Yet another piece about how atheism got to be all full of assholes. I say “yet another” so you’ll know I realize there are a lot and I’ve probably talked about all of them, but this is a good one. (So were the others. Shut up.)
Mark Hill divides the brands of assholery into 5.
#5. The Closest Atheism Has To Leaders Are Terrible People
Yes. That’s true, and it’s a problem if you want atheism to catch on.
He starts, naturally, with Dawkins.
He sneers down on anyone who disagrees with him with such disdain that Professor Snape would be put off, he’s repeatedly gone out of his way to insult and trivialize sexual harassment, and he went off on that weird tangent about watching dogs have oral sex.
And then there’s Kincaid…
YouTube keeps suggesting I watch videos by the Amazing Atheist, possibly because it’s worried by how many hours I’ve wasted watching other people watch other people play video games.
If you have literally anything better to do than watch that video, he “answers 22 creationists” with all the smug condescension of a teenager who just discovered what communism is and won’t shut up about how it’s perfect in theory. In another video, he uses the same haughty tone to defend himself from accusations of having toxic attitudes toward women while doing impressions of them that sound like he plugged his nose and took a hit of helium.
Yes, I get that being a jerk is his shtick. But his videos have hundreds of thousands of views. Dawkins’ The God Delusion has sold over 2 million copies. And this attitude is infectious. Reddit’s atheism board and its 2 million members became such an infamous cesspool that Reddit removed it from its list of default subscriptions.
The infectious attitude is…key.
I’m sure many of you can name atheists who express their arguments rationally and politely, but as a casual fan of intense religious discussions I can only recall the prominent people. I’m like the basketball fan who only knows LeBron. That means arrogant condescension has become the default tone. We’re attracted to people, not because they make compelling arguments but because they’re loud and abrasive. That’s what we think someone who espouses our beliefs should sound like, but that’s like letting PETA represent all vegetarians, or Die Antwoord represent all music.
Next item on the list –
#4. It’s Become Tied To Awful Ideas
I don’t mean to pick on the Amazing Atheist, but the need to defend himself from feminist critiques didn’t come out of nowhere like the knife-wielding clown that snuck up behind you as you read this. Here he is arguing that sexual objectification doesn’t exist, and here he is again making fun of feminist cartoons while the point of them flies so far over his head it struck a passing 747.
And he doesn’t even mention Phil Mason/Thunderf00t.
this isn’t an isolated problem. As AlterNet points out, atheism has become as bad at talking to girls as the boys at a junior high dance. A movement that’s supposed to be about rational thinking has fallen into the same “vagina emotions make chicks a bunch of crazy broads” trap as your friend who got into the pickup community and reeks like an Axe factory. You can’t claim to be a proponent of science and reasonable thinking, only to regress to hacky sitcom stereotypes about women being humorless harpies who bring sexual assault upon themselves. That’s like complaining that no one will take your obvious soccer skills seriously just because you occasionally punch opposing players and pick up the ball.
It might be an idea not to alienate half the potential constituency, in short.
“Spreading your beliefs” and “insulting half the Earth’s population” are contradictory goals. One of the reasons Christianity took off is that Jesus rarely gave sermons about how it’s important to love thy neighbor unless they’re some crazy ho, in which case you just have to put up with them until they’re off the rag, am I right, Biblical men? If you want to attract people to your worldview, you have to make it look attractive.
BuzzFeed, as a reminder that they occasionally engage in journalism that goes beyond telling you what Game Of Thrones character your toaster would be, did an excellent piece on how women who want to engage in the community of skeptics find themselves targets of sexual harassment. When one woman politely pointed out that it wasn’t the greatest idea to hit on her at 4 a.m. in a hotel elevator in a foreign country, Richard Dawkins ripped into her and someone sent her a drawing of her being raped.
But after that things went downhill.
I left my family (fundamentalists) to get away from such crazy shit. I decided to involve myself with the atheist movement because I wanted intelligent conversation without Jesus every other word (yes, my intelligent, educated friends couldn’t have a conversation about anything without Jesus poking his head in). I wanted to escape the sort of crazy sexism that the Christian right had been subjecting me to forever.
And then, just when I got comfortable in atheism, these sexist clowns started pouring out of the Volkswagen and spoiled it all. I might as well have hung with the people who used Paul to tell me I was no good, as hang with those who use Pinker to tell me I’m not good.
And it’s going to remain so, so long as the boy gets to be “atheism,” and girls are….not.
This article left a lot to be desired, but one of the biggest annoyances was its continuing portrayal of atheism as a dude. A sexist, arrogant, defensive dude.
“Yes, I get that being a jerk is his shtick. But his videos have hundreds of thousands of views. Dawkins’ The God Delusion has sold over 2 million copies. And this attitude is infectious.”
I can’t defend some of Dawkins’ recent statements, but I don’t think he was being a jerk when he wrote The God Delusion. I think it deserved its sales and probably helped quite a number of people towards atheism.
David Evans @3:
I haven’t read The God Delusion–pop philosophy, whether I agree with it or not, simply doesn’t appeal to me–but to my ear the complaints by theists about Richard Dawkins’s writing on atheism match very well the complaints I have about his being a monumentally condescending and smarmy Dunning-Kruger victim whose rabid anti-feminism, apologism for sexual abuse, islamophobia, and other anti-social tendencies lead him to be unable to refuse to play the gratuitous asshole card at any available opportunity. The fact is, the theists were right about Dawkins, even if they’re wrong about god. He’s a monumental asshole who’s not nearly as smart as his fans tell him he is and he believes himself to be.
@4
Yeah, they do read like that, but they also read like every religious person’s criticism of every atheists view of everything. They read exactly like their criticisms of Daniel Dennet and random atheist number 5, and that guy who keeps suing about the flag/pledge/money god stuff. Frankly, their criticisms of the God Delusion also read exactly like their criticisms of the Selfish Gene, or the people talking about Carrier talking about Mythicism.
It may be technically correct to say that they were right about Dawkins, but if so, only in the sense that a broken clock is right.
In a way that’s true, and it’s why for several years I picked a fight with every written attack on “new” atheism I saw, but…that was before Dear Muslima. Since then I’ve increasingly suspected that if I re-read TGD I would find a lot to cringe at.
@ Gretchen:
Well, if you replace “atheism” with “organized atheism”…. that seems pretty accurate, no?
Of course, the article did leave a lot to be desired, and one of those things was the constant conflation of atheism (lack of belief) with Atheism (organized movement) for the snake of snark. I wish the author had been clearer about that distinction, but trying to get in-depth well-written pieces from Cracked is up there with walking through mountains or trying to get the Brantisvogan Civil Service to acknowledge a change-of-address card.
Agreed. After calling out Kincaid (who, BTW, isn’t just an arsehole as part of his schtick – he’s just an arsehole) the article dipped noseward into generalisations and laziness. A bit of actual background on E-gate would have been good (because more than one commenter accused RW of kicking up the ensuing appalling fuss, which is the opposite of what happened), or even a sentence about the Deep Rifts in general – hell, the Pit itself could’ve got its own paragraph. The many years of harrassment and death threats over people expressing support for feminism, starting with Mason’s epic FTB bridge-burning (for example) would have been a fucking EPIC eye-opener for the Cracked commentariat. Deserves its own article.
I think Hill had the germ of a good piece here but clearly didn’t have the background or research to do it justice. Instead, there is now yet another article saying “So what if atheists are right? They’re smug insular wankers that don’t stand for anything. And some of them are flaming arseholes.”
Dawkins suffers from a problem many intelligent, educated people have. He thinks he’s smarter and more knowledgeable than he actually is.
My dear, you do realize that atheists and Christians are the same beast… manifestations of Egalitarian Romantic Chivalrous Liberal Decadent Nihilism infecting the West. Insults to Nature.
Both with their Ashkenazi sickly instincts infect and topple civilization topple Hellenic honor dignity and mark of distinction replacing it with the black feminine void where everyone can be anything.
Christians and atheists go with their little activist tactics to achieve Heaven On Earth realm of Perfect Equality and World Peace with no strife, no competition, no growth, no depth, no maleness. Only sameness and rampant femininity as females are made to used as resources whether by Alpha-males or by Ashkenazi insitutionalism.
So, in a brief word, Yes! Christians attacking atheists or vice-versa are like 5-year-old brats fighting to eat the same bottle of glue. Christian/atheist debates are totally irrelevant but I wouldn’t expect a herd of “progressive” decadent nihilist atheism to understand the world at large the geopolitics the world beyond the simple feminine materialistic self.
There’s another reason why at least some atheists are such assholes: it’s very lucrative. Take thunderf00t and his youtube videos, for example: through his Patreon account, he earns almost $3200 per video, and he sometimes posts four or five per month. That is a LOT of money for not a whole lot of effort. Why are people willing to pay him so much? Because his audience are these smug Skeptics who love his confrontational, sneering disregard for the people he targets. It feeds upon itself. The more of an asshole he is, the more his audience rewards him–harder sneering, more videos, more targets.
In fact, if you look at his recent videos, they’re not even about atheism–they’re about feminists, the eeeeeevil SJW’s, and anyone else that he’s become well known for hating, lately. Elevatorgate was a godsend (no joke intended) to him.
He has absolutely no incentive to act like an adult, and I sincerely doubt that he cares one whit about convincing anyone of anything; that article’s headline implies that these people have a cause (presumably skepticism) which I’m not certain that people like thunderf00t truly believe in. To be honest, if every feminist became an MRA, and every religious believer an avowed Skeptic, all overnight, it would ruin Mason’s life. Those are the last things he probably wants.
@10 My dear, that’s a lot of capital letters.
Ah, no. Atheism predates Christianity, chivalry, Romanticism and liberalism. Your capitalisation of “nature” is noted and filed as “possible spiritual crankery.” Your “my dear” is filed as “almost certain cantankerous condescension.” The lack of acceptance of the claims of theists is as old as theistic claims. Don’t draw too many conclusions based on a person’s non-religious status.
Not exactly sure what this barf is meant to mean but I’m picking up the distinctly pungent odour of anti-Semitism. “Hellenic honor dignity”? Definitions please. “Black feminine void”? You’re just pulling words out of your arse now, yes? Afraid of vaginas, are we?
So, we’re all about instituting a New World Order where there’s no maleness, only rampant femininity – but females are also made to be used as resources by Alpha-males? Make up your tin-foil-shielded mind. Or maybe I’ve got it wrong because your ability to write a coherent sentence seems less important to you than spicing things up with the Shift key. And again with the Ashkenazi thing. Explanation?
Funny you should mention glue. You sound for all the world like you’ve been huffing some particularly strong stuff straight from the bottle. Under a tarp. But take heart – you sure know some big words! Pity you just throw them together without understanding them. Sort of like a goat vomiting after eating a dictionary.
Bingo on the anti-Semitism, Hank_says.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews
I literally became an atheist because of Harris and Dawkins’ books. It is the worst that they turned out to be dicks, but they’re still dicks and I’m not unwilling to say so.
I’m in the middle of Grayling’s “The God Argument.” Is he a dick too? Tell me now before I get too engrossed. 😛
Ophelia Benson said
So maybe it’s time for you to do that work then. Particularly as the title of your blog is itself based on a Dawkins line reacting to a negative review (of The Selfish Gene IIRC).
[OT]
Wannabe, you’re sorta thereabouts. From the ur-B&W:
(https://web.archive.org/web/20051031044810/http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=14)
Yes Gretchen! It’s so irritating when people assume this is about “winning over” women, people of color, etc to atheist beliefs instead of recognizing that all of us are already here, just not into the atheist movement in its current incarnation.
Dawkins is annoying sometimes although a really great writer, but this stuff about apologising forsexual abuse really ought to be dropped from the list of complaints about him. It’s nonsensical and it makes the accusers appears shrill and crude. Dawkins is a victim of sexual abuse and he condemns it in every case. If he didn’t he really would be a monster, and I know that is the idea, to make him a monster instead of just an opponent, but he isn’t, he’s just a clever man who is stupid about some things.
I can reassure Ophelia about the God Delusion, though, it still reads very well, although more interesting on evolution than theology.
I don’t know if Grayling is a dick, but he is a bore which I often think is worse.
Bluntnose @17:
I note he holds that mild pedophilia (such as he claims to have experienced, and which he contends did no lasting harm) merely merits mild condemnation.
(One of his pearls of wisdom: To note that X is worse than Y is not to endorse Y, even if one holds that Y is “zero bad”)
The stupidity defense?
<snicker>
Yes, that seems to be his view and I agree with it (having some experience of very mild paedophilia). I think it is the only humane position to hold, and I think his willingness to feel some sympathy for his abuser shows more humanity than most of his critics too. What none of it can be justly described at is apologism for abuse.
You will notice if you read my comment again a little more carefully, that I say Dawkins is a clever man, not a stupid one, but clever people can be stupid about some things. I think you are probably a clever person too, so your response rather makes my point.
@ 19 John Morales
It’s an awkward thing to be seen defending Dawkins around here, but I think you are being unfair. His comments were in reference to the past when, he contends, there were different prevailing attitudes. He wrote:
Whether one agrees or not, I don’t think you can reasonably paraphrase that as saying, “mild pedophilia… merely merits mild condemnation”. He is clearly saying, “I or anyone” would condemn it strongly today, but he doesn’t believe it reasonable to project modern standards on people of the past.
*******************
If anyone who hasn’t read it would like to form their own opinion about the merits or otherwise of The God Delusion, the full text appears to be available here.
Sigh. Dawkins. _The Selfish Gene_ holds up well, even the part about memes, which I still find useful in explaining religion. I never did read _The God Delusion_; I’m guessing it repeats the stuff about self-reproducing memes, along with the known human psychological tendency to automatically interpret all actions as being the result of intelligent agents. If so it’s probably pretty good.
He’s gotten way too full of himself and he needs to sit down and read the pile of evidence that his “friend” Michael Shermer is a serial rapist. Science, right? Dawkins is supposed to think like a scientist? Did he just stop doing that when he got rich enough to not care?
When it comes to deciding on circumstantial evidence whether you think a crime took place, science is not going to be much help. If the Shermer business could be settled by science it would be behind us by now.
@david Evans
I can’t defend some of Dawkins’ recent statements, but I don’t think he was being a jerk when he wrote The God Delusion. I think it deserved its sales and probably helped quite a number of people towards atheism.
Yes I don’t think he was being a jerk – but I think if I re-read it now I’ll probably find some smugness and condescension.
Another thing is that some of the criticism directed towards Dawkins for this book was so over the top and was so transparently an attempt to defend religion rather than to rebut his arguments , that I guess a lot of us ignored some valid criticisms.
I still sometimes wish Dawkins changes his attitude – because , he is in part , a reason why the “atheist movement” (whatever that is) exists.
Cressida @ 14 – No, absolutely not! Anthony Grayling is a total mensch. And Bluntnose is entirely wrong; he’s the opposite of a bore.
I am happy to hear it! I’ll go back to enjoying the book. It is certainly dense, but I don’t find it boring at all.
I had tea with him when he was here for the day on a book tour a few years ago, and I wrote a post about it.
At least, I thought I’d written a post about it, but I haven’t been able to find it. Anyway, he was lovely.
Found it. (I’m stubborn.)
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/a-day-out/
@#14 Cressida- well, I’m re-reading “The Heart of Things” by Grayling because I enjoyed his style. It’s a mix of intelligent probing and compassion for humanity. I’d like to think, from this book, that he’s a good and caring person.