An Atheist’s Bad Behavior

Interesting piece. I recently blogged on a similar topic – namely, the tone atheists take when criticizing religion. I have taken the position that religious beliefs shouldn’t be given any more respect than most opinions. For instance on politics. So I’m pretty ok with harsh words when debating belief vs. non-belief.

That being said, there is a civility line that probably shouldn’t be crossed. It sounds like this group crossed it on this day.

That’s unfortunate.

No matter what the group there are always those people who cannot help themselves and end up acting like a jerk. This does not mean that person (or persons) are representative of the whole group.

Atheism was not the problem here, it was rudeness.

I’m kind of curious… I mean I’m pretty sure the atheists did not just start attacking her after hearing she is a believer… I might just be exhibiting a “just-world” bias; however, I’m pretty sure she HAD TO do/say something to cause this reaction… But who knows.

This needs to be in the above post:

To be fair, the attacks (verbal, not physical) were only from one person, others did try to “keep the peace” to some degree, and my wife did hold her own quite well.

Without it, the post makes it seem as if the whole group was attacking her, instead of one lone presumed a-hole.

I wanted to chime in here briefly, as it was me (the atheist blogger in question) and my wife who this happened to.

I consider myself to be a “hard-core” atheist. I debate believers, and I have no problem calling them on their BS when I see it. The reason for my original post was that in this particular situation, I felt that the group should have respected the differences of somebody who believed in a common goal and was there to show support for that goal.

Hemant,
Thank you for posting this, as it helps bring attention to what I feel is sometimes an overlooked issue.

To those who mention it was the behavior of one jack-ass and not indicative of the entire atheist community, I completely agree with you. I don’t blame the group, or the atheist community in any way. I do believe this one guy was a complete ass.

As Brain A said quite well:

Atheism was not the problem here, it was rudeness.

R.C. Moore,

I think in this case, having read the original article, I would suggest that a bar full of drunks is not the best place to go if one is offended by overbearing clods.

This event was a happy hour sponsored by a local atheist group I belong to. The main topic we were discussing is separation of church and state, which happens to be a topic that both my wife and I strongly are in favor of. This was not a drinking contest or a college frat party where piss drunk ignorance should be expected.

I am bothered by how the blog frames this as an atheism issue, as I think there is a hidden agenda or perhaps a lack of real substance to write about.

If my post came across as framing it as an atheist issue, that was not the intent. On my blog (and other blogs, forums, etc) I regularly “attack” believers when they make unsubstantiated claims (such as the “power of prayer”).
I also tend to not “hold back” when they make claims of non-believers going to hell, or homosexuals being an abomination, because I feel these statements are ignorant, and offensive.
This particular post was meant to show that not only believers can show ignorance or be offensive.

spankyzeham

I’m kind of curious… I mean I’m pretty sure the atheists did not just start attacking her after hearing she is a believer… I might just be exhibiting a “just-world” bias; however, I’m pretty sure she HAD TO do/say something to cause this reaction… But who knows.

As best I recall, when we first arrived, somebody asked my wife something to the effect of “is this your first meet-up with this group?” Her response was something to the effect of “Yes, my husband is the atheist in the family, not me”.
There were one or two other quick questions about why a non-atheist would be at this meet-up, to which we replied that the groups stated goal of separation of church and state is one we both firmly support.

With this the subject has dropped until near the end of our meal (everybody around the table was eating as well as having a few drinks). At this point the jack-ass in question began to question my wife on her beliefs, at first insinuating she was a christian, then after being corrected questioning her beliefs and explaining quite rudely why they were wrong.
For a while she tried to politely respond that she felt her beliefs were personal, and did not expect others to believe the same as she does.
He was unwilling to let this drop, and became more and more abusive.

Buffy,

If I took my wife to an event and somebody attacked her I’d take them to task (though she’s quite capable of defending herself). I rather wonder what hubby was doing while the atheist was going off on his wife.

I tried to step in a number of times, and each time my wife’s response was “no, I can defend myself”.
I pointed out a few flaws in his arguments, but for the most part my wife did not seem to want me involved in this issue.
As her and I have had many conversations on the subject of belief over the years, I knew she was capable of handling herself, but I still did want to step in, but my wife kept stopping me.

One final note. I did consider the fact that being close to the situation I may have a bias in my article, and I won’t deny it is possible. I will just say though, that when my wife left the table to use the restroom, a number of others at the table did give this guy shit for being a jerk, and at least one has emailed me since (without having seen my blog post first) expressing his displeasure with how my wife was treated.

Obviously you only have my side of the story here, but I did try to be as objective as I could in my post.

Acting as if one atheist reflects on another is not helpful at all. At least any criticism should be legitimate and not just a means to an end.

That would also depend on whether said atheist was claiming or implying his personal beliefs reflected those of atheists in general.

One of the problems I find with religions is the “in-group” mentality that allows members of the group to ‘get away’ with behavior the other members don’t necessarily fully agree with. I don’t think it a good thing to emulate that.

On a different note I find his criteria for allowing others to have beliefs a little strange:

“I have always believed that other can hold different beliefs than my own…

* They do not attempt to justify their actions based on those beliefs ”

So others can believe different things than you as long as they don’t justify actions based on beliefs you don’t agree with?

“…or treat others negatively for disagreeing with them…”

I believe I have a right to live and not be murdered. If you disagree with this, I will react negatively–possibly to the tune of 3000 ft·lb of force delivered by 180 grains of copper and lead (strictly in self-defense, of course).

I can agree with the sentiment of not being a jerk, but found those couple points a little strange. We all HAVE to base our actions on our beliefs (whether it is about the fundamental metaphysical truth or whether we think the milk is sour), and since your actions are dependent upon your beliefs and my treatment of you is dependent upon your actions, my treatment of you (positive or negative) is dependent upon your beliefs.

Personally, I’m a hard core Pepsi person. So every time some tells me they think Coke tastes better, I immediately have to prove to them the extreme fallacy of that belief. What kind of delusional nonsense is it that Coke is better. Haven’t they studied the Pepsi challenge?

I consider it my personal duty to stamp out this illogical and nonsensical belief that Coke is better than Pepsi.

In the end not only have I shown my supreme intellectual capabilities but I’ve also shown that my penis is bigger also.

“If an atheist you know is being rude or unnecessarily dickish about it, stop them. Those people make us all look bad. It’s even more embarrassing when other atheists — sitting right there! — don’t make up for their bad behavior.”

Good point, Hemant. Alas, the comment threads of what is, after all, called the FRIENDLY Atheist blog might be the first place to implement this good advice. I’m really looking for a friendly place to which I can refer my believing friends for a civil discussion of what they believe and what atheists believe. (That wouldn’t be PZ’s blog, for example.) I’m still looking.

As the Organizer of the group that hosted this Happy Hour, I’d like to emphasize the comments of Hemant and several of his readers.

The actions of one individual certainly don’t represent a group.

I did not attend this particular event however I have heard recollections that vary from the account presented here and would question the presence of any similarities on the importance of Separation of Church and State.

Nevertheless, Hemant titled this post “An Atheist’s Bad Behavior” (emphasis added) – as far as I’m concerned, this is a much more appropriate and relevant title than the original blog title “When Atheists Attack” (emphasis added).

Rodibidably,

My comment was responding to Hemant, I don’t want you to think I was criticizing you in anyway apart from that I thought that you were upset at your wife being questioned. Now that you’ve cleared that up I don’t think we conflict too much.

J. J. Ramsey,

That’s when honesty gets thrown out the window and people aren’t really concerned about what people said rather how it effects them. Coming out harshly against them is a good way to ingratiate yourselves to others, whether its BS or not doesn’t really matter.

@tokenadult

I’ve done a lot of looking as well, and I think that – so long as you’re looking on the internet at least – you won’t find a place dedicated to religious/atheist discussion that’s completely friendly.

Hemant is the “friendly atheist” but the comments here are written by all kinds of people – unfriendly, friendly, uncomfortably-friendly, friendless… the only thing they have in common is their interest in what Hemant has written.

Still, I’ve found that this blog tends to attract more thoughtful, civil comments than blogs like PZ’s, simply by nature of the posts. Finally, “friendliness” is sort of in the eye of the beholder. Some people don’t sugarcoat things, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. When someone is being deliberately, unnecessarily, snarkily rude, I do think that’s a bad thing. But like I said, I think the ratio of civil:uncivil comments here at FA is on the whole the best I’ve found.

I was present at this incident. Lest readers be led to believe that this was a pivotal incident in atheist/religionist relations and a major public relations setback for atheists, please allow me to supply a little perspective.

Many believers have attended our events in the past. There is frequently good-natured banter and an enthusiastic exchange of ideas. There have been surprisingly few punches thrown considering the nature of the debate. Our events are generally free of this type of confrontation. However, it is inherent to our philosophy, and pretty much inevitable, that we are occasionally going to be in verbal combat with someone of the god-believing persuasion. Sometimes it ain’t pretty.

I think that an aggressive attack is in poor taste in a social setting. In-your-face aggression is more appropriate in blogs or on the steps of the Supreme Court – but it is not unheard of for conversations to get animated whenever atheists and god-believers find themselves in close proximity. Nor, I think, is there a good concrete reason to necessarily avoid all such conflicts. Without such reminders, the terminally superstitious will remain oblivious to the fact that others of us consider their beliefs to be insane.

Nevertheless, this particular confrontation was aggravated by one atheist who was admittedly pushing a little too hard and who failed to take several fairly obvious hints to STFU. While it is a good idea to be cognizant of acceptable social behavior, stifling conversation is always problematic just because someone might get their feelings hurt. Both parties have equal rights and responsibilities in such a situation to keep such conversations within certain ill-defined boundaries. But there is no Constitutional right to never be offended.

In fairness, however, it seemed to me that the god-believer in question came to the table fully prepared to fight, with a chip on her shoulder and unwilling to disengage. Further, she attempted early on to immunize her argument from examination or criticism. For some atheist that is like blood in the water. So, one guy, unable to constrain himself in his desire to make a point, insistently dragged the conversation into the realm of the uncomfortable.

Attempts to inject humor and to draw the conversation back to separation of church and state were ignored by both parties. In other words, there were 2 willing parties in that argument, one of whom eventually angrily exited the debate. In my experience, that is usually the person whose arguments have been systematically dismantled. I’m just saying.

Nevertheless, this was just a fairly moderate fight between an aggressive atheist and an adamant believer, like we have all seen about a million times. This one only seems larger because the husband has a blog. It is unfortunate that it happened in a social setting but it ain’t the first time or the worst infraction or the last time that’s gonna happen.

Bad manners and overreaction. It is fair to be upset about a boorish display of bad manners, but let’s not get wrapped around the axle over what is, in reality, a mundane and trivial event. It may have been fairly dramatic to those involved, but most of the people at the table were engaged in other conversations and were unaffected. This incident only involved a very tiny slice of humanity and will have zero negative impact on the atheist community at large. Indeed, I estimate that there are about a thousand incidents just like this going on in the time it takes to read this blog.

I am not excusing poor behavior, just explaining and putting in perspective. Yeah, no one wants atheists to look bad in public, and it shouldn’t have happened, at least not in that setting, but any hard atheist who hasn’t been involved in a heated debate in public with an adamant god-believer just isn’t trying very hard.

Where’s that popcorn eating smiley icon, I need it!

At first I thought this was happening in NYC. Ho ho ho!

Dear Ron in Houston: RC COLA.

Game Over Man!

Ron in Houston:

I quite agree that Coke isn’t better than Pepsi. Only the delusional would suggest it is.

And then there are people like NYCatheist and his/her RC Cola. Probably even drugs wouldn’t help there. 😉

Of course, we all know that Diet Coke is what makes life hum along as sweetly as it does. 🙂

When atheists and god-believers square off, the intensity of the debate is understandable when viewed with an eye on history.

To say that Coke or Pepsi is superior is a subjective statement of little consequence. To insist that Coke or Pepsi is objectively better and that those who don’t agree and accept such claims as absolute, unquestionable TRUTH is something else entirely. Obnoxious and rude but mostly harmless. But, to insist that such TRUTH is sacred and inviolable and must be forced on the unwilling for their own good and that non-acceptors are subject to extreme punishment is an obvious metaphor for the worst aspects of religion.

Such ideological absolutism about the Coke/Pepsi question would be worthy of contempt, not respect. We all respect our superstitious friends’ right to believe any dumbass thing they want; we need not, and do not respect the beliefs themselves. Let us not pretend that we do.

Anyway, atheists have historically fared poorly at the hands of god-believers. It was not enough for the god-believers to have their own beliefs, but rather they insisted on unquestioned submission to the unbearable and compliance with the ridiculous. Free thinkers and non-believers became thought criminals. For the better part of the last 1500 years they hunted us for bounty.

So, the intensity of our revulsion with such a mindset is understandable and is fully justified. And it explains why the debate sometimes gets intense. When you think about it, and considering the history, it’s kind of amazing that we are as civil and forgiving about it as we are.

Of course, we all know that Diet Coke is what makes life hum along as sweetly as it does.

Everyone knows that Root Beer pwns them all.

So, let me get this right.
A guy brings his wife, a woman with a, “VERY strong belief,” to an Atheist meeting. According to him, she’s a sweet delicate flower who NEVER, “made any attempts to force it on others, or even question those who do not share her belief,” and yet she was, again, according to him, all verbally attacked by Atheists. At their meeting.
Um, how did these mean Atheists know of her, “VERY strong belief,” unless she opened her mouth? Obviously not once, but several times?

You want to confront people with your, “VERY strong belief,” do it on a street corner, don’t treat an Atheist meeting as your personal rutting ground. I’d be furious with some stupid fundie ruining a night I’d set aside for a time and place with no religious noise. An Atheist meeting is suppose to be welcome break in this utterly pathetic superstitious society, not another debate session. She got exactly what she deserved.

Rick,

came to the table fully prepared to fight, with a chip on her shoulder and unwilling to disengage.

Actually she was a bit hesitant to come knowing she would be the only non-atheist at the event. I assured her there would be no problems.
I do agree that once the argument got to a certain point, she was unwilling to let it go, but the point I tried to make in my blog was that I feel it should have never gotten to that point.

Further, she attempted early on to immunize her argument from examination or criticism

If by “immunize her argument from examination” you mean that she stated her beliefs are personal, and she does not expect others to agree, then I suppose.
But she also did not (and does not) question the beliefs (or lack of beliefs) of others. She made no attempts to tell others they were wrong to be atheists, or tell anybody that they had to accept her beliefs. In fact she repeatedly said she did not expect others to agree with her views or care if they did.

I do agree with you that this is not indicative of all atheists, or of the group. And I did acknowledge your efforts to defuse the situation (even though they did not succeed).

I’d also like to mention I did not create my post to knock the group, and I tried to be careful to avoid mentioning the name of the group because I did not want to seem like I was attacking the group.

Tao Jones,
I already covered how a mention of her beliefs came about. She was not trying to push her belief on others, and did not expect anybody at the event to share her beliefs, but I do think she expected (and I know I expected) the people at the event to treat her with some degree of respect.

Shelly,

it sounds like we’re all in agreement that an individual is not representative of the group

Yup. I was never intending to come across as if I was bashing the group; I have tried numerous times to explain the purpose of my post.

Shelly,
I was NOT being sarcastic. I really was agreeing with you.

I have agreed that apparently I did not make a strong enough distinction in my original post, but I REALLY did not intend to bash the group. I was mearly trying to make a point about an individual, and compare that to how I normally tend to view christian fundies.