God Does Not Play… November 29, 2006
Posted by ocmpoma in : atheism , trackbackIt’s shaping up to be a busy day for me, blog-wise. A few posts ago, I put something up about the growing debate among the godless between the “nice atheists” and the “mean atheists”. Before that, I had one up about a post on Evolving Thoughts. And, first of what seems to be becoming a trend, there was this one about an article in Wired Magazine.
So, you ask, why another? Why!?
Well, we’ve had a bit of a complaint session cum popularity contest cum debate over at the forums about this topic. But even more prompting was this post by Ickybod.
Now, Ickybod tells of a change in reasoning, an embracing over time of the approach of those whom I’ve taken to calling the “mean atheists”. Which is all fine and dandy with me. I’m a mean atheist, too (although apparently not as mean as some). But the post just reminded me that, in fact, if we are going to make progress in the fight against supernaturalism, what we need is a bunch of mean atheists calling those who accept the supernatural out on the carpet. But, I think, we also need some nice atheists hanging around to walk the thin line of dialogue.
Why, you ask? Because if all of us were mean, the natural reaction will prevail — give no ground, take no quarter. However, if all of us are nice, then we will not only be taken advantage of, but indeed will lose sight of our goal and of why we are against supernaturalism in the first place.
Now, please don’t ask me to put out a ratio of nice to mean atheists (1:11) . I heartily embrace the idea of mean atheism. I think that the ideas and concepts of supernaturalism don’t deserve the respect and certainly haven’t earned a kid-glove treatment. I would hope that the reader wouldn’t want to give a racist the benefit of the doubt, doesn’t think that we should try to give eugenecists a respectful, tolerant reaction, and wouldn’t dream of treating peadophiles as on an equal footing with the rest of us.
Am I comparing supernaturalism to racism, eugenics, and peadophilia? You bet. The main difference between them is that supernaturalism is accepted by and large in our society. That’s about it. What the majority of the “mean atheists” are trying to do is give such ideas exactly the respect they deserve - which is about as close to none as you can get. The title to this post is based on a line a friend of mine once thought up, when I asked him to finish the famous quote. Instead of “…dice”, his response was, “…well with others”. God doesn’t play well with others, and I see no reason to play nice with supernaturalism.
Which brings us back to the nice atheists, and their ability to be much more conciliatory. That’s what is needed, unfortunately, in order to keep the dialogue running. I think that the dialogue is most certainly needed and will be needed, I think, indefinitely. This is a fight that won’t ever be won, as long as we’re human beings.
The last thing we need is for the nice guys and the big meanies to start fighting with each other. Don’t apologize for us, nice guys — just point out that you can’t characterize all atheists based on the words of one any more than you can all theists. And let’s fight this fight together, shall we?
Tags for this article: atheism
[?][More Help]
Comments»
“The last thing we need is for the nice guys and the big meanies to start fighting with each other. Don’t apologize for us, nice guys — just point out that you can’t characterize all atheists based on the words of one any more than you can all theists. And let’s fight this fight together, shall we?”
That’d be fine, except that sometimes the mean atheists drive nice atheists away. They do this in a number of ways, and I suspect that it has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism–but rather aggression, ego and territoriality.
Too often I think the mean atheists are just plain mean. I think nice atheists would be perfectly willing to tolerate their aggression, were that aggression reserved for theists. Yet all too often I’ve observed atheists acting as predators, waiting to pounce no matter who you are or what you believe. To them it doesn’t matter if you’re a theist or not, they just want to prod you and see if you flinch. If you do flinch, they’re on you like a pack of hungry wolves. Also, mean atheists–in my observation–tend to exhibit a mentality which I liken to that of a pack of wolves, but which is probably much more accurately represented by the image of a herd of sheep. Aggressive sheep, but sheep nonetheless due to their unthinking willingness to follow the herd where it leads.
If you deviate one iota from what they expect, they’re on you. You can be the most ardent and committed atheist and yet hold the opinion that a troll is a troll, and they’re at your throat. Simply because you don’t idolize the object of their affections.
Are mean atheists generaally freethinking atheists? I think the ‘freethinking’ qualifier should be left off. They’re knee-jerk, blindly following, members of a herd.
I’m perfectly willing to fight together with the ‘mean’ atheists so long as they are able to tame their aggression and egocentrism, and remember what the fight is about. I’m experienced enough on the Internet to know that it just doesn’t happen. They’re not interested in atheism–they’re interested in maintaining their own personality cults which arise around their aggressive behavior and their particular mindless schtick.
I think that you may be confusing “mean atheists” with another group of people, known as “dominant egocentric alphas”. The group I was talking about is defined by their attitudes towards theism. the group your talking about is defined by their egotistic behavior (among other things).
While it’s certainly true that some people can belong to both groups, I really don’t think that everyone in the first group is by default in the second group. Take PZ Myers over at Pharyngula, for example. Or Ickybod, whose post prompted my to write this one.
Nicely said. However I don’t like the terms ‘mean atheist’ and ‘nice atheist’ because these words seem to appeal only to the theist point of view of us. I think ‘realistic atheist’ (mean) and ‘wishful atheist’ (nice) are better suited.
Yeah. It’s too bad I can’t type them in the same mocking, sarcastic tone of voice that I say them in.