I have a question. I realize it's virtually impossible not to cause offense - but I'm really curious, so I'm going to go ahead and ask anyway.
OK.
What is it with atheists and online comment sections?
Let me explain.
I would have thought that out of all of the obnoxious comments people make online about why anyone with a brain should believe this-or-that, the overwhelming majority would be coming from people who belong to a religion that emphasizes actively seeking converts.
And yet, for every comment like this: "That is why our once proud Nation is sinking we have no faith anymore, other faiths are given precedence over our faith, Christianity." (Not from an Israeli paper, obviously)
I see, like, twenty like this: "It's over. There is no EVIDENCE for any god(s) and certainly no EVIDENCE for any life after this one. Time to grow up. Fantasy Island is bankrupt. Reality is not that scary." or this more concise version, "Ha ha ha ha...Religion!"
And I'm not talking about just one paper here, or one day - this is a pattern I've seen in pretty much every comment section that isn't explicitly religious (eg, in Ynet, not Kikar Hashabat), for a few months now.
I understand that atheists, like any group of people with any kind of belief, think they are right, and enjoy it when others agree with them. But... shouldn't they be, like, 50th in line when it comes to pushing their views on others? They have no reason to expect spiritual brownie points for making an effort to convert the masses (to the extent that calling one's intellectual opponents brainless imbeciles can be considered an effort); that directly follows from literally the only universal tenet of atheism.
I was trying to come up with philosophies that would make less sense at the top of the comment-section-proselytizing list, and I could only think of a couple.
Agnostics - it would be pretty funny if there were huge groups of people going around and writing things like, "I don't know what I believe, and neither should you!!"
Druze, Scientologists, etc - Any faith where major tenets are only revealed to insiders. It would amuse me to see dozens of posts each day along the lines of, "I can't believe you people are dumb enough to believe that. It's so obvious that the real truth is [redacted], so there."
Anyway. I did have one theory - that people who believe in religions that proselytize tend to believe the consequence of failing to convince another person of the rightness of their faith is that God makes the other person's afterlife worse, whereas atheists believe the consequence of failing to convince others of the rightness of their faith is that other people make their life-life worse.
And when it comes down to it, almost everyone finds their own here-and-now much more motivating than someone else's afterlife, whatever their beliefs.
The flaw in that theory is that there are plenty of religious people who think secularism/modern liberalism/feminism/whatever threatens their current way of life. But - maybe those people don't have internet? Or if they do, are too busy over on WND to post comments to articles in more mainstream news outlets?
So... yeah. That was a long question. And hopefully not too offensive.
I honestly would like to hear an explanation for this (are there more "converts," with all the new-found enthusiasm for sharing one's beliefs that often goes along with that, to atheism than in the other direction? are there atheist groups that do actively proselytize? is it mostly just one angry atheist guy with nothing else to do? etc). Ever since I first noticed, I've been noticing more and more, to the point where when I see a "stoooopid religious people" comment I find myself wishing I knew the person's phone number so I could call and ask, "you, of all people, why do you care?? I get why the Christian guy cares, but what's your story?"
OK.
What is it with atheists and online comment sections?
Let me explain.
I would have thought that out of all of the obnoxious comments people make online about why anyone with a brain should believe this-or-that, the overwhelming majority would be coming from people who belong to a religion that emphasizes actively seeking converts.
And yet, for every comment like this: "That is why our once proud Nation is sinking we have no faith anymore, other faiths are given precedence over our faith, Christianity." (Not from an Israeli paper, obviously)
I see, like, twenty like this: "It's over. There is no EVIDENCE for any god(s) and certainly no EVIDENCE for any life after this one. Time to grow up. Fantasy Island is bankrupt. Reality is not that scary." or this more concise version, "Ha ha ha ha...Religion!"
And I'm not talking about just one paper here, or one day - this is a pattern I've seen in pretty much every comment section that isn't explicitly religious (eg, in Ynet, not Kikar Hashabat), for a few months now.
I understand that atheists, like any group of people with any kind of belief, think they are right, and enjoy it when others agree with them. But... shouldn't they be, like, 50th in line when it comes to pushing their views on others? They have no reason to expect spiritual brownie points for making an effort to convert the masses (to the extent that calling one's intellectual opponents brainless imbeciles can be considered an effort); that directly follows from literally the only universal tenet of atheism.
I was trying to come up with philosophies that would make less sense at the top of the comment-section-proselytizing list, and I could only think of a couple.
Agnostics - it would be pretty funny if there were huge groups of people going around and writing things like, "I don't know what I believe, and neither should you!!"
Druze, Scientologists, etc - Any faith where major tenets are only revealed to insiders. It would amuse me to see dozens of posts each day along the lines of, "I can't believe you people are dumb enough to believe that. It's so obvious that the real truth is [redacted], so there."
Anyway. I did have one theory - that people who believe in religions that proselytize tend to believe the consequence of failing to convince another person of the rightness of their faith is that God makes the other person's afterlife worse, whereas atheists believe the consequence of failing to convince others of the rightness of their faith is that other people make their life-life worse.
And when it comes down to it, almost everyone finds their own here-and-now much more motivating than someone else's afterlife, whatever their beliefs.
The flaw in that theory is that there are plenty of religious people who think secularism/modern liberalism/feminism/whatever threatens their current way of life. But - maybe those people don't have internet? Or if they do, are too busy over on WND to post comments to articles in more mainstream news outlets?
So... yeah. That was a long question. And hopefully not too offensive.
I honestly would like to hear an explanation for this (are there more "converts," with all the new-found enthusiasm for sharing one's beliefs that often goes along with that, to atheism than in the other direction? are there atheist groups that do actively proselytize? is it mostly just one angry atheist guy with nothing else to do? etc). Ever since I first noticed, I've been noticing more and more, to the point where when I see a "stoooopid religious people" comment I find myself wishing I knew the person's phone number so I could call and ask, "you, of all people, why do you care?? I get why the Christian guy cares, but what's your story?"
So, when I was a tad younger and still religious, I encountered a small website dedicated only to convince believers that their religion is wrong and stupid, and that they should all become atheists. The owner of the site would search for random blog posts with the word "god" in them, and comment about how stupid they are.
ReplyDeleteAs a believer, I was confused by the hatred towards religion. Many of the believers arguing on that site declared that the site owner was "angry with god", despite his repeated claims that he simply didn't believe. It clearly bothered him on a personal level, though. Really, he was just a teenager who had grown up in a secular home never understanding religion very well, rebelled against it, and felt like the majority of people are idiots and should share this "common sense" he discovered.
I think that type of person accounts for a large percentage of badly spelled and argued attacks against religion, but there's a more common type.
Richard Dawkins explains his opposition towards religion with two reasons: That religion promotes belief without evidence (something which usually only bothers scientists), and that religion causes a lot of conflict and suffering in the world. That second reason is a very prevalent opinion among religion bashers. They see religion as something poisonous, causing wars and terrorist attacks, and perpetuating messed up rituals (note that many people still believe blood libels). In their opinion, the world would simply be a better place without religion, so they try to convince believers to abandon their belief.
Due to Dawkins' popularity, these ideas have taken hold quite strongly and can be found pretty much anywhere religion is being discussed on the internet.
Does that answer your question any? =)
Yes, and thanks for both the informative reply and the not getting offended =).
DeleteIt sounds like you're saying there are two different types of caring about others' beliefs at play. One group - the "belief without evidence" sort - that doesn't necessarily see religious belief as threatening, but that wants to change people's minds for their own sakes. Almost like an atheist Chabad, if both groups will forgive me the comparison.
And another - the "religion causes all wars," etc, group - that doesn't want to change others' beliefs for their own sakes, but does view those beliefs as threatening. Sort of like an atheist Mea Shearim (to again put it in (inappropriate) terms familiar to me) - they'd be happy to have everyone do their own thing and leave each other alone, if it weren't for the part where they view the other guys as responsible for basically every social ill ever.
Am I understanding?
I'm reading way too much into things again, aren't I?
DeleteI think you're reading waaaaaay too much into this. People love being right and love ridiculing people who they think are wrong or ignorant. And reading opinions that are different from their own trigger insecurity. So they feel an overwhelming need to shout about how right they are.
ReplyDeleteBasically, it's just the same talkback culture that produces the usual flame wars between people of opposing opinions...
You're probably right.
DeleteI was mostly surprised by the vitriol of some posts, and the volume. Usually you only hit a certain level of anger when people really care about an issue.
Or so I thought, anyway - but you're probably right, the people who make the comments I was surprised by probably talk the same way when they're debating which Spiderman reboot is better.
I didn't mean to give the impression that only pro-atheist comments are angry, for the record. I see plenty of pro-religious comments that are downright psychotic.
I make a point of not reading talkbacks. My life has improved dramatically since making this decision. :P
DeleteThe platform for anonymous, lightening-fast and impersonal response on emotionally charged issues is the perfect recipe for disaster and draws out all the psychos, or the inner psychos in people who would never say such things in person...