Why Are Believers Willfully Ignorant About Atheists?

[rug]

When believers talk about atheists, they often don't bother to talk to any first. What are they afraid of?

June 28, 2012 |
ByGreta Christina

Did you hear the one about the Anglican minister who said atheists have no reason for grief?

I wish I was joking. I'm not. In a widely disseminated and discussed opinion piece, Anglican minister Rev. Gavin Dunbar made an interesting and even compelling argument that grief is necessary for love and humanity... and then went on to argue that, unless you believe in God, you have no reason to care whether the people you love live or die, or even to love them in the first place.

Again: I wish I was joking. I quote:

The new atheists proclaim their gospel with the fervour of believers: God is dead, man is free, free from the destructive illusions of religion and morality, of reason and virtue. But then a someone dies, suddenly and cruelly, like the young man known to many in ..[this] parish [in [Eastern Georgia] who was killed in a freakish accident last weekend. And his death casts a pall of grief over his family, his friends, their families, his school, and many others. Yet if he was no more than an arrangement of molecules, a selfish gene struggling to replicate itself, there can be no reason for grief, or for the love that grieves, since these are (we are told) essentially selfish survival mechanisms left over from some earlier stage in hominid evolution. Friendship is just another illusion. But of course we do grieve, even the atheists. And in so grieving, they grieve better than they know (or think they know).

The grieving atheist cannot provide any reason why he grieves, or why he (rightly) respects the grief of others

http://www.alternet.org/belief/156052/why_are_believers_willfully_ignorant_about_atheists/

Is this true?

[trotsky]

1. Do you think it's true, rug? n/t

[rug]

2. No. With some exceptions, no.

[trotsky]

3. What are these exceptions? n/t

[rug]

4. "Willfully Ignorant" usually means you know better.

I think most of these attitudes come from straight up ignorance.

Do you see the willfully ignorant on DU?

[trotsky]

5. So you think it's just plain ignorance to believe that atheists are sub-human monsters...

incapable of grief?

[rug]

6. That question has to many assumptions to answer.

I'll be more than happy to discuss this but I'm not going to play games with obviously loaded questions.

The issue is whether or not false assumptions, many false assumptions, about atheists are the result of ignorance or deliberation.

As to your question, I haven't heard anyone on or off DU state a belief "that atheists are sub-human monsters".

[trotsky]

13. It's the core issue.

If you didn't want to discuss it, why did you post the article?

What kind of person assumes atheists are unable to grieve like "normal" people? And do you think that kind of person is displaying typical ignorance, or willful ignorance?

[rug]

14. No it isn't.

If you, for whatever reason, think there are significant amounts of people who think you are a "subhuman monster", that is something for you to resolve in your own mind. I seriously doubt that's the reality.

The article asserts many people have false perceptions about self-proclaimed atheists. That is indisputably true. She further asserts this is due in large part due to willful ignorance. That I dispute. But it's a fair discussion.

That is a discussion I will have. Not whether and why people consider you a subhuman monster. I'm sure there are places where that discussion will be well received.

[trotsky]

16. Not even talking about that. I asked you two specific questions that you didn't answer.

They are:

1) What kind of person assumes atheists are unable to grieve like "normal" people?

and

2) Do you think that kind of person is displaying typical ignorance, or willful ignorance?

Care to answer, or do you want to continue your petty, childish attempts to address me along with the words "subhuman monster" repeatedly?

[rug]

22. All right, this stops at "childish, petty attempts".

[trotsky]

25. Great to hear you'll drop that.

Now care to answer the questions?

[rug]

26. I'm dropping this discussion.

Because it isn't one.

[mr blur]

39. Trouble is, rug, once you join in,

it always stops being a discussion and becomes a process wherein you simply put others on the defensive, snipe with your dismissive one-liners and end any chance of rational - not to mention civil - discourse. If your aim is to chase away the atheists from somewhere you clearly feel we don't belong, then you'll lose. If you haven't got anything better to do, then that's very sad. If you're trying to prove something, then it's not working, at least not in a way that reflects favourably on you.

[rug]

40. Frankly, this particular subthread fell apart when he introduced the notion of sub-human monsters.

The rest of the thread looks fine. Do you feel defensive by this reply?

[EvilAL]

7. Atheists have a reason to grieve

since we know that this is our only life and the loss of a loved one is permanent. Believers in heaven are only grieving because they will only miss the person for a certain amount of years here on earth, until they are reunited forever. So the believers grief is unnecessary, just like the person went on a long vacation.

[rug]

9. That's a good point.

At Catholic funerals the priest used to wear black vestments. Now they wear white, signifying the hope of resurrection. I've noticed that at most funerals I've attended the focus of the homily is on hope not loss.

[EvilAL]

10. That's the way it should be

as far as I am concerned. Nobody wants to go to a funeral to feel more like shit after they leave.
They should leave with hope and the feeling that it is not a loss at all. For the ones that want to believe it, however, to anyone else it's just meaningless words.

[Heddi]

8. The argument the minister is making is creepily similar to an argument made by a DU'er here

in this subthread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121822323#post34

hmmmm.

[Goblinmonger]

15. ^^THIS^^

For the win.

[cbayer]

20. Could you give us the total score at this point?

[trotsky]

21. WTF?

Here we have a real live example of the behavior described in the OP - right in this very forum by a self-professed Christian. Who gives a flying fuck what the "score" is? Isn't prejudice toward atheists something to be confronted and condemned? That's the point Ms. Christina is trying to make. Do you care?

[Goblinmonger]

32. Yeah, I can

Atheists calling bigoted theists on their bullshit = a lot
YOU calling bigoted theists on their bullshit = ZERO

Pretty depressing score from someone who claims to fight against bigotry on both sides.

Way to go after me instead of the example of the bigotry that was linked.

[cbayer]

33. 1 to 1 then

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=33826

[Goblinmonger]

34. It's pretty easy to say that a generic author is right about something

but completely different to tell humblebum that what was posted was bigoted. That may actually impact how things go for you on DU. Hence we have NEVER seen you do it that I can remember.

[cbayer]

36. Ruh oh. 1 - 3

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=5274

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=5308

[rug]

37. Watch out, you're quote-mining

yourself.

[cbayer]

38. Thats how I roll.

[Goblinmonger]

42. Thanks for those.

Hadn't seen them.

Enjoy your weekend.

[Heddi]

43. When do you start confronting anti-atheist bigotry like you said you would?

You didn't do it in that thread I linked to, and you haven't done it here, or numerous other places when it's been pointed out to you.

You've said that as a host you would chastise bigotry from both sides when you see it...but when you see it from one side, you're silent. You only seem to confront it when it comes from posters who are known atheists or agnostics.

It's really unfair the things that were said about atheists in the thread that I linked to, that you were a part of, and that you, a host who has promised repeatedly to be fair and balanced with regards to religious issues, were silent towards 2 posters: one who made a series of hateful, bigoted, and UNTRUE statements about the ability of atheists to console, and one made by another poster who insinuated that I was "polishing my halo" by recounting true accounts of what the realities of working in a hospital are.

You were silent. And you're always silent unless it's the atheists being "uppity". Then you're right there, wagging your finger and pointing out how uncouth the behaviour is, and how it's deteriorating good discussion, and how it's about points and winning and all this nonsense.

When do you tell another poster that saying an atheist cannot console like a believer is EXACTLY the same as saying an African American can't ____ like a white person. Or that a woman can't ____ like a man. Or that a disabled person can't ____ like a non-disabled person can?

When do you actually start standing up for Atheists, like you promised that you would?

On edit: so you linked to 2 times that you suggested a poster not refer to atheists in a negative way, although that poster has a habit of referring to atheists in a negative way and equating them with Stalin, Hitler, etc.

So two times. Wow. That's stunning. I'm really overwhelmed at your equality. Two times. Wow. And how many dozen times have you wagged your finger and "tsk tsk'ed" at the atheists for the things we post, and the things we say, and how we're not contributing to thoughtful discussion?

[SoutherDem]

11. I have had ONE Christian ask me to explain why I am an Atheist.

No joke, ONE. I have had the "I hope God has good aim" look, the "mouth drop open" look, I have heard "I never met one before", "How can you not believe in God" and "I am sorry to hear that". I have had people just walk away, start praying, and have been told I am crazy.
My favorite is they continue to treat me like I am a God believing non Christian, and pull out their Bible, not understanding if I don't believe in God, I don't believe in the Bible so telling me what it says doesn't do much good.
By the way the one who did ask me questions was a Jehovah's Witness which is not considered a Christian to most of those who did all of the above.

[mr blur]

12. I've yet to meet a fellow atheist who thought that reason and virtue

are "destructive illusions".

Or, indeed, a person of faith.

[LeftishBrit]

17. Nor have I.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Is what true - that atheists don't experience grief, or that religious people suspect them of not

experiencing grief?

Neither is true, in general. Certainly not the first. Indeed, atheists may have more reason for grief, because they do not believe in an afterlife, so to them their loved ones have gone forever, whereas many religious people (not all; it's certainly not a universal belief for religious Jews, for example) do think that they will see their loved ones again in a future existence.

And most religious people do not accuse atheists of being incapable of feeling grief - if anything, they may say the opposite, that atheists don't have a source of comfort in bereavement, as indicated above. Which may be true to some extent, but you can't believe that something is true when you don't, just because it might be comforting.

Gavin Dunbar, of whom I had not previously heard, seems very condescending. Moreover, he is confusing the intrinsic importance of an individual or an experience, with its cause. Perhaps this is partly semantic: the term 'meaning' can be used in English both to refer to the intrinsic nature and importance of something, and to refer to its explanation. But from the point of view of human experience, love and grief do not depend on why your loved ones exist. They depend on the nature of that existence. There are, after all, few stronger bonds than that of a baby to its parent or caregiver, yet a baby is not yet capable of understanding either a religious or a nonreligious explanation for Mummy's existence.

[rug]

23. The latter. Thanks for your answer.

[dmallind]

19. Religion aside, I think the writer mistakes the point of grief

Grief is not for the dead but for the living. For traditional believers, the grief-worthy dead are in a better place. For typical nonbelievers, they are completely gone and unable to experience anything. The survivors may say they grieve for the dead, but that's just verbal shorthand; in reality all grief over death is that the dead are no longer living and among the living. Since regretting this loss is a perfectly explicable response both from an evolutionary (one less group member to assist in survival) and cultural sense, as well as from an entirely selfish point of view (the deceased is no longer there for me), belief or lack of it has nothing to do with it.

If response to death was all about the dead themselves, believers should celebrate not mourn.

[cbayer]

24. I don't blame the author for being enraged by this.

It's patently insulting and stupid, let alone insulting and bigoted.

There are heartless and unfeeling people in every group. Religious beliefs of lack of them have no bearing.

[unblock]

27. even dogs grieve, ffs.

i think it's just another form of strawman argument, coupled with contempt for others' choices with which they disagree.

[rug]

29. That's very true.

Here's an old, sad story.

http://jasonmighty.blogspot.com/2008/12/grieving-dog-and-crushed-dog.html

[cbayer]

30. And elephants.

I visited an elephant orphanage in Africa. They lose a significant number of the babies because they become depressed.

[rurallib]

28. This looks to me like one of those arguments meant to demean a subgroup

Being in my 60s, I have a lifetime of experience listening to the ways a self-appointed superior group proves heir superiority by belittling the so-called inferior group.
Whether it be the Jews in Germany or the blacks in the US or one of the many other subgroups in the US - just to name a few - Irish, Italians, Poles, Catholics, Hispanic, on and on.
often these subgroups are painted with traits that show them not quite to be human level - they drink excessively and can't stop, sleep all day, have sex all night, live in shanties, etc. I am sure you have all heard the litany. And it is almost always the same traits, just change the name of the group to hate.

I had heard that one about 'not being able to grieve because they couldn't love' back in those days. Yet another slander against some group to make them stand out as an "other." Sometimes I am amazed his crap still works, but it never seems to even dry up.

[Uben]

31. My wife died...I am an atheist...yet I still grieve...why?

Because she was my mate. I loved her, she loved me. We were both atheists. Since when do people who believe in an imaginary being own the emotion of love? Love was here long before religions ever surfaced, yet they feel because love is a positive emotion, somehow it is only associated with their belief. How ignorant is that? About as ignorant as believing there is an omnipotent imaginary being ruling their lives.

[dimbear]

35. Those arguments are familiar to those who know the history of hatred of Jews.

Recycled contempt.

As the bard used to ask "Are we not men?"

[intaglio]

41. Dunbar preaches nonsense

Look at it this way ...

Animals display grief as well as other emotions and this leave the theist with an unanswerable dilemma - do animals believe in God?

Deal with the simplest "horn", if animals do not believe in God then that disproves Rev. Dunbar without further argument.

Now for the more twisted horn. If animals do believe then it must be by direct revelation, for this knowledge cannot be taught as animals lack the mechanisms for teaching such abstracts. However, despite this knowledge, animals still suffer the effects of evil with all the suffering implied by that. What is more they suffer the effects of natural disasters and, if the Bible is to be believed, the consequences of God's punishments of humans. This is formally known as "The Problem of Suffering" and is one of the great problems that theology has never satisfactorily answered.

Ignoring the glaring hole that the "Problem of Suffering" leaves in belief look at the consequences of animals having direct knowledge of God. If animals can receive this knowledge directly then why cannot humans? Why does God hide from humans and require from humans, alone amongst his creation, the need for faith? There is an idea that imbuing such knowledge directly into the human mind would deny us free will, but the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve had the freedom to sin despite having direct knowledge of God; equally Jonah tried to avoid the duty that God put upon him despite speaking to God directly. So direct knowledge of God does not impinge on human free will.

Of course the apologist would muster various arguments against this idea and here is one.

The apologist might say "But animals do not really suffer grief," but this is just the "No true Scotsman" fallacy writ large. Animals will suffer lassitude, depression and unreasoning outbursts of anger at the loss of a companion; they exhibit every behaviour we humans associate with grief and to deny that this is "really" grief is to deny that animals feel any emotion at all.