Atheist Stereotypes

Scofflaw

How many of the following would you agree with?

1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, they’re not as clever as atheists.
2. The few clever ones are pathetic because they need a crutch to get them through life.
3. They are also pathetic because they can’t accept the finality of death.
4. They have been brainwashed into believing. There is no such thing as a “Christian child”, for instance – just a child whose parents have had her baptised.
5. They have been bullied into believing.
6. If we don’t wipe out religious belief by next Thursday week, civilisation as we know it is doomed.
7. If you cannot answer a convincing "yes" to the question of whether god(s) exist, then you are really an atheist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dave!

1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, they’re not as clever as atheists.

Nah I don't think it comes down to that... I think it's more psychological than intellectual.

2. The few clever ones are pathetic because they need a crutch to get them through life.

No

3. They are also pathetic because they can’t accept the finality of death.

I wouldn't say pathetic, but I find it difficult to understand how they don't put 2 + 2 together and see how everlasting life fits in nicely with human beings' fear of death, and the fact that almost every belief system ever in the world has some sort of afterlife.

4. They have been brainwashed into believing. There is no such thing as a “Christian child”, for instance – just a child whose parents have had her baptised.

Well I don't think that it can be disputed that children aren't capable of the kind of philosophical thinking that makes an adult settle into a particular religion (if they actually do give it thought). They just follow the lead of their parents.

But once they grow into adults, I don't think it's the childhood brainwashing that makes them stay with their current religion. I think it's more complacency. There's so many different religions and only a small percentage are willing to research them all and then choose... most people are content with their current one. Some things don't make sense, but most of it's reasonable enough, so meh.

5. They have been bullied into believing.

Nah... It would take a serious amount of determination and psychological manipulation to force someone to believe something... if it's possible at all -- I don't actually know if it is!

6. If we don’t wipe out religious belief by next Thursday week, civilisation as we know it is doomed.

Nope. The world will keep on spinning, and we won't be getting rid of religion any time soon.

As long as there's an unanswered question, religion will be there to provide that answer.

7. If you cannot answer a convincing "yes" to the question of whether god(s) exist, then you are really an atheist.

No. If you can answer a convincing "yes" to the question of whether god does not exist, then you ARE an atheist!

Galvasean

DaveMcG wrote:

4. They have been brainwashed into believing. There is no such thing as a “Christian child”, for instance – just a child whose parents have had her baptised.

Well I don't think that it can be disputed that children aren't capable of the kind of philosophical thinking that makes an adult settle into a particular religion (if they actually do give it thought). They just follow the lead of their parents.

I agree with this.

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote:

How many of the following would you agree with?

1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, they’re not as clever as atheists.

The naieve bit I agree with. Stupid? Certainly alot of fundamentalist, bible-bashing creationist types are undoubtedly stupid and there's no point being all nice and pc about it. Alot of the fundies are as thick as the proverbial two short planks. It's one of the great mysteries to me though, how otherwise very intelligent people can believe in all sorts of myths and fairytales in the name of their religion. It's like there's a compartmentalisation of the mind going on. The religious stuff is filed neatly away in the don't-touch filing cabinet away from scrutiny by the more rational parts of their brain. It's a cop out. The merely naieve or low IQ have some excuse, the otherwise intelligent do not.

2. The few clever ones are pathetic because they need a crutch to get them through life.

This I agree with and I suppose that's what I was getting at in the second half of my reply above.

3. They are also pathetic because they can’t accept the finality of death.

This one is a bit more complicated. I guess it's with good reason that people fear death, and it was surely inevitable that sooner or later we'd invent a way to circumvent it. It would be interesting to know what would happen if a person had no exposure to religion or a concept of the afterlife at all in their early life, would they invent it independently?

4. They have been brainwashed into believing. There is no such thing as a “Christian child”, for instance – just a child whose parents have had her baptised.

It is certainly true that we're all born of no religion at all. Why some people cling to the religion of their parents and some don't is hard to know. Brainwashing comes into it to an extent, but then you could say almost everything we learn in early life is a form of brainwashing, even state education.

5. They have been bullied into believing.

It's a personal choice for most people. No matter what you've been exposed to in childhood, everyone's got their own mind ultimately. Some people just don't like what it tells them. I don't really think many people are bullied into it. Maybe you could argue that for an oppressed muslim woman, perhaps she hasn't been given much choice in the matter.

6. If we don’t wipe out religious belief by next Thursday week, civilisation as we know it is doomed.

No. Religion will be around in one guise or another for a while yet.

7. If you cannot answer a convincing "yes" to the question of whether god(s) exist, then you are really an atheist.

No not really. You could say we're all agnostic at birth. You can't be atheist until there's a god or gods to deny in the first place. Had nobody ever invented the idea of gods and religion I wouldn't be atheist I'd be a nothing at all. Though I'm pretty sure you agree with that and just posed the question to gauge other people's take on it.

I hope that's a reasonable start. There's alot in your OP to mull over.

Zillah

I agree with several of them, though the tone is far too sensationalist and a little strawman-like.

robindch

With your list, you're directing the argument rather narrowly. Not sure if this is what you want to do!

scofflaw wrote:

1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, they’re not as clever as atheists. 2. The few clever ones are pathetic because they need a crutch to get them through life.

I think breaking down believers and non-believers into the contentionsly-termed camps of smart and dumb isn't a good way to go. I'd use rational/irrational and supportive-of-rational/supportive-of-irrational instead. You're also omitting what I believe may be a substantial proportion of the rational religious believers who choose religious belief for the social benefits that public belief can confer.

scofflaw wrote:

3. They are also pathetic because they can’t accept the finality of death.

"Pathetic" is too strong. I would use "dishonest" instead.

scofflaw wrote:

4. They have been brainwashed into believing. There is no such thing as a “Christian child”, for instance – just a child whose parents have had her baptised.

"Brainwashing" imputes intention to harm where it may not necessarily exist. "Induced to believe" suits most people's experience more closely. I think it's worth remembering that the parents will have been subjected to a similar process of belief induction and accusing the parents of brainwashing is unhelpful.

scofflaw wrote:

5. They have been bullied into believing.

Sometimes. But they could also have been soft-soaped into believing. There are many roads to perdition!

scofflaw wrote:

6. If we don’t wipe out religious belief by next Thursday week, civilisation as we know it is doomed.

No. But religious belief does exist as a parasite in the minds of people -- wasting time, energy and resources and contributing little or nothing to society. Not to mention providing legitimation to homicidal nutjobs. I am concerned that, at some point, it's going to be sufficiently easy to produce mass-weapons which could wipe out substantial chunks of the world's population. History is full of daft millenialist movements who have sought widespread death destruction based upon one religious myth or another. While public religious belief and irrationality as a basis for public policy are both tolerated, this danger will continue to exist.

scofflaw wrote:

7. If you cannot answer a convincing "yes" to the question of whether god(s) exist, then you are really an atheist.

No.

I sort of agree with 4. I do think children shouldn't be brought up as one particular religion.
The rest may be true to some degree of some people, but certainly I wouldn't think they apply to all or even most. Not as they're stated.

(except for 6 and 7 obviously, which are silly)

Where'd you get those from? They are a bit sensationalist...

Dades

I read that article too, Scofflaw!

It annoyed me to read it however. I get the impression Humphry's resents the fact that people have more conviction about the existence of a god - either way.

He complains about Dawkins using anecdotal evidence, and then goes on to describe some old couple he knew called the Buchanans and how they are an example of how religion is good.

I don't want religion to disappear either, but I don't feel his arguments against what he sees are military atheists are very convincing. He doesn't even know what he believes himself.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

How many of the following would you agree with?

I agree you got this from The Sunday Times, article.

1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, they’re not as clever as atheists.

Disagree, but agree the stereotype exists and many atheists think that.

2. The few clever ones are pathetic because they need a crutch to get them through life.

Disagree, but agree the stereotype exists and many atheists think that.

3. They are also pathetic because they can’t accept the finality of death.

Disagree, but agree the stereotype exists and many atheists think that.

4. They have been brainwashed into believing. There is no such thing as a “Christian child”, for instance – just a child whose parents have had her baptised.

First part - Disagree, but agree the stereotype exists and many atheists think that. Agree with second part.

5. They have been bullied into believing.

Some have, some haven't.

6. If we don’t wipe out religious belief by next Thursday week, civilisation as we know it is doomed.

Strongly disagree with.

7. If you cannot answer a convincing "yes" to the question of whether god(s) exist, then you are really an atheist.

No, let people label themselves.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

I read that article too, Scofflaw!

Darn it, there was a reason I didn't link to the article!

The Atheist wrote:

It annoyed me to read it however. I get the impression Humphry's resents the fact that people have more conviction about the existence of a god - either way.

He complains about Dawkins using anecdotal evidence, and then goes on to describe some old couple he knew called the Buchanans and how they are an example of how religion is good.

I don't want religion to disappear either, but I don't feel his arguments against what he sees are military atheists are very convincing. He doesn't even know what he believes himself.

Yes - I didn't find them compelling either, and I thought his points rather a caricature. However, I was interested to see how many of us would agree with them if they were presented without the context of the article.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

However, I was interested to see how many of us would agree with them if they were presented without the context of the article.

Twas only a matter of time before you were 'outed'. But I think people can still address each of the points without be unduly influenced by the article itself.

There are people who would endorse all seven - but they are few and far between. Few enough to make Humphreys' rant disingenuous, insofar as people reading it will now associate atheism with what he has put forward as accepted stereotypes.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

I thought his points rather a caricature.

Dawkins has become the caricature of atheism for many people. This is the problem IMO.
I think his own answers are interesting. He agrees with me about drink is also a crutch.Here are is answers

John Humphrys wrote:

1. This is so clearly untrue it’s barely worth bothering with. Richard Dawkins, in his bestselling The God Delusion, was reduced to producing a “study” by Mensa that purported to show an inverse relationship between intelligence and belief. He also claimed that only a very few members of the Royal Society believe in a personal god. So what? Some believers are undoubtedly stupid (witness the creationists) but I’ve met one or two atheists I wouldn’t trust to change a lightbulb.

2. Don’t we all? Some use booze rather than the Bible. It doesn’t prove anything about either. I noticed Tim Robbins in boards.ie made some good points about this.

3. Maybe, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Count the number of atheists in the foxholes or the cancer wards.

4. True, and many children reject it when they get older. But many others stay with it.

5. This is also true in many cases but you can’t actually bully someone into believing – just into pretending to believe.

6. Of course the mad mullahs are dangerous and extreme Islamism is a threat to be taken seriously. But we’ve survived monotheist religion for 4,000 years or so, and I can think of one or two other things that are a greater threat to civilisation.

7. Why? For those of us who are neither believers nor atheists it can be very difficult. Doubters are left in the deeply unsatisfactory position of finding the existence of God unprovable and implausible, and the comfort of faith unachievable. But at the same time we find the reality of belief undeniable.

Talliesin

The perspective outsiders have of any group of people will inevitably be disproportionately influenced by the more vocal and public members of that group.

Those vocal and public members will actively work to encourage this - because it gives the impression that this larger group has greater support for their views than is actually the case.

Those outsiders that are actively opposed to the viewpoints of the group will also work to encourage this - whether deliberately or because they already believe that the extremists are more representative than they are.

Hence Christians get tarred with the same brush as loonies like Jack Chick or political vultures like Jerry Falwell, Muslims by the same brush as Bin Laden and atheists are no different in getting tarred with the same brush as Dawkins.

PDN

I think the stereotypes more accurately describe antitheists, rather than atheists per se.

Some posters on these boards certainly fit the stereotypes, just as some posters on the Christianity forum fit the Jack Chick/Jerry Falwell stereotypes of Christian fundamentalists.

I must admit that, prior to engaging with others on this forum, I viewed most atheists as conforming to the antitheist stereotype. It has been an interesting experience to discover the different varieties of atheism.

The Atheist wrote:

I don't want religion to disappear either

I find this intriguing.

Hemant Mehta, author of I Sold My Soul on eBay, stated that, as an atheist, he would hate to see religion disappear. This is because he recognises the good that comes from religion (humanitarian & community work etc).

I'm reminded of Voltaire's famous quote:

I want my attorney, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because then I shall be robbed and cuckolded less often.
—Voltaire

Of course Voltaire was a Deist, and so neither the theists nor the atheists can claim him (even if they wanted to).

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes - I didn't find them compelling either, and I thought his points rather a caricature. However, I was interested to see how many of us would agree with them if they were presented without the context of the article.

I wouldn't even see it as a good description of a militant atheist.

Not a very good article, kinda attributes atheism with lack of emotion or wonder, obsessed with consumerism (why does consumerism keep coming up)

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Not a very good article, kinda attributes atheism with lack of emotion or wonder, obsessed with consumerism (why does consumerism keep coming up)

Send me 100 euro and I'll explain it to you.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I wouldn't even see it as a good description of a militant atheist.

Not a very good article, kinda attributes atheism with lack of emotion or wonder, obsessed with consumerism (why does consumerism keep coming up)

Actually, I had the questions from somewhere else - I have yet to read the Times article, and with your review, probably won't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

PDN wrote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist
I don't want religion to disappear either

I find this intriguing.

Hemant Mehta, author of I Sold My Soul on eBay, stated that, as an atheist, he would hate to see religion disappear. This is because he recognises the good that comes from religion (humanitarian & community work etc).

I don't believe it is the "root of all evil" though I would gladly see it removed it from any source of power, globally. As a secularist you may well agree. Religion can continue happily as a personal matter afaic. I do see first hand see how it can benefit people on that level. Pipe dreams, eh?

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote:

(why does consumerism keep coming up)

I don't know. We arent the only ones who like to buy things:
http://www.angelshop.ie/

PDN

The Atheist wrote:

I don't believe it is the "root of all evil" though I would gladly see it removed it from any source of power, globally. As a secularist you may well agree. Religion can continue happily as a personal matter afaic. I do see first hand see how it can benefit people on that level. Pipe dreams, eh?

Yes, I do agree. When religion (of any variety) tries to get wedded to political power systems it actually becomes a prostitute rather than a bride.

I would be much happier for Christianity to operate apart from political power structures, having the freedom to rebel and criticise the secular authorities. That, IMHO, is authentic religion.

Talliesin

PDN wrote:

Of course Voltaire was a Deist, and so neither the theists nor the atheists can claim him (even if they wanted to).

Is the narrower sense of theism considered the commonly-accepted one here? I'd been using it in the wider sense that includes deism. Don't think many of my arguments will have been affected that greatly though.

Wicknight wrote:

why does consumerism keep coming up

Because it's something that people can generally accept is bad while also hard to measure in any individual so that we can all claim to not be consumerist or at least not as bad as that-person-over-there. It's a perfect enemy for the we-don't-mean-you tactic (incited animosity towards a group, but make it clear to those members of that group whose support you want that you don't mean them, that they are okay blacks/gays/women/left-handed people/country and western fans/teenagers/whatever the hell you're griping about, but it's those other ones that are the problem).

It is also non-theistic and that makes it a short rhetorical hop skip and jump towards attaching it to atheism. It also is something that people are using in a way they would previously use religion and while that previous use of religion does religion few favours in terms of intellectual and spiritual integrity, it was pretty handy for those religions that like to keep up numbers.

Fanny Cradock

aidan24326 wrote:

It's a cop out. The merely naieve or low IQ have some excuse, the otherwise intelligent do not.

Excuse for what? Believing in something you don't?

The arrogance...

PDN

If I was going to make a snide remark about low IQ then I would be inclined to spell 'naive' correctly.

Talliesin

PDN wrote:

If I was going to make a snide remark about low IQ then I would be inclined to spell 'naive' correctly.

You left out the diaresis, it's "naïve". Maybe aidan thought the diaresis was an umlaut and could be expanded to ie like ä, ö and ü can to ae, oe and ue.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

If I was going to make a snide remark about low IQ then I would be inclined to spell 'naive' correctly.

Evidently so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Talliesin wrote:

You left out the diaresis, it's "naïve". Maybe aidan thought the diaresis was an umlaut and could be expanded to ie like ä, ö and ü can to ae, oe and ue.

I was following the Times Online Style Guide:

But I do know that 'diaeresis' has 2 e's.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/style_guide/article986732.ece

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I was following the Times Online Style Guide:

But I do know that 'diaeresis' has 2 e's.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/style_guide/article986732.ece

I'm impressed. When PDN was first posting, he said he never visited, or felt any need to visit, the Atheism forum, and now he derails threads just like one of us. It makes me quite emotional, I can tell you. If I ever find out which emotion, I'll share that information too.

amused,
Scofflaw

Attractive Nun

Scofflaw wrote:

Evidently so.

Zing!

cavedave

Atheists may think they are smarter then Christians but they think we are just as bad as the KKK, Al Qaeda, Elvis fans, Nazis and libertarians

Banned organisations

So bin Laden, Hitler, Rand, Dawkins, Elvis and a dragon walk into a bar....

Galvasean

Amazing how the ffrf were added to the list BEFORE Al Qaeda.

karen3212

I don't believe in the stereotypes of religious people.

My sister and I had pretty much the same grounding in religion, and even as children she was much more ''spiritual'' than me. I think it is something like learning a language, some people are better at growing the connections in their brains. I also know atheist parents whose teenagers have joined churches, so again, I think it is connections that can be grown or broken throughout life. What'll I do if I get converted? Oh, scary.

I would definately like to see a reduction in the numbers of I've got the right/best religion people-those ones that scoff at and condemn other peoples' religions but don't really question their own.

Fallen Seraph

I would disagree with the first five in genereal. There are certainly cases where some of them hold true, but the answer is more no than yes.


No 6: Very no. I feel that religion is much less to blame in modern societal troubles than many atheists think it is.

No 7: I think the generally accepted term for someone who is unsure is "agnostic".