It’s Friday morning and I feel like an absolute tool. The sun’s rays serve only to strengthen my anger and I shield my eyes from them the way you would from an obese streaker or Bambi’s mom dying. I’m in no mood to talk and make the mercifully brief walk from Jewett to Olin with the relentless white noise of my head’s aching buzzing in my skull.
Just when I thought it was safe to go to class, I am greeted with an all too familiar sight: pamphlet guy. Everyone has encountered pamphlet guy in his or her life. Pamphlet guy lurks outside everywhere you ever consider going and, armed with willpower and the handiwork of some Kinko’s employee, proceeds in changing your life forever, or at least putting in an honest effort.
Pamphlet guy comes in a variety of incarnations: some worse than others. There’s “cause” pamphlet guy who feels compelled to remind you that three baby seals died in China because America loves oil. This particular iteration of pamphlet guy is excusable; while self-righteous, he at the very least thinks he is doing something to benefit . . . something. Wrong though he may be, there’s a certain nobility to it that can be admired.
The next rung on this ladder of irritation is the religious crusader. This man is trying to save your soul and he is doing it in five minutes outside your local movie theater. This is when pamphlet guy begins to become the condescending ass-clown we all know. He makes the amusing assumption that whoever he is talking to: be they religious or not: is the way they are simply because they have yet to be enlightened, simply because they have, as of yet, failed to read the 300 words of wisdom that will take them to the promised land.
While this form of pamphlet guy is annoying and condescending, still we can see a silver lining to his douchebaggery. He, like “cause” guy, is trying in a very misguided way to do something good. While his efforts are feeble and worthy of pity, he is trying to bring people on to a path that, he feels, will make them better off for it. This is why the religious crusader does not rest at the top of the ladder of irritation. This spot is reserved for the atheist avenger.
The atheist avenger is an alliterative pseudonym for the pamphlet guy we see who, identically to the religious crusader, seeks to change your life and do so very quickly and with little effort. The atheist avenger has all the qualities we attribute to the religious crusader with one notable exception: He has zero interest in bettering your life or the life of any other person.
The atheist avenger therefore proves the champion of idiocy in this hierarchy of self-righteousness. He seeks to change people’s viewpoints yet does so with no respect for the viewpoints he wishes to change. He sees no other side to the story and assumes that your religious beliefs are ripe for the sculpting. He does all of this and does it for no reason. What need would an atheist see in taking someone’s faith from them? What good could that do anybody? The fact is, it does no service other than gratifying the individual with the pamphlet. His joy in this vocation lies only in a condescending belief that he needs to drag people kicking and screaming from the safety of their faith. He benefits nobody and disrespects everybody to whom he so righteously hands that lime-green piece of paper.
A. • Feb 28, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Joey-
I’m sorry if I misunderstood anything in your article. It seemed to me that, despite your statement that there is only one difference between the religious pamphleteer and the atheist pamphleteer, the negative characteristics of the atheist pamphleteer were more numerous and more vehement.
I too have contempt for those who disrespect the beliefs of others and try to convert solely because of their own arrogant belief that they are smarter than everyone else. That includes atheists and theists alike. I see where you’re coming from and agree with that; this is not the bias I was referring to. But if an atheist tries to convert someone, it is not invariably the case that they have “zero interest in bettering your life of the life of any other person.†It is this phrase that is the essence of why this article so upset me. You don’t believe that atheism is preferable to religion; I have no problem with that. But to say that atheists can’t have good intentions if they try to convert others is offensive. No, they aren’t trying to save people from burning eternally. However, atheists probably think that they are happier and better off without religion, and that others would be too, and it is for this reason that they might try to convert. They are trying to better the lives of others. I’m not going to go into specifics, there’s no need for that. If you’d like to satisfy your curiosity about the reasons for an atheist conversion, ask an atheist (but not one of the disrespectful, scornful ones that like to call attention to themselves). This isn’t about why certain religious beliefs would be better than others. It’s about the intention of the converter, and atheist converters aren’t always trying to convert people for their own gratification. Your belief that atheism is not preferable to religion is what leads you to believe that atheists have can’t have good intentions when they pamphleteer, that they can only offer a viewpoint that is unhelpful, and this is the bias I refer to. I see no difference between the amount of disrespect, condescension, justification, or good intentions of the atheist and the theist pamphleteers. They both posses all of these qualities, and they are both annoying.
As for my response to the opening paragraph, it was rude, unproductive, and I apologize. I appreciate that you can look past that.
Response to “To Aâ€-
You’re right, I did get too worked up when it came to the last paragraph. Perhaps it is because I felt that if something of this tone addressed any other religious demographic, it would not be published. But in any case, you’re right, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, no matter what that might be.
A. • Feb 27, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Let me summarize your points:
1. Pamphlet guys are annoying, especially when you’re cranky and hungover.
2. Atheists are the worst pamphlet guys because they are trying to ruin lives with atheism.
The first problem with the second argument is that all of the characteristics that are listed as making the atheist the worst of pamphleteers can be assigned to the religious pamphleteer:
-Seeks to change people’s viewpoints with no respect for the viewpoints he wishes to change
-Sees no other side to the story
-Assumes your religious beliefs are ripe for the sculpting
-Disrespectful, righteous
Why is it that these are assigned only to the atheist pamphleteer? There is no reason. There are religious pamphleteers who can be called all of these things. I know because I have encountered them; they stood outside my high school, they come and knock on my door. Of course, not all religious pamphleteers do this, and in the same way, not all atheist pamphleteers do this. But my point is, these things are not limited to a specific religious demographic. These claims that only atheists are like this are based in bias, not in reality.
The second problem is the idea that atheists are trying to ruin lives by spreading atheism. To begin with, there is a major logical flaw here: if they think atheism is so horrible, then why would they be atheists? Why wouldn’t they go back to the “safety of their faith� The truth is atheists, just like anybody who has strong spiritual beliefs, think they’re better off without religion. And atheists, like the religious pamphleteer, think that others would be better off if they shared their ideas.
Yes, pamphleteers are annoying. But atheist pamphleteers are no more annoying than others; they’re doing the exact same thing as all the others. Atheists don’t spend their free time trying to make others miserable. This sweeping generalization of malicious intent comes from your bias. You are the one who sees no other side to the story. You are the one with no respect for other people’s viewpoints.
Finally, I would like to address The Pioneer: to publish an article in which the main points are based in hungover crankiness and bigotry is poor editing. This piece offers nothing constructive to the reader, and I am truly disappointed.
Joey Kern • Feb 27, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Dear A,
I’m happy that this article has moved you to such a passionate response. However, I would like to point out that, in fact, I DID ascribe your bulleted list of objections to the religious pamphleteer. In fact, I explicitly stated this saying that the only notable difference was the intent of the pamphleteer:
“The atheist avenger has all the qualities we attribute to the religious crusader with one notable exception: he has zero interest in bettering your life or the life of any other person.”
So I’m glad that could be cleared up. It seems to me that your impression is that I am not particularly fond of atheists. On the contrary I have no problem with them and have, at times, nearly counted myself among them. It is only for those who press their beliefs on others and those who denigrate faith with a seemingly vindictive scorn that I have contempt for. So, if you were to say I was bigoted, would you say I am bigoted towards bigotry? That’s an interesting point and I would be pleased if you could elaborate. Also, I would like to know what the reasons would be for an atheist conversion? This is more out of curiosity than anything. I’m not terribly religious, and yet, I have never seen a contentedly faithful individual and felt the need to change them. In fact, I’m impressed by their faith and would fail to see any reason for taking that from them. But, perhaps there are those who are offended by this faith for whatever reason, and I would love to know why, again, out of curiosity.
I realize religious people often impose religion on atheists and I always found this imposition irritatingly self-righteous and condescending. In fact, I addressed this point. But at the very least I always felt like they were trying to, in a misguided way, “save” somebody. I don’t see how this could be the case when the roles of the imposer and the imposed upon are reversed. Perhaps my logic is flawed here? It seems to me difficult to justify an Atheist conversion. I don’t think that Atheists are unhappy, quite the contrary, they have made a difficult leap of faith themselves in accepting God to be false. In fact, I would say the leap the Atheist takes here is all the more difficult than the leap of faith required in accepting God as truth. The very difficulty of this seems to imply to me that there are those, myself included, incapable of making that leap, who cannot accept God OR deny him and would rather not be tossed into the chasm by people who think they know better.
It should be readily apparent that the people the atheist is trying to convert are content in their own beliefs. Who is to say that, if in fact convinced of God’s falseness, they wouldn’t become despondent? Hopeless? You see, the religious pamphleteer acts out of a misguided pity, but they have cosmic justification given their belief system. They are trying to save people from burning eternally. The Atheist is not seeking this, the Atheist has no context for this justification, and so his imposition is all the more arbitrary. You see, the Atheist pamphleteer is not my most disliked because he is an Atheist and I have some kind of contempt for Atheists in general (not honestly sure why that would ever be the case) but rather for this lack of justification in the same kind of condescending imposition we see in the religious zealots who you seem to dislike rather strongly as do most even-keeled individuals.
P.S. The anecdotal lede regarding mine being hungover was intended for humor and, despite how it may have appeared, had little to do with the main points of the article, at least as far as I am aware. Sorry for whatever confusion this may have caused.
Thank you for the response!
-Joey Kern
To A • Feb 27, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Please, please relax Mr. or Ms. A. The columnist is entitled to his “bias”. Especially since it is after all a column, where bias is expected and welcome.