Forum Discussion: Five Awful Atheists?
Ian Murphy's article 'The 5 Most Awful Atheists' is getting a lot of attention -- more than it should, probably. He has no demonstrated knowledge or understanding of atheism; all his recent work seems involving whining about 'awful' people. So why does anyone take Ian Murphy's opinions seriously?Just as important is the fact that he has nothing new or original to say. Not even the concept is original: whining about prominent atheists being "awful" because they are "rude" or "militant" for daring to speak out is a popular tactic among those who don't want to see religion subjected to the same standards of criticism and debate as every other ideology.
It's a tactic of cowards and Ian Murphy fits right in: nowhere in his article does he directly and substantively engage the any of the arguments of the people he complains as being "awful." He rarely even quotes them directly -- he just alludes to what they have said that is supposed to be "awful." This is not the behavior of a serious, informed, or respect-worthy person.
A forum member writes:
Sure, I disagree with all of those people on some issues. But them I pretty much disagree with everyone here on different issues from time to time.Tony is making some important points here -- points that are completely lost on people like Ian Murphy. Since atheism isn't any sort of ideology, philosophy, religion, or worldview, there's hardly anything that a person can say or do that can be attributable to atheism in any way.
The assumption here seems to be that when a well known atheist makes a comment about something other than atheism that he or she is either making these statement as a spokesperson for atheism, or because of their atheism. And that simply isn't the case, even if they want to compare their decision making process on those issues to their decision making process that led to their atheism.
The point I agree with is that not everyone is an atheist for rational reasons, and being an atheist doesn't make a person inherently rational in all areas. In fact I don't think I have ever meet anyone who is completely rational in every area at all times.
I don't agree with the Libertarian approach, but I still like Penn. Maher is a blowhard, but I do find him funny often enough to enjoy his rants. They are all idiots at times. That makes them pretty much just like everyone else. Take them to task for the individual stupid things they say. That's good. But the article wants to make every stupid thing they say be related somehow to them being atheists, and that's just stupid.
However rude, obnoxious, or even hateful some random atheist may be, it's not making them a "bad" atheist, just a bad person. It's this fact that atheism is more an attribute than an ideology which so many people have trouble comprehending. A person's atheism isn't any more a direct cause of their behavior than their being tall or blonde.
The same can't be said for actual ideologies, religions, and belief systems. A person doing awful things in the name of or in the context of an ideology can be described as a "bad" member of that movement (in addition to being a bad person, of course). You can have awful libertarians, bad communists, evil Christians, and hateful Muslims.
I have to wonder: if Ian Murphy keeps encountering "awful" people everywhere he looks, maybe should stop and take look in the mirror? After all, he is the one thing that's consistent in all those situations.