Atheism and Hate (NY Times article)

Brawl over Islam on Facebook.

I don’t delve into the religious very often, but I confess I have a fervent sympathy for atheists. I don’t consider myself an atheist . . . an agnostic would probably be more accurate. But it pisses me off when I see atheists attacked as “hating” when they are engaging in activities such as:

1. Pointing out the plainly obvious.
2. Encouraging scientific pursuits and discouraging religious quackery.
3. Engaging powers of logic against fear-mongering and cultism.

I unfortunately say this without having been able to locate the Facebook group in question–if anyone can identify the group so I can view it, I would greatly appreciate it. The worst the NYT article can point to is the introduction to the Facebook group that says “The Quran contains many lies and threats. Islam is false, no god exists, and someone should say that loud and clear.” I am at a loss to determine how that is “hate”, and more than it would be “hate” if “Quaran” was replaced with “Bible” and “Islam” was replaced with “Christianity”. Are fundamentalist atheists engaged in suicide attacks? Do fundamentalist atheists blame natural disasters on God’s vengeance for homosexuality and advise people to send their homosexual minor children to re-education camps? These atheists are merely stating, if not the obvious, at least what they believe can be demonstrated by fact and evidence, and not engaged in hate. Maybe there is further hate in the group not rooted out by the NYT investigative reporter, but allow me to be skeptical if that is the ace of their hand that they play in the article.

But of the broad trend of accusing atheists of “hate” and “persecution”, there are plenty of examples. Take a perusal of a few weeks of PZ Myers’ Pharyngula, or The Panda’s Thumb, for a couple of weeks. Now, I have no political reason to defend, for example, Myers–he is clearly a liberal and Democrat–but the way he deconstructs such religious gobbledygook as Intelligent Design is just flat out solid, yet he is accused of “hate”.

It similarly burns me up to see Christians in America refer to themselves as discriminated against and persecuted by secular forces (see, e.g., the “War on Christmas”, David Limbaugh’s book on “persecution” of Christians, etc.). It also never ceases to amaze me how Christians confuse making something illegal for everyone with prohibiting government propping up or advocating (intentionally or by implication) a single religious ideology. Has such a majority ever whined and complained so much about being discriminated against by the minority? Christians are usually quick to point out the percentage of Americans that believe in God, most of which are Christians of some designation, yet any victory for reason and loss for fundamentalism brings cries of persecution, as if modern American Christians have something even remotely in common with their early-A.D. brethren.

I’m not an unreasonable guy. I understand that fundamentalist Christians tend to give moderate Christians a bad name, but by the nature of all of them having the same label I think all too often moderates will defend their more fundamentalist brothers and sisters. I have a feeling is Fundamentalist Christians were part of some other religious cult that moderate Christians would have a much lower tolerance for what they spout.

I applaud guys like Richard Dawkins who actively stand up to those who still push myth as fact, who sabotage the education of children, and who actively seek to brainwash children to prevent them from seeing logic and reason.

I tie this in to my political beliefs by pointing out that libertarianism is a framework solidly grounded in logic and reason. It isn’t pushed around by emotion, and it acknowledges that there is no magic bullet to economics and society that is going to allow us against all rationality to take care of everyone, and to fix all of society’s problems. I find similar appeal in how both ideologies are constructed and framed, and it would not surprise me to find as a percentage that libertarians are more apt to be agnostics or atheists than of other political ideologies. Just a guess. Both ideologies lay the burden of responsibility presumptively on the actor, rather than a supernatural being or societal influence.

So that’s my religious rant, for whatever it’s worth.  If you’ve made it this far, I reward you with the wonderful experience of the Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan himself.  Enjoy.