About three days ago an atheist attacked a pastor. Maybe it’s happened before but this time it seems to have gained small footing in the media. Sure it will probably die away. After all, this guy has a history of violence and unscrupulous behavior. How can this guy possibly represent atheists in any way? How can anyone represent atheism? Atheism is not a religion or a set of doctrines. It does not prescribe behavior nor does it even have much to do with science or humanism. It is a single question on a single issue: “Are you convinced that any god(s) necessarily must exist?”.
Still, I can see it now. In fact there was a small post over on /r/islam calling atheists hypocrites. I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but I am here to say that secular humanists (as most of us are) do not condone violence as a reasonable or first recourse. It doesn’t matter that the pastor was implying that he was a wife beater. It doesn’t matter that the pastor may have said that the girlfriend was “going to hell” (maybe because she was dating an atheist, but we don’t know). It doesn’t even matter that he may have been trying to find god again (thus making him not an atheist). Violence is reprehensible and I rebuke this guy’s actions. He does not represent the secular community he represents himself. He is avowedly an “atheist” but it’s clear that he lacks compassion for other humans and may be a drug addict who has poor impulse control. This doesn’t mean that he is wrong about whether a god exists. It just means he lacks moral fiber or needs to go to rehab. In all of this, all it does is show that you can be right about an issue intellectually, but can be very wrong in how you chose to carry yourself.
However, I would like to explain why I think this has less to do with his “atheism” and more to do with his criminality despite the fact that I think it’s still good form to admonish his actions. A Christian bomber blows up an abortion clinic because he/she believes that, in doing so, they will receive reward from god for righteousness. The bible condones violence against others if it glorifies god, so it (if taken fundamentally) can mean that an abortion clinic bomber does so purely for religious reasons.
This last part may seem like a cop out, but “atheism” didn’t lead him to beat the pastor up, poor judgment and a sense of being wronged lead him to beat the pastor up. An atheist attacking a pastor does not do so because atheism tells them to do that, just like how not-believing in unicorns doesn’t cause someone to beat up people. What is more at work is the idea of identity coupled with criminal behavior. If one is an atheist and feels insulted by what a Christian says and one responds with violence, that is not because one is an atheist, it is because that person has not accepted positive claims about morality (e.g violence is wrong). It is that behavior that free-thinkers and humanists try and curb and that is what I am speaking out against.
Should we be responsible for rebuking this guy, or should it be obvious that, though he calls himself an atheist, he is clearly not a humanist or anything of the sort. Should we even care to address this? I should also note that Hemant Mehta of the friendly atheist blog has talked about this issue and has offered help toward the pastor. What do you guys think?
…………………………………………………….
About three days ago an a pastor attacked an atheist. Maybe it’s happened before but this time it seems to have gained small footing in the media. Sure it will probably die away. After all, this guy has a history of violence and unscrupulous behavior. How can this guy possibly represent Christians in any way? How can anyone represent Christianity in any way? Christianity is not a set of doctrines. It does not prescribe behavior nor does it even have much to do with science or humanism. It is a single question on a single issue: “Are you convinced that Jesus Christ is God?”.
Still, I can see it now. In fact there was a small post over on /r/atheism calling Christians hypocrites. I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but I am here to say that Christians (as most of us are) do not condone violence as a reasonable or first recourse. It doesn’t matter that the atheist was implying that he was a pedophile. It doesn’t matter that the atheist may have said that the girlfriend was “a fundie cunt” (maybe because she was dating a Christian, but we don’t know). It doesn’t even matter that he may have been doubting his faith in God (thus making him not a Christian). Violence is reprehensible and I rebuke this guy’s actions. He does not represent the Christians, he represents himself. He is avowedly a “Christian” but it’s clear that he lacks compassion for other humans and may be a drug addict who has poor impulse control. This doesn’t mean that he is wrong about whether God exists. It just means he lacks moral fiber or needs to go to rehab. In all of this, all it does is show that you can be right about an issue intellectually, but can be very wrong in how you chose to carry yourself.
However, I would like to explain why I think this has less to do with his “Christianity” and more to do with his criminality despite the fact that I think it’s still good form to admonish his actions. An atheist exterminates people because he/she believes that, in doing so, they will receive no reward or punishment for their actions. Atheism condones all actions or no actions, you can do whatever you want without recourse to any ultimate justice, so it (if taken fundamentally) can mean that the exterminator of millions of people does so purely for atheistic reasons.
This last part may seem like a cop out, but “Christianity” didn’t lead him to beat the atheist up, poor judgment and a sense of being wronged lead him to beat the atheist up. A Christian attacking an atheist does not do so because Christianity tells them to do that, just like how believing in unicorns doesn’t cause someone to beat up people. What is more at work is the idea of identity coupled with criminal behavior. If one is a Christian and feels insulted by what an atheist says and one responds with violence, that is not because one is a Christian, it is because that person has not accepted positive claims about morality (e.g violence is wrong). It is that behavior that free-thinkers and Christians try and curb and that is what I am speaking out against.
Should we be responsible for rebuking this guy, or should it be obvious that, though he calls himself a Christian, he is clearly not a Catholic or anything of the sort. Should we even care to address this? I should also note that Pope Francis of the Vatican has talked about this issue and has offered help toward the atheist. What do you guys think?