I love this blogger.

[chibi_evil]

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/12/how-to-be-an-ally-with-atheists.html

she puts words on the page in funny and informative order.  And says stuff that needs to be shouted from the

Comments

[passer_hedera]

Although I agree with the overarching sentiment completely, I do have something to say about the arguments put forward, and the way in which this is written (because it is very much a nice piece of preaching to the choir, but would do a great deal of harm if actually used as an argument to put before its detractors).

While she may never have met an atheist that wasn't 100% for religious freedom (and let me tell you, that line sent a whole bunch of warning lights blaring in my head), and who met all of the above criteria, there is a point that should be recognized--I, and a lot of other people, have. And while generalizing and marginalizing anyone as a group because of one person is totally idiotic, there is a degree to which these "myths" about atheism in many cases really do stem from that one Eager Young Athiest (who, like an eager young anything, is generally an idiot--I've been one myself), really did embody all of them. Because in reality, those "myths" aren't myths, they're stereotypes. While they have no right to use them

[chibi_evil]

and if i defined all christians by the screaming, ranting, obviously insane folks that give religion a bad name, you'd rightly call me on that. All we ask is to not be defined, in large part, by the crazy fringe

[passer_hedera]

I get what you're saying, and by and large agree with you--my problem was with the statement, made by your blogger, that it's not ok to say there are bad atheists. Because CAC is an atheist, but she shouldn't be held up as an example for the whole group, yes? So why can't I say that she is a bad atheist?

[chibi_evil]

heh. she's not saying you CAN'T. she talks about "bad atheists" all the time. she's particularly annoyed with Christopher hitchens a lot. he's...uhm..the technical term is "asshole" but you could call him a damn reactionary bigot. he's got a whole thing about killing off large groups of people. the atheist blogs wince every time he writes something. he's not a "bad atheist." he's an asshole, a bigot, a jerk and a warhawk. he's got some extreme views, and we'd really rather he thought about his positions more

[passer_hedera]

...(obviously, you win on the existence of god, common in one way or another to all religions, but then, I can win the same weight on the uncertainty or disbelief in god, common in one way or another to all atheists) you think you know, I can name you a sect that doesn't believe it, including the seemingly fundamental idea that Christ was God's son). You cannot both say that atheists have no set definitions and then say that atheists are open to spirituality and believe in religious tolerance and cannot be fundamentalists about their beliefs--because those are all means of defining the group

[passer_hedera]

...There are bad atheists, and unless you're going to start denying those people the right to call themselves atheists and reject the validity of their belief system under atheism (which you'd have a very hard time doing, all things considered), it might be better if things got a little divided. Because while the systematic oppression of non-belief in our society is absolutely wrong, you don't fix it in any way by claiming that you can't distinguish between atheists in terms of positive and negatives at the same time that you argue that they're all different. Having a term like "fundamentalist" used might make you feel uncomfortably associated with religion, but it is a valid term in some very specific instances (unless you are really going to argue that atheism is without definition--which they utterly undermine by their statements as to what it's not, which is a way to define something, albeit more open than the other way--that definition is subject to fundamental interpretations, just like any other

[passer_hedera]

You have the right to call anybody anything you want. there are very few people who would dispute your ability as well

erm. i forgot to sign in.

[chibi_evil]

i think we're haing our own little debate here. hiya!

[passer_hedera]

From the point #6 (and I might be drawing more in from the 10 Myths article she linked to--I realize I could be crossing them) it seemed very clear that she was telling me not to

[passer_hedera]

It was actually one of the few things I would have really loved to have at Hamline in the Religion program--it got talked about a lot, and dealt with a lot, but in any class where you had non-majors there were always these unfortunately circular discussions with people that just didn't understand either one side or the other in a very basic way and so couldn't wrap their heads around anything else. And it's a struggle that kinda hits both sides--there seems to be this passionate fear among atheists of being called a religion (which I do understand), and yet at the same time that seems to stem from this confusion of Religion and religion--which is to say, a Religion is an organized community of believers like Catholics, while religion (which could be also traded for belief, but that seems then to not include non-belief, which is itself a valid position) is a philosophical position regarding the nature of reality (which really, in this day and age, is closer to how most Americans live). Pagans, deists, atheists, agnostics, new agers,

[passer_hedera]

[continued from above] But in the US, the popular trend is to lump sum everything, which is why you find ludicrous statements like "The Catholic Church hates Harry Potter" (a coalition of Protestant churches opposed Harry Potter. The Catholic Church unequivocally did not, and in fact there was a letter from the US Council of Bishops distributed to all parishes in the wake of the initial Protestant protests informing Catholic parents that Harry Potter had been reviewed and found to be an excellent and entertaining series of children's novels in which positive choices and responses to ethical dilemmas were explored in a fashion that aided children in understanding these complex issues, and that, while they understood the concerns over allegations of witchcraft, they wanted to remind parents that fairy tales and fables are just that, and that even the great Christian writers Tolkien and Lewis found a little magic to go a long way in keeping a reader engaged). The big overarching labels are too big, and they lead to misconceptions,

[chibi_evil]

oh english

[passer_hedera]

Ok, and here we have another big problem