Some Thoughts on Twitter Athiesm

So I've had a twitter for a couple years now, and I've been a big fan of it from the first time I used it. For the first few years, I almost never posted any tweets, just followed feeds. I used it primarily as an information source, and as a source of entertainment as some comedians/tweeters are hilarious.   I would occasionally tweet something at a sport journalist, complement a sex worker, or have a joke with The Ed ( @TheEdfromVegas ), but mostly I was a passive twitter user.  Then, a few weeks ago I made a tweet at @MrOzAtheist. I said "Remember the reason for the season! That is, a sun worshiping transgendered pagan emperor named Elagabalus!"  (That's one of my favorite stories, and will be a subject of another blog post, if I continue this blog).  Well, Donovan apparently liked it and retweeted it, and it's the first time something I'd tweeted had ever really been retweeted. It opened me up to a community on twitter that I didn't really know existed ( though I suppose I should have), the Atheist tweeters.

So, over the past few weeks, I've become utterly addicted to tweeting. It's been fun, interacting and joking around with like minded people, laughing at the sheer insanity of some theist tweeters. I've met a lot of great, funny folks, like @realreverendmom, @imtoridee , @HellHathNoFuryy, @Mel_in_Canada, @sec_advisor and many many others. It's been a blast tweeting about Atheism ( and also about another of my favorite topics, Sex Work ( and specifically about how men/customers/society should treat sex workers of all kinds with respect)).  I have, however, seen a few things that distrub me within the Atheism community, some manifestations of Group Think, and that's really what this blog is about.

What spurred my thoughts was an interaction I had with a Tweeter named @AtheistOverdose. She  seems to be a bright, friendly, kind blogger. I'm not sure what her age is, but I'd guess 18-35 would be a safe range to put her into.   She seems very sincere, and very enthusiastic about atheism. However, I took issue with a tweet she made yesterday, that is this "Theists are so lucky that atheists are kind and loving people who have REAL morals. Imagine the chaos if we weren't? Mass genocide for sure."

This is a common theme I've seen with athiest tweeters, to treat Atheism as a moral code. To view Christianity, Islam, Judasm and the like as immoral, and Atheism as the only true moral outlook. That only theists are capable of intolerance, murder and genocide, and if they would just let go of their belief in god, they will become moral creatures. I think this is both an error in logic, and historically false.

Atheism, to my way of thinking, is not a moral code. It isn't a system right and wrong, it isn't a way to form an Ethical outlook. I think some people use Athiesm as a synonym with Secular Humanism, and it is not. All Atheism is, is a rejection of the formation of a moralty/belief system based on fiction.  It is a requirement of those making supernatural claims, to prove those claims. It is not a replacement of those claims. We, as Atheists have to work much harder at figuring out what is right and wrong than Christians do. We don't have it handed to us in a manual, we have to use our minds, to figure it out on our own. It's a great responsiblity, and it's one I see to many Atheists online shirking.

When I essageed Atheist Overdose, I told her that her tweet was factually inaccurate, and it was. I said that there have been a number of Atheist states, that have committed some of the most heinus attrocities in human history, and it doesn't serve the Atheist cause to ignore them and pretend they don't exist. Her response was this. "@JimJimsonJr atheists in genocides? Or the media saying atheists in genocides? I've never heard such a thing, obviously it's not a huge prob " I found that to be so shockingly ignorant, that it really made me sad.  Three of the top Four mass murdering Governmets of the 20th Century have been Outright Atheist States. That is, Stalinist USSR, Maoist China, and the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot.  Nazi Germany, while not overtly Atheistic, their "morality" was based on secular pseudo science, and they were a Secular if not Athiest state ( You could make the argument that the Upper Echelon Nazis were Neo Pagans, I suppose).   You can blaim Christainity for the Crusades, but you can not blame it for the Cultural Revolution, Stalin's Purges, Pol Pot's Terror, or the Holocaust. 


I say this, not to troll Atheists, as I was accused of by Atheist Overdrive. I say this, because knowing history is important. I say this, because Theists WILL use those things as examples of why Atheism is "evil", as a tactic to discredit atheists and prove how rigeuous their supersition is. You must know about these events, you must not ignore facts, if you intend to refute Christians who bring them up. The problem with blaming Atheism for The Cultural Revolution, is the same Problem that Atheist Overdose made whe she said "atheists are kind and loving people who have REAL morals." This isn't so. Atheism is not a moral code. Humans don't magically become transformed into tolerant, rational, loving creatures when they reject the existence of God. Atheism is only the rejection itself. It is not, by itself, a moral guideline.


What I would argue IS A moral guideline, is the same thing that the drove me to become an athiest in the first place. Reason. I think rational thought is what is progressing humanity forward, from primative state of barbarism, to the level of technological advancement we have to day. I think there are rational reasons to be kind to people, to treat others with respect, to not commit murders and genocide. I think it is reason that advances us as a species, not just technologically, but morally.  The problem with Atheist states like Stalin's and Mao's ( and like North Korea's today), is  they replace a belief in god, with a cult of personality. Absolute Dicatorships don't rely on reason, on science to be their moral compass. They rely on fear and terror to maintain their grip on power. When the acquisition of  Power becomes the sole moral guiding principal of society, it is an irrational, injust one.

I think that it is this sort of desire for absolute power over other humans, that is one of the dark sides to human nature. It can be seen as long as humans have built cultures. Empire building, slavery in Ancient China, mesopotamia, Egypt, the Norte Chico in Peru. All had absolute rulers, all had slavery, all slaughtered other civilizations and people to acquire more. This isn't a function of believing or not believing in god. It's just a dark part of our natures, and how we dress it up, in the Divine Right of Kings, The Mandate of Heaven or Revolutionary propoganda for our Dear Leader, it is still the same illness.  One that, through reason and the enlightenment, we have finally started to put behind us, as the human race. But it is something we must be ever vigilant against, and never for a moment think, that just because a human rejects god, that the thrist for power will be gone from that human. There is a phrase that I read on twitter the other day, that I completely agreed with, I'll paraphrase it the best I can " Ignorant men trust religion, Wise men reject religion, Powerful men use religion".  


Many Atheists see religion as the enemy. I don't. I see it merelly as a symptom of the real problem, irrationality. When people turn off their brains, turn off rational thought, and put their faith into something else, be it a man, a god, a government, a philosophy, all kinds of things can be done to manipulate those people by those who seek power.   Every one of use should veiw everything critically, be skeptical about everything, everyone, including ourselves, including our own beliefs. We need to fight against group think. It doesn't help the atheist cause to uncritically parrot atheist slogans to theists. However, engaging them in discussions where you make reason-based arguments CAN help the Atheist cause. Showing them, by our actions, how to think for yourself, how to form a rational agrument, that CAN get through to theists. It's what got through to me, and lead me to turning my back on superstition.  If we can't convince Theists that they are wrong, that their beliefs are baseless superstition with reason, if we resort to anything but reason, then we are acting just like a theist. When we uncritically accept ideas like "If you're an atheist, you're a kind, good, reasonable person", then we are just as guilty of rejecting rational thought as a theist.


Anyway, I want to apologize to Atheist Overdose if she's reading this, if I came across as trolling. I try to always engage people in discussion on twitter in a respectful manner ( unless I see someone being abusive/disrespectful, then I can be a pretty merciless troll).  I wasn't at all trying to belittle you, or upset you. But you made a comment to another Tweeter "is he trolling? I've never seen an 'atheist' oppose another atheist this much. Lol ", and I just wanted to explain myself. I was not trolling. But I will never uncritically support any Athiest, simply because they are an Athiest. If they make statements that are false, I will say that they are false. If they have an error in their logic, I will point out that error. I should hope others would do the same for me. I love that. Challenging me, challenging my thoughts, can only make me a better, more thoughtful person.