1. 
   Nadine
   June 2nd, 2008 on 8:01 pm

   I’m a Dawkinsite. My dad gave me The Blind Watchmaker on my 12th birthday and I’ve loved him ever since. Though I do agree that sometimes he is a bit too harsh. I like to keep the nonbelief light. For instance, if someone has a problem that people would normally pray about, my boyfriend and I always say I’ll e-mail Dawkins for advice instead.
   HILARITY!
2. 
   Ryan
   June 2nd, 2008 on 9:38 pm

   Dawkins annoys me in the same way the fundies do. You must be living some sort of deficient, far from full life if you have some sort of religious faith. It’s very much a form of aggressive evangelism. Seems a little patriarchal, if you ask me.
3. Friendly Atheist » Annoying Atheists
   June 3rd, 2008 on 5:01 pm

   [...] Katie Kish (an atheist herself) offers a list of reasons atheists annoy her. [...]
4. 
   Brayton J. Cameron
   June 3rd, 2008 on 6:55 pm

   Oh Katie Kish, I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been working on a continuing blog series called “Just because I’m an atheist…” for a while. The first installment is called “Just because I’m an atheist doesn’t mean I like science.” Anyway, this was great, and I’m right there with you. Thank you for posting this.
5. 
   PaulK
   June 3rd, 2008 on 8:14 pm

   I agree. Modern atheist annoy me too. Why? One reason you left off the list. Condescension! I get so tired of the smug, more enlightened than thou attitude.

   I don’t call myself an atheist because I don’t ‘know’ that there is no god and neither do they. I don’t see a compelling reason to believe so I don’t but I cannot and will not call those who do idiots. There are a lot of very intelligent and educated people who believe in a god. Everyone has their own reasons and experiences.

   I know the arguments against religion and a lot of them I agree with, but - enough already. Religion is not going anywhere.
6. 
   Charles
   June 3rd, 2008 on 8:14 pm

   FYI, Google/Firefox 3 claims that your site spreads malware, etc. You should probably get that looked at.
7. 
   Wondermachine
   June 3rd, 2008 on 9:15 pm

   What a great list. I really appreciate your putting all of this down.
   It speaks of a well-reasoned, balanced, sane view of belief and inquiry. Not ego-based but really about the kind social needs of being “curious laughing breathing flesh” (to use Walt Whitman’s line) — the desire to live a deeper life.

   I tend to agree with you on Dawkins. I do think he’s brilliant and he’s helpful in exploring or teaching about truth (and untruth) but he’s not helpful for people gingerly stepping out. I can only imagine he’d be a horribly bad professor. I tend to think that Dawkins, and Hitchens ( a bit less so Harris but I’ll get to him in a bit) are smart people who have really sh*tty social skills. You just know they wouldn’t be a lot of fun to be around.
   Harris I tend to give a bit more leeway too. He’s written and spoken about the need for a spiritual sense to our atheism. The exact words are escaping me here but he’s talked about the need for community and for a deeper sense of life. I think he’s really growing and changing in his approach and that’s another sign of a truly curious mind.

   Anyway, thanks again for posting this list. By doing this you’ve started creating another way of living as an atheist (or the term I like using) “secular wondrist.” I’m all about the wonder of things.
8. 
   Sabrina
   June 3rd, 2008 on 9:47 pm

   Anyone who thinks you can stand “lightly” against religion…or not oppose it at all…has never been trapped in a cult religion or had close relatives who have! The hippy outlook (everything is rose colored) only works in THEORY. We live in a world where Islamists REALLY DO blow themselves up for “allah” and cults REALLY DO brainwash children and mentally handicap them.

   If you think Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc are “too harsh” then you are naive…plain and simple.
9. 
   Christ Davis
   June 3rd, 2008 on 11:47 pm

   I have been feeling a tension that I thought was boredom with atheism, but I can recognize some of the unformed feelings I have been circling this year. My own writing stopped a while ago because I couldn’t come up with anything that felt fresh. The snarky attitude of so many bloggers is enervating. I am an atheist, but that has been true for so long that it should not be the only lens I view the world through.

   Thanks for posting your list. I never heard of you before this, but I’ll bookmark you.

   By the way, the warning from Firefox/Google is nothing. If you check the reasons for the block all of the categories are z’ed out. It’s likely a bug that will be fixed soon enough.
10. 
    Christ Davis
    June 3rd, 2008 on 11:48 pm

    Or you can change the setting under security preferences in Firefox.
11. 
    James W.
    June 4th, 2008 on 2:47 am

    I completely agree with you on #3. So many non-atheists think that these guys represent all there is about atheism: being pissed off, militant, and derisive (oh and condescending too). I know a number of atheists, myself included, who want nothing to do with these talking heads who create controversy for controversy’s sake. It’s as if someone did something nasty to their favorite breakfast food and gave them a very dead horse to beat.

    I’ve even been told I’m *not* an atheist for thinking differently than these guys. Say what? I didn’t realize I had a social norm to fit into rather than wanting to be left alone and not proselytized to.
12. 
    Matt Penfold
    June 4th, 2008 on 1:48 pm

    Tell you what Katie, write a book. Put forward your views on atheism and we can see how well you do against all those atheists who have written books you don’t like.
13. 
    Tim Stevens
    June 4th, 2008 on 2:41 pm

    Oh Snap,

    Larry Moran’s got no time for your list.

    That must burn
14. 
    Chaitanya Mangalmurti
    June 4th, 2008 on 3:24 pm

    I enjoyed your fresh outlook…sort of a forest gump way of looking at atheism, (not meant to be a comparison of derision, but one of fresh honesty)
    Regards
15. 
    katie kish
    June 4th, 2008 on 5:00 pm

    “If you think Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc are “too harsh” then you are naive…plain and simple.”

    OR

    i want them to respect those who aren’t members of a cult.

    “Tell you what Katie, write a book. Put forward your views on atheism and we can see how well you do against all those atheists who have written books you don’t like.”

    Letters to a christian nation is one of my favorite books.

    thanks to everyone else for the support - im glad that some people caught hold of the points i was trying to make. a lot of people are telling me to just “stop” hanging out with atheists then.

    the fact of the matter is that im really into the movement, and i like being a part of it. i am EXTREMELY commited to promoting secularism and am invovled with a various number of secular organizations. I’m sorry if I can’t always hold back and talk about the pretty things.
16. 
    Hugo
    June 4th, 2008 on 5:31 pm

    Why are people so anti-contrarianism? It’s the same kind of attitude that stops people from trying to improve their church/religion by challenging their teachings, and it reeks of fundamentalism to me.

    I love contrarianism! I love streching thinking. I love Point of Inquiry podcasts that go against the flow, even if they turn out to be outright wrong. Challenging material that makes you re-examine your perspectives are good. That’s how science develops after all. Challenge that theory, be open to challenges, and then grow from the experience.

    Um, let me stop, I’m ranting as well…
17. 
    kanaada
    June 4th, 2008 on 11:56 pm

    Katie, I am a Hindu and agree with many of the ideas held by our current day atheists. But I am not an atheist or a theist. My favourite Hindu schools of thought, Samkhya, and Nyaya Vaisesika = have no room for a notion such as theism or god. Atheism and agnosticism are actually religious positions. According to the classic Christo-Islamic model of the human being, the path runs from atheism thru agnosticism to theism. An atheist is simply fighting god, while accepting his presence. I see absolutely no reason why scientists should waste so much time on a pseudo-phenomenon such as religion or a mares nest such as god. The scientific method is very clear on what you can work with. god and theism aren’t proper matters of study for scientists.
18. 
    Freelancer
    June 5th, 2008 on 2:08 am

    I originally commented on this at Hemant Mehta’s Friendly Atheist in his post that did a trackback to this one. His comment page contained a lot of opinions that seemed antithetical to what one would expect of a Friendly Atheist (or his readers), so whether ill-advised or not, I’m going to cross-post/cross-comment here on this thread too:

    Just a few points.

    - For Kate, as a leader who lives and breathes this, it must be grating from time to time. She didn’t preface that she was venting, but she did mention midway through the list that the context of her post should be considered a light-hearted rant, just blowing off some steam. I live in the Midwest, North of the Bible Belt, and as a student who is and has been economically bound to this area for most of my life, I find an apt metaphor in cataloging the attributes and the annoyances of the places you live. When you live in a certain place, you appreciate certain things about it, but you can’t help but take stock of the vexing, inevitably frustrating aspects of your own local geography.

    -To emphasize the point that I am not a sock-puppet of Kate’s, nor have I ever read anything she has written before: with respect to the content of her post, I find argument with several items on her list. I may disagree with Dawkins once in a while, I find that his background can be a detriment when advocating science, particularly theists when discussing the subject of evolution. However, that is a Public Relations issue of how best to broach the subject of atheism into a theistic Popular Culture. I have NEVER found him annoying, and I’ve never found fault with any of his scientifically based conclusions. Hitchens, I find, I agree with many of his main theses and his prose is sublime, however, his advocacy that the Western World rip the Middle East from the medieval customs of Islam by gunpoint, well, I have a few negative opinions about that. My point is that even the Four Horsemen don’t think in unison, but when they express their thoughts, all atheists tend to, if not agree, then understand. I don’t presume to speak for Hemant, but I think even the Friendly Atheist knows there is a point when intolerance becomes dogma, but too much tolerance dilutes the strength of ideas.

    -Finally, some of you above have ripped Kate a new one, in what sounds to me as a “No True Scotsman” fallacy, which is so often applied to our theist counterparts. Most of us, I would hope, have the humility and open-mindedness to not take ourselves too seriously, and to acknowledge that yes, its okay for the godless to bitch about something OTHER than the non-godless. Something in Kate’s post I admired was the outright willingness, the freedom she felt to post her opinions (good and bad) about those who share her worldview. Could we even IMAGINE the repercussions if a Bishop of a Catholic Diocese released an Edict called “10 things that piss me off about the Vatican”, or if Focus on the Family published a list that said “10 things that chafe my ass about Republican Pro-Lifers”.

    This is why I’m glad to be an atheist, what some of you call a “Freethinker”.
    There seems to be no great atheism fatwa on Kate, just some name calling, bruised feelings, and minor nitpicking. There will be no death threats, or boycotts, or a campaign to have her resign from CFI. She spoke her mind, has defended it as tongue-in-cheek, and even as an individual who disagrees with her on several points (though I can almost be certain that most of those points have an anecdote or two to go along with them), I know that she was just venting, and not submitting them as scientific evidence.

    Anyways, I’ve found I’ve written much more about this subject than I had intended to (as always), so I’m going to end here.

    Peace,
    Nick
19. 
    The Celtic Chimp
    June 5th, 2008 on 11:47 am

    my next boyfriend needs to be a feminist.

    Hey babe,
    if your hot enough and know how to shake that thang I’ll be your feminist

    Well you did say you wanted to take things less seriously…..
20. 
    McMama
    June 5th, 2008 on 2:12 pm

    YES! Thank you. Much of this is what I’ve been thinking pretty much since paying attention to the atheistic/secularist “movement.” I love me some rational thinkers, but man.
21. 
    Ted Goas
    June 5th, 2008 on 4:16 pm

    I liked your article. As an agnostic atheist, I probably agree with more than you might assume.

    Lectures and conferences, mmmm, don’t agree with you there. Not too many gatherings or preaching sessions.

    Dawkins, while I agree with much of what he says, usually comes off as an arrogant jerk. He seems very confrontational and even insulting. But he’s often taken waaayy out of context (such as in Expelled)

    Level of Seriousness and Positive Outlook - Imagine what it’s like to be less than 5% of the American population (not sure what the global percentage is). It’s tough to have anything but a grim outlook when so much of the world embraces religion, sometimes fundamentally. And some of the crazier ones try prying into schools, governments, and the justice system. We have to be serious…

    Closed minded?!?!? I hope you’re joking… Maybe the few hardcore atheists (which account for less than a quarter of atheists) are close minded. Theists are far and away more close-minded. Both parties are guilty.

    Sounds like your problem is with hardcore atheists who are sure there’s no God and are just as loud and evangelical as some theists, though. Is that right? Didn’t mean to go off on a tangent there. I see your Scarlet A and all… It was a bit tough to if you’re playing devil’s advocate.
22. 
    Katie Kish
    June 6th, 2008 on 10:44 pm

    Nick - i deeply appreciate your comment here, and at hemant’s blog. i think that you’re someone who is seeing past all the nitty gritty and really looking at what i’m saying, and why i’m saying what i am. I especially like this…

    “Could we even IMAGINE the repercussions if a Bishop of a Catholic Diocese released an Edict called “10 things that piss me off about the Vatican”, or if Focus on the Family published a list that said “10 things that chafe my ass about Republican Pro-Lifers”.”

    great point.

    Chimp - I don’t date monkies.

    Ted - I guess I need to explain the “closed minded” thing a bit further for you. Many of my “liberal” friends go ape shit when they see an anti-abortion ad. They are closed minded to that state of mind. Some of my atheist friends see religious people as wasting their time - they can’t see the other side - they can’t open their mind and even begin to understand why some people are religious - why they need to be religions or why they want to be. that is what i meant by closed minded - it seems far too often it’s “the atheists way or you’re not worth my time” to many atheists.
23. 
    THz
    June 7th, 2008 on 2:16 pm

    You’ve made PZ’s blog now. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/scienceblogs/pharyngula/~3/306905238/formal_complaint.php
24. 
    biopunk
    June 7th, 2008 on 2:24 pm

    Argh! Katie, Chimps are Apes, not Monkeys! Science understanding fails again… and two blogging secularists remain single. What a terrible world we exist in.
25. 
    Hank Fox
    June 7th, 2008 on 2:24 pm

    You guys.

    I wonder how many early African-Americans had the problem of backpressure from their own race when they started speaking out for freedom and greater rights.

    It’s too EARLY to be listing all the bad traits of outspoken atheists.

    Far as I’m concerned, Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers are wonderful, wonderful human beings. All those people who describe them as “strident,” “hateful”, “fundamentalist,” etc., are drinking the other side’s Kool-Aid.

    They’re sedate academics who are daring to speak out, at long last, about something that should have been said a thousand years ago.

    If you compare anything Dawkins or Myers EVER said to the stuff that comes out of the Christian camp DAILY — on broadcast media, even — my guys are pussycats.

    Any closedmindedness on this side of the line is the closedmindedness of not wanting to compromise any longer on the recognition of the basic human right to live in a society of reasoning people, rather than living under fundie freakazoids who want the rest of us to subject ourselves to their rules, however literally insane those rules are.

    Get a grip and look at the larger social context we face. Many of us, if we lived in the middle East, would be murdered for what we believe or know. And we don’t even have to live in the middle East, we just have to let the fundies have their way here, and we’ll see direct threats in short order.

    The problem here is that some of us have been so rich and safe for so long, we can’t clearly see the real threat. You think Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson wouldn’t have people rounded up and imprisoned or killed, if they’d felt they could get away with it? Gays, lesbians, abortion providers, atheists? Heh - they’d do it for 14 hours a day and sleep well every night.
26. 
    Ric
    June 7th, 2008 on 2:32 pm

    And your take on Dawkins et. al (”They’re fundies too!”) is so shallow and so wrong as to make me disregard pretty much everything you say.
27. 
    Matt Penfold
    June 7th, 2008 on 2:36 pm

    Katie,

    Do you intend to follow through with this ?

    Only if you want to criticise Dawkins et as not speaking for you, then it is down to you to get out there and make your case. Just complaining in your blog about them is not really going to do it.

    Oh, and when you do, please ensure you make it clear you do not speak for me.
28. 
    Brenda
    June 7th, 2008 on 2:37 pm

    It should be retitled “Why Scientific Fundamentalists Annoy Me” Perhaps a bit of Zizek may be what the doctor ordered.

    Materialism and Theology
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9S3vvPe9IM&feature=user

    The Euthanasia of Tolerant Reason
    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CC33DCAF8F3FF8C2

    Belief can just as easily function in the absence of religion as it can in it’s presence.
29. 
    Matt Penfold
    June 7th, 2008 on 2:41 pm

    Katie,

    I would also add if you think Dawkins is intolerant and outspoken, you need to get a life. He is neither, and only someone who has trouble with reading comprehension would get that idea. Have you actually bothered to read “The God Delusion”, or watch “The Root of All Evil” ?
30. 
    Dana Hunter
    June 7th, 2008 on 2:47 pm

    Yup, the Pharyngulites are invading! I don’t agree with many points on your list, do agree with many. Which is how it should be. There’s no dogma to being an atheist. You don’t have to be a Dawkins-loving, Hitchens-worshipping, vocal opponent of all things religious to be an atheist. Nor should we all be that way.

    As I see it, two things really make the atheist: 1. No belief in any god, and 2. A willingness to argue about just about everything. Including this post. And this comment.
31. 
    darek
    June 7th, 2008 on 2:48 pm

    “It’s like a hardcore theist - their theism leads them to dangerous places (mentally and physically), their beliefs give them reason to not listen to anyone else and they’re almost always impossible to talk to.”

    Poor comparison. Please bring to my attention the last dangerous person who was heavily influenced by someone like Dawkins who simply reasons (no matter how staunchly) in favor of evidence-based policy when it comes to things like religion…

    Nice rant though - some points I would agree on, others, obviously, we disagree.

    Also, considering godlessness is not something this country is used to hearing about, it wouldn’t bother me in least if I heard more people talking to me about it at a bar - no matter how much they demonstrate knowledge of the subject.
32. 
    Matt Penfold
    June 7th, 2008 on 3:01 pm

    Things I hate:

    Mangling of the English language.

    “I’ve exacerbatted my energy toward many hings and am focusing on more central ones”

    Anyone have any idea what is meant by that ? Only the use of “exacerbated” in that context makes no sense.
33. 
    Eva
    June 7th, 2008 on 3:05 pm

    I think the problem with the anti-abortion ads is that it is very presumptuous for a group to think that a woman who wants to get an abortion hasn’t thought about it carefully. It’s making a statement about her. That she must be misguided and misled and just wouldn’t even care to look into what is an important decision. As “bitchphd” once put it, it’s just not trusting women’s judgement. All that is aside from attempts to make abortion illegal, which would then be imposing one’s views more forcefully — but even ads are just so extremely condescending, they are saying that a woman wouldn’t otherwise put the effort into researching and thinking about it carefully and making up her own mind.
34. 
    Duncan
    June 7th, 2008 on 3:32 pm

    Katie, the ardent atheists who annoy you aren’t in this for fun. Here in the US religion is a serious problem, let alone elsewhere in the world. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. are not dabblers. They receive actual death-threats for their outspokeness, and they are taking on THE most powerful and entrenched institution in mankind.

    If you want to wrap yourself in warm-n-fuzzies then fine, but when you venture out into the mainstream public with the intent of taking down religious intollerance (and there is no other way to describe it) then you’ll find little time for ‘hot’ and ‘awesome’ and ‘cute’. Get another ten years of experience and then re-evalute the works and risks of today’s vocal atheists.
35. 
    Brenda
    June 7th, 2008 on 3:32 pm

    Derek
    Please bring to my attention the last dangerous person who was heavily influenced by someone like Dawkins who simply reasons (no matter how staunchly) in favor of evidence-based policy when it comes to things like religion…

    Stalin.
36. 
    Steve C
    June 7th, 2008 on 3:45 pm

    Stalin, huh? I wouldn’t exactly put Lysenko (let alone Marx) in anywhere near the same category as Richard Dawkins. Stalin might as well be the new H*tler of internet arguments, especially when he’s brought up as being an atheist.
37. 
    Sam Kim
    June 7th, 2008 on 3:49 pm

    Brenda, was that last comment sarcastic, or are you genuinely this retarded?

    Rude, abrupt answers deserve equally rude responses.
38. 
    rjb
    June 7th, 2008 on 3:49 pm

    Brenda,

    Stalin supported Lysenko. Lysenko was a dolt who destroyed Soviet biology by following dogma instead of evidence-based policy. Lysenko completely discounted genetics and DNA. Soviet biology was purged of all people who supported true evidence-based biological policy.

    Stalin was NOT influenced by evidence-based scientists like Dawkins. He was influenced by dogmatic, ideology based people like Lysenko.
39. 
    Brenda
    June 7th, 2008 on 3:51 pm

    Duncan
    when you venture out into the mainstream public with the intent of taking down religious intollerance…

    You don’t fight intolerance with more of the same. Take for example the political campaign of Obama. Here you have a black man running for office and facing deeply entrenched racism, and wining. He does so not by getting into the mud with the bigots and boy oh boy are they going nuts. No, Obama has been successful precisely because he has not lowered himself to their level.

    So while it is true that religious fundamentalism represents a threat to our secular society the solution is not to lower yourself to their level and become like them. It’s a matter of pragmatic strategy. Taking the low road will fail. This does not mean that one should fall back into warm fuzzies and kumbya, a charge often leveled at Obama in the recent past by the Dem base. It takes a certain finesse to critique your opponent without debasing them. Or in other words, treating one’s opponent with respect. Something that is sometimes lacking among the more militant atheists.
40. 
    Katie Kish
    June 7th, 2008 on 3:59 pm

    I’m not going to look back at who said these things but I think it should be known that:

    1. English isn’t my first languauge - I’m sorry if sometimes I don’t make proper sentences, or if I use the wrong word or spell something wrong.

    2. I’ve received death threats for the things that I’ve done (like standing up for tarek fatah, and speaking out against how muslims treat women)

    3. I don’t claim to speak for everyone and never would. I want more mainstream atheists would be less militant.
41. 
    Matt Penfold
    June 7th, 2008 on 4:00 pm

    Brenda,

    You mean like how being warm and fuzzy towards the religious works ?

    It has not worked too well in the US has it ? No reduction in the number of creationists in 20 years, and Dawkins cannot be blamed for that. He has not been vocal that long. So who is to blame then Brenda ? We can only blame the “nice” atheists, since until recently that is all there was.

    The likes of Katie are to blame.
42. 
    Steve C
    June 7th, 2008 on 4:10 pm

    Katie, well you certainly have the right to your opinion, to me you come off as spoiled and self-absorbed.
    - I wish there was a secularist lecture or meeting or a skeptics conference anywhere nearby where I live that I could attend. If you’re tired of these events, instead of calling for them to end, just don’t go to them.
    - Your analysis of Dawkins, like many others have pointed out, seems to be drawn entirely from press releases from creationists, and not from any substantial first-hand experience. Have you actually read any of his books?
    - If you’re looking for atheists who are a little more fun, may I recommend Penn & Teller, the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast, and James Randi, who’s cranky but still fun. (And there’s only one scientist in that list!)
    - I will concede that there’s a lot of close-minded atheists out there, but honestly, there’s also plenty who aren’t. Sam Harris and Joe Nickell are two that spring to mind immediately.
43. 
    Lucia
    June 7th, 2008 on 4:14 pm

    I understand why you wouldn’t want Dawkins to be the one voice of Atheism. I think that it’s important that Atheism doesn’t have a single voice because a huge part of being an Atheist is that we’re not all the same. However, I personally side more with Dawkins so I like to think of him as my personal voice.
44. 
    Brenda
    June 7th, 2008 on 4:16 pm

    rjb
    You are correct about Lysenko but this is a side point. Neither Darwin nor Mendel were well understood at the time. Stalin didn’t derive his political philosophy from him, that’s ludicrous, but from Marx and Engels, i.e. scientific atheism. Therefore I would contend that Stalin was indeed “heavily influenced by someone like Dawkins”.

    One might object that Dawkins believes in capitalism (or maybe he doesn’t, I don’t know). Again beside the point. The point is that when a belief or non-belief is elevated to a privileged status you inevitably get the kind of excesses that we’ve seen in the USSR and in China. Two officially atheistic nations who have rigorously applied their atheism within their borders. In the early part of the 20th century leftists in the US were overjoyed with what they saw in the USSR. They were more than happy to overlook Stalins “excesses” and anti-Stalinist dissent among the left was ruthlessly persecuted.
45. 
    Brenda
    June 7th, 2008 on 4:20 pm

    Matt
    You mean like how being warm and fuzzy towards the religious works ?

    No Matt, I specifically rejected that.

    This does not mean that one should fall back into warm fuzzies and kumbya
46. 
    Nova
    June 7th, 2008 on 4:21 pm

    Katie Kish:
    

    their beliefs give them reason to not listen to anyone else and they’re almost always impossible to talk to

    The fact that they patiently debate all kinds of religious people, from liberal to fundie and patiently respond to all the common objections to atheism which they will have responded to huge amounts of times, this ludicrous almost beyond belief. I agree with Ric that your basic characterization of Dawkins etc as fundies is simple and crude, thats another thing Dawkins has to respond to often and even did so in the paperback version of THE GOD DELUSION in response to it being used against the hardback version of THE GOD DELUSION.
47. 
    Duncan
    June 7th, 2008 on 4:24 pm

    I think this is probably a pointless argument on this blog, but how is Dawkins ‘militant’? Have you heard him speak, or seen one of his videos? He may be firm in his convictions, but militant?

    “combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods”

    One cannot critique religion without running into heated resitance, and you either back down and lose the argument (clarification: exchange, not yelling match) or you must stand up for your views. That’s the way the world works. Oranized religion has been crushing dissent for two millenia. (And by ‘crushing’ I mean wholesale slaughter, not heated rhetoric. See: Crusades, Inqisition, large-scale idological wars and battles, etc.) If speaking out against all this in public and not saying “with all due respect…” before each reply is ‘militant’, than I guess you must live in a sheltered world.
48. 
    Steve C
    June 7th, 2008 on 4:27 pm

    Brenda,
    Stalin was a madman and an empire builder. Whatever anti-religious steps he took were more in an effort to consolidate power and stamp out any opposition than because of any kind of principled stand on behalf of atheism. The same goes for Mao, for the military junta in Myanmar, and for dictators the world over. It’s going to take more concrete evidence than some simplistic connecting of the dots to make your argument credible.
49. 
    Damian
    June 7th, 2008 on 4:30 pm

    Brenda, that has to be one of the most ridiculous comments that I have ever seen on the interlubes. Stalin was a dogmatist, pure and simple. Though he was almost certainly not religious, there was a pretty good reason — he took advantage of several decades of an almost total religious subservience to the Tsar — worshiping him as if a god — and created a state that was as ‘religious’ as anywhere in the world.

    Lysenko’s miracles, anyone? Heresy hunts? You get the idea.

    If you are the Brenda that has been on PZ’s blog over the last few days, I can’t say that I am surprised, though. What I do know is that you won’t bother to do any research to find out that what have said is your own version of dogmatism. Oh well.

    ———————————————————————————————-

    Katie, I have much sympathy with your list. In defense of atheism, it really needs a second wind, only with a view to moving the conversation forward, in my opinion. Perhaps you might consider that very few things — and particularly ideas that are unpopular — are given media coverage unless there is a sense of controversy about them.

    Unfortunately, and it is a consequence of the modern media, less ‘controversial’ individuals probably wouldn’t have had anywhere near the access, and this larger movement may never have started.

    What needs to happen now is that people such as yourself, as well as all atheists that would like to move the conversation forward, can/should take advantage of the ground that the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris have made. And, in my opinion, even if you cannot appreciate those atheists, we should all be thankful for the chance to get our own ideas out there, in a less menial climate. What ever your personal opinion, they have put non-belief on the map, certainly for the larger audience.

    I cannot say that I agree with your opinions about them, but it is certainly something that I have encountered. Perhaps you could expand on it a little, as most of the people that I have pressed on this issue have bought in to criticisms from theists, which, if you have read any of their books, are almost certainly designed as a sleight-of-hand. Indeed, the criticism concerning how they hadn’t tackled the ‘more mature Christianity’ is entirely bogus, for a couple of reasons.

    1) If you read any of their books, even those of some of the most accomplished theologians, their whole premise relies on first ‘knowing’ that god exists, and they aren’t shy about saying that, or admitting that no scientific evidence currently supports their position. It is not a small admission, in my opinion.

    2) They are committing the same fallacy that they accuse the atheists of. Those books are nothing like the best that has been written in defense of atheism, secular humanism, naturalism, etc, and yet they not only took advantage of the popularity of those books, but they attacked all forms of non-belief, as well as the world views most commonly associated with them. So that have no argument. Their books are equally as strident, as well, in my opinion.

    Thanks for a fantastic blog post.
50. 
    Brenda
    June 7th, 2008 on 4:42 pm

    Yes, you are right Steve, Stalin was a madman. But he was also was “heavily influenced by someone like Dawkins” i.e. scientific atheism.

    I will concede that there’s a lot of close-minded atheists out there

    I think that is all she intended to say. So let’s leave it at that.

    Duncan
    One cannot critique religion without running into heated resitance, and you either back down and lose the argument (clarification: exchange, not yelling match) or you must stand up for your views.

    Fair enough. I think the point of this post is that there are people some of us have meet in everyday life who do indeed shout down others. even other atheists who do not fall into the party line. Your larger point that one needs to defend oneself and have a little backbone is correct.
51. 
    darek
    June 7th, 2008 on 4:53 pm

    Brenda,

    Your understanding of history is as muddled as your understanding of what I said.

    Communism does not equal atheism. Bringing up political agendas, states and dictators forms a non-argument when trying to convince one that atheism was the cause of it all.

    Its interesting how from my original comment, talking about someone being influenced by a Dawkins, a Stenger or a Harris could come out as being ‘dangerous’ - you point me right to Stalin… missing the original point entirely (and doesn’t even form an accurate comparison).

    This just speaks more about you than any understanding we could get from such an (non)argument.

    Also - I don’t ‘believe’ in capitalism… does that make me a communist? One could easily invoke that it would from what you’ve stated so far. I doubt you’ll see how ridiculous that idea is.
52. 
    Matt Penfold
    June 7th, 2008 on 5:02 pm

    Katie,

    Can you tell us if you have actually watched “The Root of All Evil” ?

    Only I would have thought from the position you have taken you would have done, otherwise you would be rather dishonest to take that position. However you talk about Dawkins not listening, which if you had watched “The Root of All Evil” you would know to be untrue. I doubt many of us could talk to Ted Haggard whilst keeping a straight face and refraining from punching him. Yet Dawkins did that, and more.
53. 
    Brenda
    June 7th, 2008 on 5:13 pm

    Matt
    I doubt many of us could talk to Ted Haggard whilst keeping a straight face and refraining from punching him.

    The point is that once you gain political power those gloves come off and you will start punching. Even a superficial glance at history, such as mine, demonstrates this is true. As it is you can barely restrain yourself.

    So Darek, you’re saying that Stalin wasn’t influenced by scientific atheism? Wow.
54. 
    Matt Penfold
    June 7th, 2008 on 5:16 pm

    Brenda,

    Cut the crap.
55. 
    Duncan
    June 7th, 2008 on 5:19 pm

    And, incidentally, “The Root of All Evil” was not Dawkins’ choice for a title. It was imposed by the production studio to ‘create controversy’. So one can’t hold that against him.

    I watched the whole thing, and that alone convinced me that the ‘militant’ label is a cannard. If anything, Dawkins might be guilty of ‘impatience’ or ‘exasperation’ when contending with the ever-repeated (and yet still evidence-free) religious arguments, but that’s because he’s been doing this for two decades. I doubt I would demonstrate such forbearance in tha face of some of the people he has interviewed or debated.
56. 
    andrew
    June 7th, 2008 on 5:36 pm

    wow you sound like my dream girl. I love philosophy and science!!! I have many of the same grievances about atheists as you( many are closed minded and can’t separate feelings from beliefs)! But dawkins is my man crush!!! I think you missinderstand him:-).
57. 
    MB
    June 7th, 2008 on 6:25 pm

    Mainstream atheist? Now there’s an oxymoron… Lumping Dawkins with Hitchens is making a caricature of an atheist. Look at what they’ve said and written and they’re on completely different levels (and Dawkins certainly seems sober more often than Hitchens…).

    It sounds like you’re saying if I say what someone believes is not true, has no evidence, is a fairy tale, I’m intolerant - so disagreeing is intolerant?

    If I tell you that you have no right and therefore cannot believe your fairy tale, and I want to use the power of the state to enforce that, then I’m being intolerant.

    This wouldn’t even be an issue if religion wasn’t attempting to use the power of the state to force their views on the general population.

    It sounds like you want me to pretend I don’t think what a religios person beileves is stupid. So when people begin converstations with, “have you accepted Jesus Christ as your saviour…” I’m happy to let them have their delusion but that doesn’t mean I have to pretend it’s an intelligent thing to do or look the other way when theyr’e trying to impose their religion on the community.

    If you’re simply saying some atheists are schmucks and exhibit the traits you listed it doesn’t follow that most atheists are intolerant.
58. 
    darek
    June 7th, 2008 on 6:27 pm

    Brenda, it can easily be disputed that Stalins practices contradicted much of Marxism/Leninism.

    This discussion is a waste of time; pointing faults of atheism on Stalin, Marx or anyone else you’d like to bring in as a strawman is as intelligent as pointing the faults of Christianity on David Koresh.
59. 
    Katie Kish
    June 7th, 2008 on 6:33 pm

    many have asked - yes, i’ve seen The Root Of All Evil - but I still think for myself.
60. 
    Katie Kish
    June 7th, 2008 on 6:35 pm

    “It sounds like you want me to pretend I don’t think what a religios person beileves is stupid. So when people begin converstations with, “have you accepted Jesus Christ as your saviour…” I’m happy to let them have their delusion but that doesn’t mean I have to pretend it’s an intelligent thing to do or look the other way when theyr’e trying to impose their religion on the community.”

    You can say WHATEVER you want. But I don’t like it, and obviously you don’t have to do what I like. When my mom talks to me about her definition of God and her spirituality - I don’t tell her it’s stupid. I think it’s extremely important to have discussions with religious people.

    Being a “lalalala im not listening!” extremeist on either side isn’t helpful.
61. 
    MB
    June 7th, 2008 on 6:38 pm

    Is this the same Brenda that complained to Seed? What is a definition of scienific atheism and where can we find this influence on Stalin? I would be happy to argue that the former seminary student from Georgia turned dictator was not influenced by sciene at all, If someone really thought that was true and wasn’t just making it up to irritate.

    And influenced by Dawkins? Bwaaaaaaaahaaaahaaaaaaa!!!

    She/he is just pretending to be this stupid to get a rise out of people. Hey - that makes him/her a TROLL!!! even if it’s done for fun.
62. 
    Katie Kish
    June 7th, 2008 on 6:40 pm

    Matt Penfold said: (Saturday 07 June, 2008 (edit))

    Katie,

    Do you intend to follow through with this ?

    Only if you want to criticise Dawkins et as not speaking for you, then it is down to you to get out there and make your case. Just complaining in your blog about them is not really going to do it.

    Oh, and when you do, please ensure you make it clear you do not speak for me.

    Matt - I do. Anyone currently invovled with the Canadian Secular movement and many within the North American student secular movement knows who I am. Because I’m out there speaking my mind, saying what I need to say and trying to make some difference. No - I’m not as “popular” or “famous” as Dawkins, Harris… etc - but I’m doing what I can in the reach that I have.
63. 
    Tupelo
    June 7th, 2008 on 6:46 pm

    Vain, self-obscessed (w/o ANY reason) people like Katie annow me. Since I heard about this and was provided a link, I’m commenting about it this one time, but I feel safe in knowing that I will never hear about Katie in any other way, ever again in my life.

    Ignorance is not bliss, Ms. Kish, and vanity is the farthest thing from beauty. You are a fraud, but harmful only to yourself.

    May you one day learn that your opinion is without importance, like my own here.
64. 
    MB
    June 7th, 2008 on 6:46 pm

    Katie, what happens when your Mom takes that discussion to the school board?

    How many times do I have to listen to another version of god did it and that’s what we should be teaching in school - oh, and let’s discriminate against atheists and fill in the blank with Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus because they don’t have the right god for whoever is arguing for god.

    If you don’t like Dawkins, that’s one thing, but to say he’s “lalalala im not listening” is really not a fair description of his discussions.
65. 
    MB
    June 7th, 2008 on 6:53 pm

    one last thing - you don’t think PZ has fun with his blog? it’s pretty clear he still doesn’t take himself too seriously. That may change, but one of the reasons his blog is fun to read is because it’s going to give a good laugh most every time.
66. 
    Synaptix
    June 7th, 2008 on 6:55 pm

    I find the”militant” atheist canard to be the biggest strawman to come out of this whole issue. It just goes to prove the point that faith gets a free pass on criticism that would be fine in other areas of debate.
67. 
    Katie Kish
    June 7th, 2008 on 7:23 pm

    My momo won’t take it to the schhol board - I am involved in the secular organizations I am to stand up against that happening. But I’d still like my mom to be able to talk about her faith else where and be heard. I love talking about religion.

    Did I say pz doesn’t have fun on his blog? I know he does……….. You guess are just LOOKING for things to fight about. Nit picking

    ***i am an atheist. I like atheists. I like atheism. I like PZ and larry’s blogs. I like larry a lot, he was one of my fav speakers at my school last year. This is my blog so OBVIOUSLY I’m going to talk like I own the place and voice my opinion - that’s what blogs are for. I don’t want religion in schools, politics or whatever. I want to talk with religious people, discuss and try to understand. I want people who want to be religious to do so without being called stupid, my mother is a brillant woman***

    And that’s that.
68. 
    Katie Kish
    June 7th, 2008 on 7:31 pm

    Ps to damian - than you so much. This is the sort of response I love. Things with substance and a request to understand more/better. I think after this whole thing my next post will be “why dawkins annoys me” to better explain myself.
69. 
    Dagger
    June 7th, 2008 on 7:35 pm

    Katie,

    Dawkins, et al, are not your cup of tea. That’s fine. No big deal. We have that kind of luxury up here. Heck, I get wandering Jehovahs on my lawn all the time. Just the other day they provided me with their literature, the watch or something, then one of the nice ladies proceeded to inform me that nowadays, some people think that Noah’s arc is a fairy tale. My response… I smiled nicely, without malice, thanked them for their visit, went in my house and immediately recycled the material they gave me. Like I said, we have that luxury. I consider them harmless. Basically nice, polite, seriously confused people. Doesn’t mean I have to spout my atheism in their face, so yeah, I see your point.

    But now let’s look at the extremists. The kind that want to “infect” your childrens science education by touting things THAT ARE NOT SCIENCE. Except these extremists are well financed and have weasled their way into your political landscape… enter Dawkins et al. That’s who they spout against. And yeah, it may be considered extremist, but sometimes you fight fire with fire.
    Until that time arrives up here, in my neighbourhood, I have the luxury of fighting fire with water. I consider myself lucky. You should too. But I still have a lighter close by…
70. 
    Stephen
    June 7th, 2008 on 7:41 pm

    I don’t think anyone is necessarily calling theists “stupid”.. Many prominent atheists call religion un-supported or irrational, but that’s a valid claim. The idea that it’s “mean” to ridicule that which is ridiculous seems unnecessarily PC. I mean, we shouldn’t be like religious evangelists and hassle people but that’s not what the New Atheists are doing.. They are making public announcements and lectures which religious people voluntarily listen to.

    My only beef with my fellow atheists is that we don’t focus very much on promoting humanism. I wish one of the popular writers would make a book on the good life or consequentialist ethics or something.
    Nice blog.
71. 
    Wowbagger
    June 7th, 2008 on 8:08 pm

    Maybe they’re as energetic as they are (I won’t say militant because I don’t agree with that label) because it means they get noticed.

    They’re not trying to reach atheists like you and me - we’re ‘the choir’. An analogy: Do people fighting for gay rights picket gay bars? No, they go places where homosexuality is discriminated against. In regards to the ‘new’ atheists, we just happen to be where we can hear them arguing for what we already believe in.
72. 
    MB
    June 7th, 2008 on 8:28 pm

    um, Katie, I won’t hear you talking to your mom about religion… but I will hear her talking to the school board… who does your mom talk to about religion that calls her stupid? Certainly not me or anyone I know.

    You have an item on YOUR list (#4) that says “almost all the atheists I know” need to have more fun. Many if not most of the posters on PZ’s blog can be quite ironic and sarcastic. I’m supposed to know you don’t mean PZ when you say almost all? And you accuse ME of nitpicking and looking for a fight? Sounds more like you just don’t want anyone to disagree with you.

    English may not be your first language but read what you wrote. Perhaps you meant too many, not almost all? If you want to insist I’m nitpicking I’ll leave you alone because you’re simply drawing and then complaining about stereotypes and caricatures.

    Most of the atheists I know are quite ironic and sarcastic, not overly serious and have a healthy, if not optimistic outlook. Perhaps you do need to stay away from the conferences for a while - and keep mean people away from your mother.

    I’m sure you’ll say the people you don’t like shouldn’t have to stop publishing and speaking, but what you’re saying now sounds like sour grapes because people are listening to someone who disagrees with you. Who’s telling you any of these guys speak for you? If you believe what you read in the corporate media, you’ve got bigger problems than atheists.

    On #6, the atheist requires some proof of god existing. Without that, there’s really not much to talk about. You call that closed minded, I call that disagreeing. You say there’s a fine line between religious and spiritual, other atheists would say there isn’t. You say that’s closed minded, I say that’s disagreeing with you. I say homosexuals should have the same right to marriage as heteros and anything less is bigotry and discriminatory. To you I’m closed minded because I’m not willing to listen to the “other side” of religious-based bigotry, to me it’s fundamentally wrong, as much as racial, religious or sexual bigotry and discrimination.

    You’re not leaving much room for discussion in your list if you’re going to be that sensitive to criticism.
73. 
    J. J. Ramsey
    June 7th, 2008 on 8:31 pm

    Stephen: “I don’t think anyone is necessarily calling theists ’stupid’.”

    But faithhead, theistard, and Christard, have been used. Heck, I got banned from Pharyngula for quoting PZ Myers’ daughter Skatje as referring to an unnamed swath of theists–and from the context it appeared to be *all* theists–as “retards” (Contrary to her dad, I was only fool enough to do it once.) Now to Skatje’s credit, after the fact, she clarified that the unnamed swath was her high school peers. Still, it’s disturbing that she even appeared to imply that she thought theists were generally morons, and too many adults have done likewise.
74. 
    Marcus Ranum
    June 7th, 2008 on 8:46 pm

    I don’t think anyone is necessarily calling theists ’stupid’.

    I am. They are.

    Next?
75. 
    Katie Kish
    June 7th, 2008 on 9:52 pm

    Marcus Ranum said: (Saturday 07 June, 2008 (edit))

    I don’t think anyone is necessarily calling theists ’stupid’.

    I am. They are.

    Next?

    this is what im against.
76. 
    wwyoud
    June 7th, 2008 on 10:21 pm

    Katie - good post. While I see where the strident, in-you-face rhetoric that so many atheists use has its place, it DOES get old after a while. I’m also getting tired of “pin the tail on today’s stupid theist” rants/podcasts/blog posts. I find so many podcasts and such to be the same topic over and over; if I hear another atheist state how we are the most hated group in America, I think I’ll have to throw out my red A! There needs to be something else to discuss besides the good fight, if we are to form a true community of varying levels of maturity. If even we can’t get along without mentioning theism/atheism every 5 minutes, then why in the world would anyone else want to deal with us? Maybe a movie night for pure entertainment, instead of criticism?

    Oh, I also am REALLY tired of hearing how agnostics are just spineless fools - some folks don’t see the point in deciding with absolute certainty that there is no god, because a little doubt doesn’t shake their beliefs. Atheists shouldn’t be insulting a natural ally.

    Don’t get me wrong; I truly appreciate and support those communications that are really news, or request some sort of action from me, or highlight a local event which I often attend (rare though they are). But I find a steady diet of atheist news to be a bit too smug and repetitive to continue.
77. 
    worg
    June 7th, 2008 on 10:23 pm

    If you’re tolerant of religion you’re fucking dumb.
78. 
    Dan
    June 7th, 2008 on 11:02 pm

    I missed the memo. Who voted Dawkins the leader and public speaker for atheism? Who is in charge?
79. 
    Michael
    June 7th, 2008 on 11:13 pm

    Interesting post, Katie…

    Although I’m not a atheist and of course there is alot I don’t agree with you but I do find some of your observations in your own movement there a bit refreshing. More on the objective side in your evaluation. Dr. Robert Bakker considered to be a well-known paleontologist also made some similar comments as you…Perhaps you aware of his comments about militant atheists here it is…

    “What’s the greatest enemy of science education in the U.S.?

    Militant Creationism?

    No way. It’s the loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues.

    These shrill uber-Darwinists come across as insultingly dismissive of any and all religious traditions. If you’re not an atheist, then you must be illiterate or stupid and, possibly, a danger to yourself and others.”

    I remember seeing Dawkins on Fox News, doing an interview, as he was being introduced, he had this frown on his face like no guest I ever seen on that show. He looked very angry, and no doubt disliked Bill O’Reilly who is a pretty smart man in his own right despite one might think of his politics or beliefs in God. The only humor I seen with militant atheists is making fun of Christians in particular, generally you don’t see them attack other religions as much as they do Christianity.
80. 
    Dagger
    June 7th, 2008 on 11:46 pm

    Michael,

    This is your hero?

    “ I’m not a political guy in the sense that I embrace an ideology. To this day I’m an independent thinker, an independent voter, I’m a registered independent … there are certain fundamental things that this country was founded upon that I respect and don’t want changed. That separates me from the secularists who want a complete overhaul of how the country is run ”

    O’Reilly made over 9 million in 2006. 9 Million! Of course he doesn’t want things changed. He loves his life of self indulgence. I especially love how he goes out of his way to proclaim himself “a registered independant”. Of course that wasn’t until it was discovered he was “a registered republican” And then he had the mistaken paperwork changed. Wink wink…

    This guy is the shining example of what’s wrong with your country today. He hasn’t got a clue what your country was founded on. What’s worse, he doesn’t care either.

    Hey, I couldn’t care a less whether you believe in god or not, but until the right wing extremists, creationists and the other insipid fundamentalists stop pissing in the science pool, Dawkins and all the others are exactly what your country needs to stop it from sliding into oblivion. If that is what your definition of militant is, count me in.
81. 
    Steve Sullivan
    June 8th, 2008 on 12:09 am

    Good nonexistent God, you think Dawkins ‘frowning’ on O’Reilly is a sign of humorlessness? *That* is the level of evidence you’re working at? That’s only slightly less clueless than the person who opined that notorious bon vivant Hitchens wouldn’t be much *fun* to hang out with because he seem so ‘angry’ and ‘close minded’.

    Bakker’s a fool if he thinks vocal atheists are the greatest threat to science education today. Of course what he’s really recognizing is that there’s always likely to be an irrational ‘backlash’ against any strong profession of reason against faith. But that merely underscores how anti-intellectual and in thrall to religion America is…and *that’s* the greatest threat to science education today.

    As for what Katie Kish is saying, it’s strikes me as embarrassingly callow, so I’m probably just too old and cynical for her kumbaya mindset. Good luck with that, Ms. Kish, but don’t be surprised if some day you find that the ’strident’, annoying’ atheists are the only ones watching your back. I might suggest moving to the southern or midwestern USA for awhile to get a feel for a first-world society where voters rank ‘atheist’ at the bottom of list of people they would vote for.
82. 
    Lance
    June 8th, 2008 on 12:17 am

    “I think I’ve made it pretty clear in the past that I don’t like Dawkins. I really don’t want Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens to be the voice of my atheism. Because it’s not the voice of many people’s atheism, and it gives people a dangerous path to follow in their atheism. It makes them intolerant, gives them a reason not even try to understand and makes it impossible to have conversations with them.”

    That’s funny, I’ve seen Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens have lots of conversations with believers.

    And I think they do understand and that they listen. They’re just waiting for a believer to show them something new–something to which they don’t feel honestly compelled to reply, “That’s nonsense.”

    When believers stop talking nonsense, I bet it’ll happen. Until then, nonsense is what it is and should be called such, and it’s not the fault of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens for calling it that–it doesn’t make them ‘militant’ or ’strident’ or close-minded to call nonsense by its proper name. It is the fault of the believers for endlessly trotting out nothing new. They spout the same old nonsense and try the same old rhetorical tricks, so if acknowledging that makes an atheist militant and intolerant and impossible to have a conversation with, it’s not the atheist’s fault.
83. 
    Katie Kish
    June 8th, 2008 on 12:34 am

    Lance - how about instead talking to them about philosophies in life, morals/ethics, indoctinating children, the movie jesus camp… etc. just having CONVERSATIONS with them. Not trying to play who is wrong and who is right all the time. just talking. trying to understand their faith and what it does for them instead of flat out telling them that what they base their life on is nonsense.
84. 
    Berlzebub
    June 8th, 2008 on 1:13 am

    Katie Kish said: (Sunday 08 June, 2008 )

    Lance - how about instead talking to them about philosophies in life, morals/ethics, indoctinating children, the movie jesus camp… etc. just having CONVERSATIONS with them. Not trying to play who is wrong and who is right all the time. just talking. trying to understand their faith and what it does for them instead of flat out telling them that what they base their life on is nonsense.

    Speaking as an atheist who has fundamentalist family members, I can explain some of this.

    When you “understand their faith and what it does for them”, you will be severely enlightened. Homophobia, racial bigotry, sexist attitudes, and an inability to listen to anything that conflicts with their “faith” is what I came to “understand”.

    The difference is that I have a daughter who will soon enter into the school system of the U.S. There are a large number of the population who believe that Bible “Science” should be taught in schools as fact. We are having to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort preventing such from happening. Less than 20 miles from the home I currently live in is a museum that claims Genesis is a literal occurence. The majority of my family agree with that claim.

    Ignorance is not knowing the truth. Stupidity is when the truth can easily be recognized, but you reject or ignore it because it’s not what you want to believe. So, while you may feel that the vocal atheists are being mean, I think they are being realistic and doing what is necessary.
85. 
    Dave M
    June 8th, 2008 on 1:14 am

    “Many of my “liberal” friends go ape shit when they see an anti-abortion ad.”

    Uhrm, that’s not necessarily because we can’t get in the mindset of the person holding up the ad — it’s because those ads showing an aborted fetus are pathetic, low-minded sensationalism of the worst kind. It’s like if you promoted gun control by showing pictures of dead children with bulletwounds, or ran an anti-Drunk Driving campaign based on showing horribly mutilated corpses. That is not discussing or furthering an issue, it’s just sensationalism.

    It seems to me like you’re doing a lot of displacement and projecting. Dawkins, et al are all very tolerant of religious people, and not rude to them personally. The only level of disrespect is a disrespect for those people’s beliefs; which as Dawkins has pointed out many times, there is no good reason why religious belief (or spiritual belief if you prefer) is deserving of respect. It’s childish and naive to think that by not respecting someone’s belief, you are disrespecting that person.

    I cannot stand this increasingly common mentality that we need to walk on egg shells and be careful not to hurt anyone’s feelings by calling their beliefs what they are; silly superstition. I’m sorry but if someone tells me they believe in trolls and unicorns you would not, or at least should not, say “Oh well that is very beautiful and important to you so I will respect your belief and say gently that I disagree with you.” No, you would say “Why on earth do you believe that? It is clearly ridiculous and silly.” The same is true for believing the Bible or any other superstitious nonsense.

    I am especially troubled by the poster above who said something akin to “Just because I am an athiest doesn’t mean I like science.” If you don’t like science, please do us all a favor and get off the Internet immediately. I’m sure there is a hollowed out tree in the forest somewhere waiting for you.
86. 
    Nick V
    June 8th, 2008 on 1:18 am

    Katie,

    Engaging the religious folks in a dialogue that moves beyond simple rightness and wrongness is fine and admirable in many respects, but I think it ultimately does come down to what one believes. For many of the evangelical Christians (for example; this may be equally applicable to other faith groups) good works and charity are NOTHING without belief in Jesus as a personal savior. So, I could talk to someone like this, and we could agree about moral philosophies, and right conduct, but I would still be considered hellbound because of my lack of credulity.

    My own family is religious, and I see nothing at all wrong with them going to church, or singing hymns, or saying prayers (even though I find such activities to be essentially pointless). What I do find worrisome, though, is that any time we’re willing to discard rational empiricism and embrace blind belief, we risk stepping onto a slippery slope. It’s a large leap from believeing god wants you to rest on the Sabbath to, e.g., god wants you to murder nonbelievers, but it’s certainly non an uprecedented leap in human history. And not all believers may have the same wisdom, intelligence, and consideration that your mother expresses. So while I don’t feel the need to burn churches and harangue the faithful, I do believe that reducing the influence of religion on society is a noble and worthwhile goal.
87. 
    Michael
    June 8th, 2008 on 1:26 am

    Greetings Dagger,

    Is O’Reilly my hero? Well, not really, although I do agree with some of his political viewpoints, I believe he is very liberal would it comes to religious doctrines. There is no such thing as a one sided independent, meaning there are independents on the left (liberal) and independents on the right (conservative). What exactly do you want changed in the world? And what do you believe O’Reilly doesn’t want change in?

    I will tell you what a change I like to see in the science industry as far as policy. Ceasing from looking for life on Mars. It has cost billions of dollars. Tell me Dagger how does it help mankind searching for life on other planets? I think there is great opportunity up there to satisfy our energy needs without the pollution bio-fuels have done. So why not look other sources in outer space? There are more changes I like to see, but that is one of the many.

    Since science if funded by US tax dollars, they have every right to have their say in education.
88. 
    ice weasel
    June 8th, 2008 on 2:00 am

    Your commentary is concern trolling at its best. Well done!
89. 
    Michael
    June 8th, 2008 on 2:16 am

    Oh so, when Dagger brings it up, it’s ok…I’m learning, and I’m watching you…lol
90. 
    darek
    June 8th, 2008 on 5:45 am

    I was writing a response to Michael in regards to funding for NASA’s Mars missions, while doing so I (mistakenly) clicked on the link he provides under his name… and then I quickly hit the backspace…

    There is no point in discussion with someone like Michael. He is the epitome of willful ignorance on the behalf of religious and political ideology. (hint: always be wary when someone uses the term ‘Darwinist’ as a label to identify someone or in some cases, a group of people).

    If such an attitude - as per this blog post - makes me ‘militant’ than so be it, the term is something I could live with under such circumstances.
91. 
    cat
    June 8th, 2008 on 7:02 am

    Thanks for posting this. I’m glad to see there are other atheists who find atheists annoying And I like how some of the comments on this provide evidence for the points you are making.
92. 
    Aquaria
    June 8th, 2008 on 9:38 am

    When I hear atheists telling other atheists to be nice, not rile up the other side, I pity them as I would an abused wife trying her damnedest to keep her abusive husband from hitting her yet again, or demeaning her, but prepared for the blow, anyway. I’m reminded of now-elderly homosexuals living firmly in the closest and telling the younger, more outspoken gays to quit being so flagrant about what they are, to quit drawing attention. They’re so used to living in a world where they have to keep a vital part of themselves secret and hidden, to having a delicious private little world that is only theirs. They revel in their second-class status, fancying themselves some warped form of martyrs. So misunderstood, you know. But all they do is perpetuate the ignorance of others, and their own powerlessness.

    You don’t get anywhere by letting people walk all over you. You only get them to respect you when you make it clear that they need to be satisfied with walking on good old terra firma, like the rest of us–not on other people. Oh, they’ll resist like mad, start screaming persecution just because the person they used to walk on won’t let a few words put him on the ground again. But they’ll get over it. By the way, “persecution” to this crowd includes being expected to clarify their viewpoints, explain them, and, most importantly, to have them disagreed with. I’m not about to stop asking theists to clarify and explain their position, and I’m certainly never going to pretend to agree with them. I wouldn’t dream of disrespecting them with such patronising insincerity. Everyone deserves honest debate, not hand-holding or pats on the head. If they can’t deal with reality and honesty (not rudeness, but honesty), then, really, they can go sit at the kid’s table and let the grown ups do the talking.
93. 
    J. J. Ramsey
    June 8th, 2008 on 10:21 am

    Aquaria: “When I hear atheists telling other atheists to … not rile up the other side, … You don’t get anywhere by letting people walk all over you.”

    Ah, yes. The false dichotomy of either being a pushover or a meanie.

    Aquaria: “Everyone deserves honest debate”

    And where are we getting it from? Atheists quote-mining the American Founding Fathers? Atheists insinuating that Eugenie Scott is a moral coward? Atheists finding new playground insults for theists? Generally speaking, I don’t associate “militant” atheism with honesty. Often, it’s the opposite.
94. 
    C. Sullivan
    June 8th, 2008 on 10:35 am

    Katie - It’s always nice to discover an articulate and thoughtful Canadian atheist. I’ll definitely be coming back to this blog. I think Dawkins is great, but to a point I agree with your reservations about him - he can certainly be condescending and abrasive at times, and I would add that his discussions of the human consequences of religion are often rather unfair. Anything destructive with a religious element (like the Troubles in Northern Ireland) gets blamed primarily on religion per se, whereas anything constructive (like great religious music) gets credited to some other factor that existed alongside the religious motivation.

    With that said, I think Dawkins is dead right regarding the need to speak out clearly and forcefully about the essential incorrectness of religious belief. Presumably you, like me, are an atheist because you don’t see reasonable evidence for believing in the factual claims of any religion. And if there’s no reasonable evidence, religious belief is simply irrational. To downplay that central point out of “respect” or “tolerance” is unhelpful, and even verging on disingenuous. Of course one can still strive to make the point politely, but not at the expense of clarity.
95. 
    Dagger
    June 8th, 2008 on 1:49 pm

    Sorry Michael, not going to take the baiting on your statements.

    But here’s a link in case your curious… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    And here’s the link for the other FACTS I listed… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_%28commentator%29

    And while I’m at it here’s the link for your friend Minister Bakker… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker

    I can’t help but wonder if the Jurrasic Park T-Rex munching portion was more than just hollywood entertainment. Because now it seems much more like a visual statement…
96. 
    Theron
    June 8th, 2008 on 3:05 pm

    I live in the Deep South, USA, Christian Nation, and all that implies. I personally don’t confront people about my atheism - because I don’t want the trouble, frankly. But I sure am glad somebody is doing it. The more Dawkins et. al. are doing their thing, the more mainstreamed atheism becomes. The first time people saw ActUp it was shocking - the tenth time, (almost) nobody cares. And Dawkins is a pussycat compared to those folks. Atheists should be loud and proud.
97. 
    James
    June 8th, 2008 on 3:39 pm

    Re: Dawkins

    Let me say that I was raised to be a feminist, and while I don’t very often explicitly identify myself as such, it’s not so much that I no longer consider myself one (I do), but because I’m tired of having the same goddam conversation over and over again with people who refuse to see anything less radical than Andrea Dworkin when they hear the word.

    Remember Andrea Dworkin, and the radical feminist movement in general? The people who advanced the idea, for instance, that all male-female sex is rape? I think most modern feminists would like to forget about this faction of the feminist pantheon - I remember my grandma taking me to a meeting when I was three, and being told that she had to leave because she had brought a “man” (a three-year-old one) to the meeting. True story, I swear.

    BUT… you can’t just write off Dworkin and her peers, because not all of their ideas were nearly as insane as the ones that get tossed around by ignorant dittoheads on a regular basis. It was radical feminism, for instance, that shone a hard light on the inherent sexism of the medical industry - that is, the fact that doctors and researchers had traditionally never even considered the notion that some diseases may affect women different than they do men. Say what you will about Andrea Dworkin, you cannot take away her real and significant contribution to women’s issues.

    Which brings me to Dawkins and Hitchens, who I sort of see as occupying the same space in atheism as the radicals did in feminism. Atheism, whether we like it or not, has to be a social and political movement as well as a (anti-)theological position. Our problems are not as harsh as those faced by minorities or women throughout history (though give the religious right some time and they may well get that bad), but we nonetheless cannot simply declare ourselves atheists and be done with it (though declaration IS important).

    All political movements, in turn, need to push for change, and part of doing that is to have a hard edge, to offer a show of strength, and a calmer side, which reflects a more realistic image of the overall goals of the movement.

    Examples are many: MLK vs. Malcolm X, for instance. These two leaders are mostly seen as a one-or-the-other type thing nowadays, you honor one or the other, MLK in most cases. But in reality, whether they intended it or not, MLK and Malcolm X were two sides of a coin, and inextricably link, working together on behalf of black people. They did this by offering America two choices: either do the right thing on your own, by listening to the righteous voice of Martin, OR ignore him at your peril and one day find yourself face to face with Malcolm X, or someone just like him, and possibly worse, after you assassinate him.

    America listened to Martin, and that’s why the Nation of Islam is today seen by most as an organization of radical nutjobs. Though even so, just as Dworkin had more than mere radicalism to offer, the NoI also does a lot of good work for black people: rehabilitating prisoners, charitable work, etc. No matter what kind of lunacy spews forth from Farrakhan, you can’t just write them off completely.

    The IRA and Sinn Fein, their political arm, are another example: we are trying to work within the system to acheive our goals, but we are also prepared to use “any means necessary” if it comes to that.

    Now, taking these examples into account, are Dawkins and Hitchens really all that bad? They’re not calling for open war on religion (well, Dawkins isn’t anyways :), they’re simply stating some of the very uncomfortable facts, and pointing out some of the uglier truths about religion. I think that we atheists have yet to find our Martin, but on the other hand, maybe things aren’t bad enough to need one yet. I don’t know, but I do know that for any modern atheist to condemn Dawkins for stating the truth as he sees it is definitely akin to a feminist throwing Andrea Dworkin’s good ideas out along with her bad ones.

    The point is, we NEED unity, and that starts with atheists not attacking other atheists because they don’t like the way they state their case. Nutjobs like Pat Robertson and Ben Stein are taking care of attacking Dawkins for us, let’s try to keep our own rhetoric productive, not destructive, to our cause.
98. 
    J. J. Ramsey
    June 8th, 2008 on 6:17 pm

    James: “All political movements, in turn, need to push for change, and part of doing that is to have a hard edge, to offer a show of strength, and a calmer side, which reflects a more realistic image of the overall goals of the movement.”

    The problem is how to acheive that hard edge. Sorry for the blog whorage, but I blogged about this a while back:

    The bad cops, at their worst, fall prey to the Gadfly Corollary. One can make the opposition upset, angry, irritated, or insulted by pushing the opposition to pay attention to its own wrongs. If the opposition is particularly difficult, this will inevitably be disruptive. One can also make the opposition upset, angry, irritated, or insulted by distorting the facts and being bigoted. Unfortunately, loud and proud, angry activists often do both those things, and by applying the Gadfly Corollary, they often conclude that they are only doing the former. Furthermore, by doing both the former and the latter, the “good cops” are faced with a double burden. In addition to their normal conciliatory role, they also have to do pooper-scooper duty to clean up the mess that the “bad cops” made, and when they complain about this, the “bad cops” call them compromisers or sell-outs. Lovely.

    I’d be careful about trying to fit MLK into the “good cop/bad cop” scheme. He was disruptive all on his own, make no mistake about that. It’s just that he managed to be disruptive without being a jerk.
99. 
    Rachel
    June 8th, 2008 on 6:33 pm

    Aquaria: I take offense to the comparison of the experience of atheists to the struggle of gay rights. The work of those individuals who have undergone continual, severe, and violent persecution even though their only desire is to be considered equal to their peers is not the same as the experience of Richard Dawkins. Those remarkable individuals I know who have put their life, health, and career on the line for gay rights would never use terminology like christard, moron, stupid, blind, faithhead, or theistard. Instead they employ a slow and methodical approach to their opponents that goes beyond name calling and sneering. They come to the table with arguments designed to persuade, not insult and deride. And, wonder of wonders, the sophisticated approach of debate and intellectual consideration seems to be working a great deal better than elitism.
100. 
     wwyoud
     June 8th, 2008 on 8:02 pm

     “I am especially troubled by the poster above who said something akin to “Just because I am an athiest doesn’t mean I like science.” If you don’t like science, please do us all a favor and get off the Internet immediately. I’m sure there is a hollowed out tree in the forest somewhere waiting for you.”

     And thus the example appears - if you don’t agree with someone, it’s not enough to merely disagree, discuss the disagreement, or even just ignore it; the “wrong” person must be driven out of the shared space entirely. This is exactly the attitude I’m so tired of in atheist discussions.
101. 
     Geoff Arnold
     June 8th, 2008 on 11:05 pm

     “the fact of the matter is that im really into the movement, and i like being a part of it”

     Earth to Katie: here’s your big mistake. THERE IS NO “MOVEMENT” (singular). The world is full of people who do not belief in god (or, more accurately, do not apply the label “god” to anything that they believe in. But absence of belief doesn’t make a movement.

     If there is a “movement” today, it’s because a lot of atheists are getting fed up with religious fundies taking over various social, military and governmental institutions and trying to legislate stupidity. The thing that brings these folks together is their shared anger and frustration, and so it’s not surprising that some of them express themselves with feeling. (Although of course it is nothing when compared to the vituperation, and even death threats, heaped on them by religious fundies.)

     If you don’t want to join that “angry atheist” group, nobody’s making you. If you want to start a “milquetoast atheist movement”, be my guest. Just don’t complain about people who feel differently.
102. 
     Bryn
     June 9th, 2008 on 12:58 am

     Sorry for the lame, “me, too” to Geoff Arnold’s comment, but, yeah. There really isn’t any movement, per se. But what you do have is akin to the “Stonewall Riots” that brought gays and lesbians to the media’s attention. A vocal group of people saying, “No, you can’t do that!” rather than pulling the covers over their head and hoping nobody realizes they’re atheist. If religious nutjobs had been content to let me live my life the way I see fit, I wouldn’t have a problem with them. When the President of the US feels it’s not only okay, but in his best political interest, to tell me I’m not a citizen in order to pander to the religious right, I’m sorry. I’m going to yell my fool head off. You don’t want to, Katie? Fine by me–it’s your right after all. But, please, don’t decry the people trying to help protect your rights, ‘kay?
103. 
     Lance
     June 9th, 2008 on 12:59 am

     “Lance - how about instead talking to them about philosophies in life, morals/ethics, indoctinating children, the movie jesus camp… etc. just having CONVERSATIONS with them. Not trying to play who is wrong and who is right all the time. just talking. trying to understand their faith and what it does for them instead of flat out telling them that what they base their life on is nonsense.”

     The conversations between Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. and believers I’ve seen are replete with the believers talking about their faith and what it does for them. I also think that the atheists try not only to understand, they DO understand. Some of them have been there themselves. Yet they still realize that it’s nonsense and are not too timid to call it such.

     What would you have unbelievers do? Just have warm, fuzzy conversations with believers in which those believers talk about their faith and what it means to them, with no rebuttal from the point of view of the atheist?

     By the way, I’d love to see a ‘Ted Haggard’ just have a CONVERSATION with an atheist in which they don’t try to play “who is wrong and who is right all the time. just talking.” Trying to understand their unbelief and what it does for them instead of flat out telling them that their atheism is nonsense.

     Yet the atheists who dare engage in such conversations are always labeled as shrill, strident and militant simply for not agreeing with the believer. Isn’t it funny how that happens? It’s almost as if what the believers want is for atheists–if they can’t at least agree–to just shut up and give silent assent.
104. 
     onein6billion
     June 11th, 2008 on 6:54 pm

     “but they have this deep connection to what they usually call “something” and they feel like it strengthens their spirit.”
     “And I think there is a fine line between spirituality and religion - but a line nonetheless.”

     Please rethink this anti-science opinion. Woo is woo is woo. Little woo versus big woo? Irrational strengthening of “spirit”? Wishful thinking.
105. 
     Richard Collins
     June 24th, 2008 on 10:38 am

     Katie writes:
     3. Dawkins - I think I’ve made it pretty clear in the past that I don’t like Dawkins. I really don’t want Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens to be the voice of my atheism. Because it’s not the voice of many people’s atheism, and it gives people a dangerous path to follow in their atheism.

     What younger atheists may not appreciate is just how oppressive the environment was before DDHH stepped out of the closet and began to vigorously clear away the hateful aspects of organized religion. Frankly I expected books like theirs to start appearing by October 1, 2001, which is about the time I became a militant atheist. I was so naive at that point that I expected there to be billions of people around the world demonstrating and burning churchs, mosques and synagogues. Instead they all went inside and prayed. Maybe Katie if the Canadian Parliament building had been destroyed….
106. 
     Richard Collins
     June 24th, 2008 on 10:52 am

     …. you would feel differently. Before 9/11 atheists knew how many leaders in the scientific community were atheists. Pretty much all of them — right? These scientists kept their mouths firmly clamped shut though because they realized their grant money and academic status would disappear if they made any critical public comments about organized religions. The prevailing attitude was why try to oppose organized religion? Nothing will come of it and I’ll only lose in the long run. Let education spread the enlightenment message and religions will all disappear like a bad dream.

     I’m going to go way out on a limb here, but I think Richard Dawkins by stepping forward and saying the obvious, totally changed the dynamic. He certainly earned my undying gratitude.
107. Liberal Debutante » Blog Archive » Posts Of Interest
     July 20th, 2008 on 9:30 pm

     [...] Why Atheists Annoy Me: The post that PZ linked to which resaulted in his little minions flocking over and attacking the [...]
108. Nica’s Nothing Turns Out to be My Something | Edger
     October 3rd, 2008 on 11:38 am

     [...] knows that i don’t hold particularly high regards for the poster boy atheists. I’ve written about it, and been destroyed for my opinion in a few places (some worse than others) and everyone thought I [...]
109. Nica’s Nothing Turns Out to be My Something | All Reason
     October 6th, 2008 on 7:10 pm

     [...] knows that i don’t hold particularly high regards for the poster boy atheists. I’ve written about it, and been destroyed for my opinion in a few places (some worse than others) and everyone thought I [...]
110. Speaking of annoying | lolife
     April 1st, 2009 on 6:46 pm

     [...] Liberal Debutante posted Why Atheists Annoy Me. I’m sure she is a very nice, smart person but I find that article completely annoying [...]
111. 
     Aquaria
     April 19th, 2009 on 10:31 am

     JJ Ramsey:

     I wasn’t posting a false dichotomy that one is either a meanie or a pushover. I was saying that telling all atheists to be nice all the time is unproductive. I’m sick to death of hearing that an oppressed group (and we are) always have to be nice, that people who speak out are soooooo horrible.

     You read more into my post than was intended.

     That is your failure.

     And now for atheist meanness and rudeness: Piss off.

Leave a Reply

• Hello Lovers

  Please note - This is a personal blog... what I say sometimes (or usually...) isn't the opinion of the Freethought Association of Canada...or the Centre for Inquiry... or my boyfriend... or my mom... ooor Rod... or anyone else for that matter. Just me. My opinions. So you can like FAC, but still hate me.

  I used to blog religiously about science, news, religion and the environment. Then I entered into my last years of University, got a boyfriend and a real job and it's all gone down hill from there. I still write on occasion and love getting comments and talking to people on the site. So leave a line :)

• Discovery News: Planet Earth

  • Solved: Why Blind Faults Make Big Quakes
  • Eco-Friendly Fireworks Offer Safer Pyrotechnics
  • Trees Buffered Earth From Iceball Fate
  • Fossil Feathers Reveal Extinct Moa's True Colors
  • Cancer: Another Threat to Wildlife
  • Predatory Dingoes Promote Diversity
  • Increasing Dust Accelerates Mountain Snowmelt
  • Louisiana Coast Still Vulnerable to Erosion
  • Rainforests More Fragile Than Estimated
  • Spotted Owls Face Genetic Bottleneck

• Blogroll

  • A Blog Around The Clock
  • A Likely Story
  • Adventures in Ethics and Science
  • Appletree Blog
  • Being Amber Rhea
  • Bitch PhD
  • Campaign for the Unshaved Snatch
  • Canadian Atheist Podcast
  • Canadian Iconoclast
  • Creek Running North
  • Feminist Review
  • Friendly Atheist
  • Hopping Into Puddles
  • Just Dreadful
  • Persephone’s Box
  • Renegade Evolution
  • Retrospectacle
  • Salt On Everything
  • Terahertz
  • The Intersection
  • The Scientific Activist
  • The Unicredible Hallq
  • Vern’s Blog
  • Webs’ Random Ideas

• Recent Comments

  • mom on Move that butt!
  • lifregezodg on Sex and long distance relationships
  • Katie on Enjoy Your Life Campaign
  • Sage on Move that butt!
  • m on Move that butt!

• Google Ad