Historical versus metaphysical "skepticism"-- and agnostics as targets of bullies

[carolinayellowdog]

This post may alienate everyone in this group on both sides of the barricades, but I suspect that at least the UUs will sympathize. Having written about a number of different religious groups, I've earned an entirely undeserved reputation as a "skeptical debunker." On negative side of the scales, this has resulted in being publicly accused of being in cahoots with a conspiracy of "apostates" against a group that considers itself a major world religion, and being cyberstalked for many years by fanatical believers of a smaller sect that considers me a "basher" of their irreproachable founding figure. But on the positive side of the scale, this has entailed being uncritically praised as a skeptical debunker type by sources within the atheist/Free Thought camp, like The Skeptical Inquirer.

Neither the believers nor the unbelievers seem to grasp that a person can be a hard nosed skeptic about historical evidence and reasoning, while being an open-minded agnostic about metaphysical questions. For example, with Spiritualism, I'm not convinced that communication with the dead is prima facie impossible, but don't find any alleged evidence convincing that it actually occurs. For all I know, someone somewhere might have risen from the dead-- who am I to pronounce it impossible?-- but I surely have encountered no persuasive evidence that Jesus or anyone else actually did. The knee-jerk reaction of atheists to this kind of equivocation might be to stoop to name calling, saying I'm an idiot not to rule out the possibility of spirit communication or someone rising from the dead. And believers of a fanatical stripe might say you'd have to be spiritually blind not to find the proferred evidence for either of these things convincing. Such is the fate of an agnostic.

One thing I've noticed about this group, having forgotten to log in once before reading it, is that there are people active here that I've put on ignore for being bullies elsewhere, for two different reasons. One category, people who go out of their way to be rude to and try to humiliate any critic of Obama; another, people who as progressive critics of centrist Dems may find themselves on the receiving end of THAT kind of bullying, but then have shocked me by engaging in the most blatant eliminationist hate speech against everyone on the "wrong" side of the Potomac River. And. not surprisingly, those who feel inclined to bully critics of the party, or people from a different part of the country, can be found in the Religion forum as atheist bullies hassling believers, or believers seeking out opportunities to get into quarrels with unbelievers.

Seems like there must be some very deep fundamental insecurity behind all of this. If a person is REALLY so confident in his/her atheism, why the hell obsess over attacking strangers caught in the snares of religious belief? If you're really secure in your spiritual life, why engage with others of different or no belief in an effort to persuade them? If the irreproachability of the president is all that important to you, why seek out critics to waste your time attacking, when doing so just makes him look bad for having such insecure, aggressive "defenders"? There is some dynamic in religious AND political rancor that is rooted in the same psychological space, but damdifino what it is, any more that what makes me keep watching train wreck after train wreck in horror, rather than just ignoring it all.

[trotsky]

1. "If a person is REALLY so confident in his/her atheism, why the hell obsess over attacking..."

Maybe because "strangers caught in the snares of religious belief" are lobbying for, and making laws, which affect us all?

Did you hear about the Hobby Lobby case? No, of course there aren't many DUers who supported that decision. But by giving legitimacy to religious belief being sufficient grounds for taking a political stance, by accepting religion as being "another way of knowing" that's just as valid and acceptable as reason or experience, they do help contribute to the environment that makes decisions like Hobby Lobby possible.

[carolinayellowdog]

2. point taken, maybe my obsession with 19thc abolitionism gives me a soft spot for religion

It seems that the overwhelming moral force for the abolitionist cause was religious, whereas a lot of the inertia of "let it be" was purely pragmatic/materialistic. Of course there were the religious apologists in the southern states, but a lot of the northern resistance to abolitionism was of the "don't go there, this will cause economic harm so these religious fanatics just need to STFU."

[trotsky]

4. "Abolitionism is atheism."

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/sierichs_13_3.htm

Sure, it's great that many people opposing slavery did so because of their religious beliefs. Lots of people found plenty of secular reasons to oppose it as well. Religion - Christianity in particular - also justified slavery in the first place.

[Maedhros]

3. You touched on the dynamic in your post: insecurity.

Some demean and belittle others, thereby elevating and flattering themselves. They do this from a lack of confidence in their beliefs and accomplishments.

[Starboard Tack]

5. Great post. And an excellent question.

If a person is REALLY so confident in his/her atheism, why the hell obsess over attacking strangers caught in the snares of religious belief?

And the key word here is "obsess". I ponder that same question every time I venture here. It seems that there are some who claim that all believers, along with those who tolerate them, are somehow responsible for all the ills that have ever befallen mankind due to religious fervor, religious differences and any other ill which may be connected, no matter how remotely to religious belief. This is the position expressed here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=147938

Needless to say, this is an extreme position, a purist position, a fundamental position of absolute intolerance for religion and religious belief. Those who hold this position are capable of connecting dots between celebrating Xmas and female genital mutilation. And they will do it with a straight face. They know no boundaries.
Ironically, these same folk call all believers delusional, purely on account of their religious beliefs.

Why do they obsess? I don't know? Are they sincere about connecting all those dots? I don't know. Which brings up the same question, are they the ones who are delusional? I don't know, and I don't think it's important to know why they obsess.

The question "How they obsess?" is more interesting to me than "Why they obsess?". Whether it emanates from insecurity and fear, as most obsessions do, is not important compared to how it is justified and implemented. Especially in an environment like DU, where ostensibly, we are all friends, sharing common values and ideals.
Obviously, the justification comes from a sense of both intellectual entitlement and sense of smug self-righteousness, which in turn justifies the mocking, bullying, baiting, cajoling and smearing. And if that doesn't work, then it progresses to the shunning, and finally exile. All of which, ironically, is classic fundamentalist biblical strategy. They are, or have become, what they themselves hate the most.

Neither the believers nor the unbelievers seem to grasp that a person can be a hard nosed skeptic about historical evidence and reasoning, while being an open-minded agnostic about metaphysical questions.

I'm not so sure about that. I've had similar conversations with friends recently. We are all skeptics, to one degree or another, mostly non-believers, but we all are open to the metaphysical and the exploration of what one might call the soul. I have been an atheist for 50+ years, yet I am totally open to the metaphysical. I find no contradiction with science.
I would not suggest bringing up such conversations in the A&A group.

[carolinayellowdog]

6. Have seen so many discussion fora degenerate into just what you describe-- scapegoating?

E

specially in an environment like DU, where ostensibly, we are all friends, sharing common values and ideals.
Obviously, the justification comes from a sense of both intellectual entitlement and sense of smug self-righteousness, which in turn justifies the mocking, bullying, baiting, cajoling and smearing. And if that doesn't work, then it progresses to the shunning, and finally exile.

My own experience of being hounded, mocked, etc. has been entirely one of being victimized online by believers, not in any mainstream religion but by various "alternative spiritual movements" whose members are made extremely uncomfortable by even the friendliest, most respectful discussion of their history from a skeptical POV. So now, there aren't any safe places where any of these groups can be discussed dispassionately, although there were promising beginnings back in the Usenet era.

And despite never once having been treated that way by an atheist/agnostic, I keep seeing the same personality type among them here that I saw destroy all possibility of friendly discussion of various groups back in the day. And just as with some of these "cults" there seems to be a fundamental (and fundamentalist) sense of being beleagured by a hostile world, a sense of being the only righteous remnant with a message that would save everyone if only they would listen, and a proclivity to lash out at people who are respectful of their place at the table, the instant one suggests that maybe someone else who doesn't toe their party line deserves the same respect.

[Starboard Tack]

7. Seems as though extremists dominate in the virtual world.

The word "tolerance" is anathema in the "A&A" group. I and so many others thought it would be a cool place to hang out. I soon found out that it was the most hostile place I'd ever set foot in. I haven't felt the least hostility from believers, either here or in the real world. How weird is that?
Of course, anyone who stands up to the bullies gets accused of not being a real atheist, or if you don't act like a dick toward believers, you must be a poser.
Ah well, the ironies of life. At least I'm only getting beaten up by my own kind.

[prefunk]

8. So it's ALL the fault of the mean atheists and your behavior had NOTHING to do with it?

[rug]

10. That's not much of an argument.

[Starboard Tack]

12. Of course my behavior had a lot to do with it

Standing up to bullies doesn't mean you won't end up with a bloody nose.
Haven't seen you before. Do we know each other?

[rug]

9. I wonder how cyber extremism correlates with the many here who don't reveal their atheism irl.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Interesting thought.

But why would they choose to let off steam here, of all places? I can understand, to a degree, why they might want to hang out in a safe haven for solidarity and some giggles, but there are so many RW fundie blogs to play in. They could have a field day. Yet no, they prefer to eat their own. Go figure.

[stone space]

16. I'm with you on this.

The word "tolerance" is anathema in the "A&A" group. I and so many others thought it would be a cool place to hang out. I soon found out that it was the most hostile place I'd ever set foot in.

[pinto]

11. I don't obsess one way or the other and don't get the point of it all.

Yeah, I like to go down to the church at times, rarely for a mass. It's quiet, cool in the summer and a good place to just sit and take stock a bit. Which I think is one point of the church's role. I light a couple of votive candles for family passed. And kneel in their memory and the community the church has played in our lives. Say a prayer of sorts to thank them all. Still do the holy water as I come in and leave.

None of my atheist friends have any issue with that. It's just not an issue. And none of them ask for a definition of where I stand in the spectrum. I would probably say comfortable agnostic, I guess. And I don't ask them for a definition either. We just fold it into our friendships.

Along with all the other dichotomies that come up. LOL.