An Atheist Feminist Attacks "Seven Lies” About Atheists

Says Meredith Bennett-Smith (note 1):

“1. Atheists are pacifists who don't fight America's wars.”

While I have not heard this accusation, perhaps it exists. She takes the meaning to follow from this:

“This myth has remained popular, and is often repackaged as the phrase, "There are no atheists in foxholes." That quote, popularized after World War II, is often attributed to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and has been used to imply that atheists are cowardly, inclined to pacifism or, in some cases, find God while serving in war zones.”

I doubt seriously that many, if any take that phrase to mean cowardly or pacifist. So this starts off with a dubious claim.

“2. Atheists are all white men.”

I think that this is purposefully obtuse. No one says this. But one could legitimately say that “ALMOST all Atheists are white men”, and even that “Most Atheists are white child-men, children of western plenty and western maleducation”. This starts to smell like a list of straw men.

“3. Atheists are immoral hedonists”

This is another overgeneralization by the author, in what appears to be a series of strawmen to be easily blown down. The correct statement would be this:

“Atheism and Atheists have no statement of ‘Atheist Moral Principles’, and that is one of the attractions of Atheism, especially for sex-crazed adolescent males, narcissistic philosophers, professors, and feminazis. They celebrate their freedom to develop their own moral principles which they apply to everyone else but themselves.”

But she also quotes Amanda Marcotte:

”"Believers, listen to me carefully when I say this: When you use this argument, you terrify atheists. We hear you saying that the only thing standing between you and Ted Bundy is a flimsy belief in a supernatural being made up by pre-literate people trying to figure out where the rain came from. This is not very reassuring if you're trying to argue from a position of moral superiority."

Atheists do not hear well; they hear what they want to hear and only that. And thus there is no purpose in trying to “reassure” Atheists, especially since Atheists are the perpetrators of BY FAR the most heinous crimes against humanity ever recorded, all within the past century. So as for “moral superiority”, Atheists are far, far behind the curve.

“4. Atheists are arrogant and aggressive proselytizers.”

First, she promotes a lie: “Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the most infamous of these New Atheists, eager to debate all comers. "I'm quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism," Dawkins said in 2006”. Dawkins will debate only those he feels he can squash, and no others. Same for most of the New Atheists. Further, Atheism has no “virtues”; it has only “lack of belief”, if one is to believe the current Atheist definition “meme”. So Dawkins attacks, and is vicious in his rhetoric.

But mostly she attacks the proselytizing done by Christians, as a Tu Quoque dodge. That does nothing to obviate the “arrogant and aggressive” characteristics of Atheists; it merely demonstrates distress of logic.

5. Atheists are angry at God and want to destroy religion.

There is nothing she can say which would contradict this claim, if one takes Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett as exemplars. And judging by the zillions of books they sell, they can be so considered. Even if the overgeneralization is removed, the statement is correct and is not a lie.

She says,

”But just as Christians do not universally hate Allah and Jews do not universally hate Jesus, many atheists are perfectly happy to differ from organized religion without demonizing its top representatives. This isn't to say that some atheists haven't had bad experiences with religion in the past — and yes, some of those experiences may even have motivated their atheism. But that's not the same as harboring a lingering hatred of God, nor does it mean they want to destroy religion for everyone else.”

That is demonstrably false, just by paying any attention at all to what Atheists say and do.

She continues with an example:

”Noting that he hates God about as much as he "hates unicorns," blogger Lee Myers clarifies, that "Not believing in a particular religion is not dependent on a negative opinion of that religion's deity or messiah figure. It's simply the result of not being convinced because the burden of proof has not been met."

I don’t know who Lee Myers is, but he is certainly not PZ Meyers. But he does make the logically false statement that “the burden of proof has not been met”. What burden of proof? The one in his head which he changes as necessary to preserve his Atheism? What can he, himself, actually prove to be erroneous, using logic and/or evidence? He undoubtedly will reject that rational requirement. Because that’s what Atheists do.

6. Atheists believe the universe is all a big coincidence.

She makes this case:

”Nobody — not religious scholars, atheists nor scientists — knows with certainty how the universe was created. But while some religious adherents choose to believe in their respective creation stories, most atheists err on the side of evolutionary theory, not random coincidence.”

This is laughably scientifically illiterate: evolutionary theory will not even address abiogenesis, much less the origin of the universe. And Atheists are, in fact, claiming such knowledge, contra her claim. But it gets worse:

”Indeed, atheism and science are closely linked. Although popular science luminary and Cosmos host Carl Sagan never explicitly called himself an atheist or a humanist, the movement wholeheartedly embraced him, and he them.

"His idea of the immensity of the universe and how small we are just impressed me so much as a teenager," Amanda Knief, managing director for American Atheists, told the St. Louis Tribune. "It really led me to look beyond the religion I was raised in and shaped my Humanism."

Sagan also rather enthusiastically accepted the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award in 1981.

The use of Sagan as a proof of a general statement is irrational:

Science contains at least one Atheist;
Therefore science is Atheist.

Science is functionally materialist, but has no necessity to be either philosophically materialist, or Atheist.

Sagan was rather enthusiastically illiterate in all regards outside of his training; he has been proven wrong in his judgment that the earth is a lonely planet with no others likely to be life-sustaining; his mantra, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is self-refuting on two counts: there is no possible evidence to support the claim… because there is no definition of “extraordinary” which is not merely opinion. This is a sub-freshman fail.

Note that she merely sidesteps the entire question which she posed.

7. Atheists want to ban Christmas.

She says,

”Of course, the takeaway here should be that Silverman and his organization are neither trying to ban Christmas nor declare war on it. They are simply choosing to celebrate it in a secular fashion.”

How could there be a more absurd statement? If that were true, then Silverman and his AA would celebrate quietly, and leave everyone else alone, wouldn’t they?

”Meanwhile, the increasing politicizing of religion, coupled with growing conflict between anti-gay religious conservatives and their more liberal children, is leading to lower religious engagement across the board.”

Here she lapses into juvenile fear-mongering of the most onerous type: making up false “facts” to be feared. It is not true under any stretch of anyone’s imagination, that “politicization” of religion is increasing. Secularism, aka Atheism, is now violently defended as the governing moral principle, with Atheist harpies filing suits against even children’s organizations to keep them Atheist. The facts are directly contrary to her claim.

She is correct that children afflicted by government schools have to be constantly deprogrammed diligently by conservative parents, if the children are to grow into rational adults.

Note 1: “Meredith Bennett-Smith is the Identities Section Editor. She is a lover of soccer, social equality, coffee and happy hours. When not fighting the patriarchy or various forces of bigotry, she can be found in Prospect Heights.” (Author description at the end of the article).