Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 08.09.2006 /
Jeff Nalls wrote an article about ‘Overcoming Antagonistic Atheism’ for the July/August 2006 edition of The Humanist. Hemant is featured in it and has posted the complete article on his blog. Here’s an excerpt from page 3:
ANTIDOTE FOR THE ANTAGONISTIC IMAGE
The dilemma, however, remains: how do Humanists respond to fundamentalism’s’ charges and how can a positive image of the Humanist lifestance be promoted. If not via angry, antipathetic activism, then what?
Well, a handful of innovative freethinkers have proffered an antidote for this antagonism, an antidote that isn’t only more tolerant but much more effective. Earlier this year atheist Hemant Mehta organized a brilliant action which, due to the nature of its openness and good-natured spirit, unintentionally increased dialogue rather than squelching it.
Evidently Jeff and Hemant agree that friendly atheism is much more effective than angry antipathetic activism.
Comment by: Siamang
1I think it depends on your description of what “angry” is.
I think that some people would see any atheist move as “angry”. I think many Christians in particular think atheists are atheists because they are angry at God. I think we can thank CS Lewis for that characterization.
So by existing, we are “angry.”
I tried an experiment. I posted on a christian apologetic blog which was talking about how atheists have no foundation for their morality. I attempted to (in friendly atheist manner) answer the questions, support atheist morality without comparing it unduely or sharply or harshly with theist morality.
A number of difficult criticisms came up that I had a very hard time parrying without shedding “friendly atheism” and saying “well, theological morality has this same flaw.”
Eventually I became fatigued by the argument, and I’m embarrassed to say I dropped out of the site, having been beaten down by the constant battle against negativity. Perhaps I’ll go back… I found it very difficult and just plain taxing.
I’m so used to this forum where people just seem to do better, and I grew used to the trust I’ve tried to build up, that I had a hard time discussing things in that more hostile environment.
So anyway, all by way of saying, I can see why people surrender to the hostility. Either by way of silence, as I did, or by way of enacting hostility themselves.
Comment by: Ir
2Siamang, I hear you.
It’s hard to stay friendly if no-one else is being friendly.
Do you think you would have been heard more if you had stopped being friendly? Because the thought behind my question was: are there times when being angry instead of friendly works better?
Comment by: Mike O
3THis is interesting. I had the same experience when I posed a question on an atheist board. I am a Christian, but I honestly wasn’t trying to convert or anything, I had an honest question about something atheistic, and I didn’t want a Christian answer to a question I had about atheists.
I ran into the same experience Siamang did. It was a constant battle and I finally tired of having to defend myself all the time and I dropped out. A simple answer to a simple question would have been so nice.
Apparently it goes both ways. This concept of Christians and Atheists actually carrying on a meaningful conversation without feeling like you have to defend yourself all the time is new and very refreshing!
Sure, I may get a bit defensive when people accuse Christians of something that isn’t generally true or if something needs defending. But a good atheist would do the same. But it’s nice that there is a place that you can talk without people assuming you’re on the attack all the time, just because you happen to be on the opposite sides of the debate philosophically.