty much everyone just leaves each other alone. But you know, I've lived in West Virginia, rural Ohio and northern Indiana as well, and I've known plenty of people of faith, at work, in neighborhood and on picket lines, that aren't at all like faithful people are portrayed in these images.
Lastly, I'll say that because such posts/images/statements paint the faithful with such a broad brush (and let's be honest here, that brush is aimed squarely at North American Christians, and isn't applied evenly to Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims or any of the other major world religions) that they wind up being downright ironic - they do the very thing that they claim to oppose, which is present a binary either/or view of the world and demand adherence to that viewpoint. I'm sorry if you've been persecuted in the past by people claiming religion as their reason, but I don't think that gives anyone the right belittle and humiliate someone else for their beliefs. It's unsophisticated at the least, and it's a jerk thing to do, especially when you're saying that you've been persecuted in the very same way in the past.
1. I cannot speak for any other atheist, agnostic, humanist, non-theist, etc unless he or she has specifically told me his or her motives. A lot of casual ignorance spreads when people try to do that, so I don't think it's productive to ask one person why another person does something. People like Richard Dawkins have written whole books elaborating their positions, so I'd encourage you to read them if you're honestly interested in understanding the 'evangelical' atheist position. I'm not one of them, so I cannot answer for them. Nor can I answer for macro-generators or posters.
2. I don't think you're intentionally doing this, but the way you're coming off is to minimize atheist experiences and community diversity while focusing on the diversity of your own tribe. That's normal human behavior, but just like its rubbing you the wrong way, it's also rubbing us the wrong way. People tend to overemphasize their own tribe's differences while assuming other groups are homogenous.
3. These macros span a wide variety of attitudes and I suspect you're referring to the more offensive ones. There's a similar level of diversity in, say, Christian macros and literature (see: "fundies say the darndest things" for examples). Asshole comments are asshole comments, no matter who says them. Maybe there's more of a background here that I'm unaware of, but to me it seemed like you were bothered by the Ricky Gervais image and chose to ask why 'so many' atheists are trying to convert the religious. That was confusing to me, personally, because the image seemed pretty tame and a funny response to the privilege many religious people act on unwittingly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... for an example). I attempted to explain why atheists would post affirming messages for each other, because that's what that macro was. I wasn't defending anything else. If you found what was posted offensive, then that's something I'm willing to discuss with you and maybe we can see eye to eye. I think a lot of the confusion over on that image was most people didn't find the image offensive or an attempt at conversion, so your question came out of left field.
3. When discussing diverging viewpoints of individuals and groups, it's important to be very careful with phrases like "most" or even "a lot" without qualifying what those mean. I've attempted to be clear in saying "vocal minority" because generally that's who causes fights on both sides. I'm trying to respect the religious tribe, but to be honest, I don't necessarily feel like I'm receiving the same respect from you. I don't think that's intentional (or I hope it's not), but it's a byproduct of careless word choice. If I AM being belittling of your beliefs, let's discuss that--I don't mean to be! I just I need examples.
You're not the only one doing that sort of thing, but your image ended up in the popular feed and I saw it, so I'm responding to it. I don't mean to single you out.
I hope I'm not coming across as pedantic--I do value your opinion and would welcome a discussion, but it's hard to do when I feel like I have to defend my own viewpoints and everyone else's. If you specifically disagree with something I've said, then let's talk about that. I'm not Ricky Gervais, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or anyone else. I'm just some chick that likes cat gifs and dubstep.
*rimshot*
@Klathrin Dubstep you say?
Who's the bus driver? Obama? We used to think he had magic powers, but most of us have recovered from that delusion by now. And the cliff? Economic collapse? Environmental meltdown? These aren't theistic problems. Greed? Ignorance? Arrogance? Selfishness? We're all afflicted by them, theist and atheist alike.
Is this you: http://www.youtube.com/watch...
I kid. Really. Just trying to lighten it up in here.