Atheist Says Challenging Religion is ‘Cruel,’ Nonbelief is for the Wealthy (article)

[Rob H.]

This is a response to Chris Arnade's bullshit claim that atheism is "an intellectual luxury for the wealthy."

Excerpt follows. Full article is here.

Atheist Says Challenging Religion is ‘Cruel,’ Nonbelief is for the Wealthy
December 26, 2013 By Paul Fidalgo
...

Look, I understand that many atheists can be uncomfortable with confrontation of religious claims, and I even understand that one can take issue with the tactics or rhetoric of certain groups or figures. None of them, not Dawkins, not Hemant, not the big atheist groups (including my own), and definitely not me, get it right all the time. (I’m kidding, Hemant, you always get everything right. Please don’t fire me.) The magic force field our culture has placed around religious belief and superstition makes every discussion and debate fraught with tension and tender sensitivities.

But Arnade (in this piece for the The Guardian) makes a mistake by castigating atheism-writ-large as some heartless, elitist club of buzzkills and dream-crushers. For many, if not most of us, our decision to be public and active about our atheism and our opposition to religion stems from a desire to see the world at large lifted out of a morass of bad and oppressive magical thinking. Flawed as we are, we are trying to make things better.

If religion is giving desperate people hope, rather than shake a finger at those who argue against religion, perhaps we should be working as hard as we can to give these people something other than religion to lean on. Something real that actually solves problems, rather than mystical falsehoods.

To leave things as they are, to allow religion to continue its infestation in the lives of those who deserve something better, just because it seems like the nicer thing to do in the short term, I think that’s what’s patronizing and elitist.

[Brainstormy]

1. Arnade's article is ridiculous

and confusing, since he doesn't say whether or not he's still an atheist. But its premise is just absurd. Not believing in god is no more an "intellectual luxury" than not believing in leprechauns or poltergeist.

[trotsky]

2. Very good response.

Doesn't matter though - it says exactly what the tut-tutters who despise vocal atheists want to hear. Defenders of religious belief - the smart ones at least - realized quite some time ago they have no answers for the questions atheism asks. Weary of trying to provide anything resembling a reasonable response, the new trend is to shame atheists into silence. How DARE you take away the thing that gives people meaning? How DARE you tell people they are wrong?

You can tell how much the hand-wringers love it by how much they fall over themselves to repeat it.

Fidalgo's response especially drives home the point here:

In doing so, he unfortunately invents a heartless atheist strawman:

They have their faith because what they believe in doesn’t judge them. Who am I to tell them that what they believe is irrational? Who am I to tell them the one thing that gives them hope and allows them to find some beauty in an awful world is inconsistent? I cannot tell them that there is nothing beyond this physical life. It would be cruel and pointless.

Is there anyone doing this? Is there any atheist activist or celebrity who is targeting the downtrodden and brazenly attempting to force the blessings of godlessness on them? Of course not.

Yeah, there ARE no atheists doing it. Doesn't matter though, since Straw Man Atheist is always the weapon of choice for those looking to shut down the atheistic perspective.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Since religion has, for the most part, implicit dogma regarding family planning

it can be considered directly influential on WHY some people are stuck in poverty. High birth rates directly correlates.

Atheism, on the other hand, is silent on the issue. So if your worldview, as an atheist, does not specify prohibitions on contraceptives/abortion/etc, you are more likely to be in the not-poverty bubble.


You could look at Atheism as an enabler I suppose, but I think it's more fair to look at religion as a hindrance.

[Curmudgeoness]

4. Here, here! I love it!

"If religion is giving desperate people hope, rather than shake a finger at those who argue against religion, perhaps we should be working as hard as we can to give these people something other than religion to lean on."

This is what I have always thought, but never said as well as this. Every time that I hear about how faith gives people hope, I say that is the point of why religion exists. It is an excellent way to placate the poor and miserable.....IF you are good little people in this life, you will have eternal life free of all worries and pain. Yes, we are treated like shit now, many are hurting, but you just wait.

BTW, Arnade has obviously never met me----wealthy is not close to what I can be called. But I thank him for the compliment that I am intellectual.

[uriel1972]

5. I think things like science, technology and better living conditions...

Whilst not always the product of atheism, are at least brought about by a move away from religious ideology. These things can give us hope in the future and can solve the problems of believers and in many cases already have.

If these things pass by the notice of believers, there is little we can do except bring them to their attention. You can lead a horse to water as they say...

[dimbear]

6. We're wise not to be Eurocentric in our thinking. Most of the world's atheists are Asians,

relatively few are wealthy by Western standards.

Compare China and India. Atheism is common in China, rare in India. Chinese folk have vastly better prospects financially and the expectation that China will in future be an important and rapidly improving player.

India remains India. A nation with the population of Africa but an economy the size of California.

[Iggo]

7. Ah, the old "big meany" argument.

Been down this road before.