The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Atheist? Some Self Criticism Would be Helpful

What I most viscerally detest about religion is how it is practiced by the so-called faithful. It is practiced in hypocrisy, conceit, intolerance, and anger. It is irrational with it's atrocities committed by it's hysterical zealots who do not only lash out against unbelievers in the most horrific ways, but lash out at anyone that disagrees with them.

Unfortunately, and with a great measure of embarrassment, I see fellow atheists expressing themselves and acting out that is almost as repulsive to me as when a religious person does it. I am more forgiving of the atheist, naturally because our position starts with experimental data, and even if you shout it out, or shout someone down armed with it, you're still right.

But then again, you're not. Their is one more reason why religion is an atrocity and why it has lost it's grip across the face of the earth and it's not the reason I'm naturally inclined to agree with, but it's not because it's based on the unprovable,
but it's because, that in addition to being unprovable, they are insufferable brutes.

If hypothetically a scientist whose experimental data is reproducible, and whose hypothesis, data, and conclusions have passed successfully through the grueling peer review process, and maybe even has their discovery perhaps lead to revising an established theory, and perhaps leading to a new theory, will completely destroy whatever he's gained by being a hypocritical, conceited, intolerant, angry, irrational, insufferable brute.

As a Six Sigma professional, it is completely unacceptable to inject emotion and your subjective prejudices or expectations into your project your DMAIC, or DFSS process.

It may subject you and your project to undue (and avoidable) criticism, and be a detriment to your project itself, and the benefits that project could produce.

We should police ourselves to ensure that we permanently rise above the insufferable
irrationality that surrounds us. And for that, we need abundant self criticism on how we express ourselves, particularly since we're the ones holding all the data.

Let's up our behavior under the scrutiny of the scientific method, and confirm whether we're spreading the word and getting involved in a manner that DOES NOT BACKFIRE.

Because I tell you, just as with a hypothetical Six Sigma project, the backlash with blow up in your face. It has worked against religion, let's not have it work against us.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Roy Batty on November 13, 2009 at 3:18pm

Typo - second to the last paragraph: "Let's put our behavior" is how it should read.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by vjack on November 13, 2009 at 3:20pm

You have some good points, but you are missing the civil rights aspect of it all. Atheists are a hated minority, at least in the U.S., and working against this requires the sort of energy and passion that can sometimes arise out of anger. We don't have the luxury of debating the scientific merits of each position in a calm and rational manner because the other side is not interested in science, reason, or even common decency applied to atheists.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roy Batty on November 13, 2009 at 5:01pm

vjack,

That's almost paraphrases the approach taken by the inquisition, the reformation, the counter reformation, the crusades, the "cult of reason" at the fever pitch of the French Revolution, the bolshevik revolution, by chairman Mao and his general, the death squads of Latin America, the ethnic cleansers of Bosnia, Kim Jong-il of North Korea, and of course the Huttu and the Tutsi in Rwanda (sorry I skipped over Pol Pot).

Now flipping the bird isn't the same as killing people with which you "don't have the luxury of debating the scientific merits of each position in a calm and rational manner" with, but it's the same underlying logic, differing only in degree and scope.

Are we shooting for a better society or is this over who gets to live and die, and for what? Either way, we're flipping off, being flipped off, killing or being killed over someone ELSE's or one's OWN idea what what's logical and rational. Either way there are a lot of dead people that need burying.

And what they died for is little consolation, since they can't participate above ground with whose left, who themselves find no consolation in watching people die for a cause, or killing for a cause.

This is the irrationality that we have the ability to objectively overcome and offer something better to the world than the church, which among them are the happy images of having one's entrails removed, wound on a stick while someone is reading from a bible, and another taking dictation with a quill pen in a dungeon.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jared Lardo on November 15, 2009 at 12:33am

How exactly are being a hated minority and being a ruthless, remorseless revolutionary dictator alike?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rusty Gunn. on November 15, 2009 at 12:26pm

".......the other side is not interested in science, reason, or even common decency applied to atheists."

All the more reason to debate in a calm and rational manner. We need to stand heads and shoulders above them when it comes to common decency.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on November 13, 2009 at 3:25pm

The difference is that a six-sigma project will be judged based on facts. Of course you have to use facts since facts will be used to make a decision.

Theists use no facts for their case and if I want to mock them for their mythical B/S and give the finger to the abortion protesters (with their pictures of bloody fetuses) then I will let them have it! And I hope I make them scared enough to pee themselves!

Oh... I feel better now (I actually usually ignore the abortion protesters... but not always.... wink...wink)

PS - I am an engineer and have done my fair share of DMAICs. I work with a fellow engineer who insists I am immoral because I don't believe in sky daddy.... yeah... try using facts with him about religion. Been there...done that... hated it...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roy Batty on November 13, 2009 at 4:46pm

John D wrote:

"Theists use no facts for their case and if I want to mock them for their mythical B/S and give the finger to the abortion protesters (with their pictures of bloody fetuses) then I will let them have it! And I hope I make them scared enough to pee themselves!'

But John, that's the purpose of asking what I did in this discussion. Why the hell are we overlooking the fact that religion has had the world blow up in their faces because they "give the finger" and other things...to everyone who doesn't believe them? What kind of logic is that?

-"My enemy blows himself up because he swings a hammer (his aggression and irrationality) and hits a landmine (his own position or belief)...."

Therefore...the solution is...

-"I too will swing a hammer".....UH . NO. Our position has the characteristics of landmine TOO. But it can blow up not because the facts aren't there, but because our desire to tack on emotion and lack of self control to the data we have will TURN PEOPLE OFF to the truth of that data.

So, we shouldn't be using a hammer anywhere near our position, but instead develop something better.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on November 13, 2009 at 10:51pm

Sometimes you need a screwdriver and sometimes you need a wrench and sometimes you need a HAMMER.

I think that an angry approach can and does work. You can't use it all the time, but it should not be completely ruled out. All weapons (not real guns etc.) should be used in the war of ideas.

I always say that we should respect everyone's approach to communicating about atheism. If some want to shout they should shout. If others want to talk calmly that is great too.

We all need to come out as much as we can (without getting beat up or fired) and communicate. I support it all!