h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In the beginning there were just sensible people who overcame their fear of darkness and refused to be intimidated by "The Light".

They were called godless or pagan or savage or demonic or mad. But then they finally explained that they were just 'without a god' and they called themselves atheists. And they left well enough alone.

But now they are becoming a religion unto themselves. And their cause is the deconstruction of all organised religions. They are in fact becoming 'anti-theists'.

And they have begun to 'know their enemy' and given it a name - 'Atheophobia'. I for one will not be labeled. I reject this word for what it is, a catch-all phrase for all the 'thems' who ain't with 'us'.

Soon, it will be the intellectual equal of 'anti-semitic' or 'homophobic'. A cheap shot without the need to prove anything; once you are branded an 'antheophobic' you might as well give up, shut up and admit you are wrong.

I ain't, and I won't shut up.
peace
~j~

You're not helping, you know.

People who argue that atheists are wrong *aren't* atheophobic. Nor are people who believe an individual atheist to be a bad person on the basis of knowing that person.

As for people who come out and say that all atheists hate religion and that atheists are all raving anti-theists... Mr X has a point, and I wish to add the point that atheists such as myself want more respect for atheists, not less respect for theists. Just because we are dealing with opposites does not mean there has to be an endless confrontation - I apologise if anything you have read suggests that this is the case.

>> I apologise if anything you have read suggests that this is the case. <<

To declare all opponents of atheism are 'phobic' is to put them in serious peril.

peace
~j~

That would be true. But neither the word or the article have done any such thing.

>>>To declare all opponents of atheism are 'phobic' is to put them in serious peril. <<<

What's that got to do with the part of my post that you quoted?

I was trying to say that the use of the word 'atheophobic' will not be limited to those who might genuinely suffer paranoid delusions about the Atheist Armies of Inquisition.

As you correctly point out:
>> People who argue that atheists are wrong *aren't* atheophobic. Nor are people who believe an individual atheist to be a bad person... <<

While it is literally true that people who find homosexuality distasteful are not necessarily 'homophobic' and people who object to Israel's criminal treatment of Palestinians are not 'anti-semitic', the sad fact remains that these demeaning names are willfully applied to anyone who attempts to argue, oppose, object or even question the behaviour or beliefs of either group.

And once you've been called a racist or phobic it's impossible to disprove the charge. It is a shifting of responsibility that presumes guilt and leaves the innocent helpless to defend themselves against such charges.

It is quite natural for groups to demonize and dehumanize their enemies and opponents. It is a form of agitation propoganda. One need only look at political cartoons of WW2 to see just how far we can go to make our enemies look ugly, cruel, perverse and even insane.

Gross generalisations aimed at an opponent are easy. That's why I say the coining of 'atheophobia' is a cheap shot. Surely the Dawkinsian leadership is intelligent enough to know that their own 'sheep' will be hurling 'atheophobic' at anyone who doesn't kowtow to their cold and godless non-religion.

It is made worse than mere name calling because 'phobias' are clinical conditions that carry the stigma of mental or emotional instability. In the Diagnostic Symptoms Manual there are 'official' definitions of phobias that are used to determine whether one is legally crazy or not. But legal questions aside, the general population will believe anyone labeled phobic is sick, crazy, mentally unfit or emotionally dangerous.

I am not sick or crazy or a racist. And while I resent being called such names for simply engaging any of these groups in a debate I am more concerned that so many people will simply forego entering the debate or openly expressing their own opinions for fear of being branded sick or crazy or racist.

If I say Israel is guilty of war crimes for herding people into houses and schools (even UN schools) and then shelling them I will be called a racist. If I say Dawkins is guilty of war-mongering for his Mein Kampfish incitement of fellow non-believers to take up the cause of disrupting and deconstructing established religions I will be called atheophobic. And no one will pay attention to me or want to be seen as agreeing with me. That's how effective a cheap shot can be. It stifles the opposition, especially the best intended opposition.

peace
~j~

Armies of Inquisition?

I would take issue with anyone who felt that Alex implied the need for continuous confrontation; but I really like your reasoned response, ~jwf~.

My initial complaint was the b*st*rdiz*tion of phobia being employed.

Your response was much more to the point about the wrongness of employing extreme language (even just extreme suffixes) when labeling people. It seems we most likely agree that it obfuscates truth and is a poor communication technique (although it's great for starting fights).

Let's clean up our use of our common language and hope/pray that it leads to understanding rather than any armies of inquisition!

Thanks Fords.
But let's not lose sight of who coined the word 'atheophobic'.

If we keep in mind that atheists are proudly intellectual and righteously scientific and dedicated to the principles of reasonable discourse, then we should be embarrassed for them coming up with such a negatively value laden term to christen their opponents. It is not a reasonable and intelligent choice, it is a calculated stigmatization of their opposition. Shame on them!

Not that I'm really worried about the Atheist Agenda. One only has to be reminded that the Soviet Union was an officially Atheist state, and look how well that turned out.
peace
~j~

I agree, but double the shame on those who may blindly employ such a word, knowing that its meaning is illegitimately charged. It's as bad the group called PETA to try to make people feel guilty about eating fish by calling fish 'sea kittens'.

The rest of us should all just laugh at both misuses of the language, and go about using rational terms in our discussion.

It may help if anyone, on hearing someone spout the word atheophobic, immediately challenge their intended meaning. If they say they mean 'the irrational fear of...', all is well and good; but, if they should go on to profess it means dislike or disdain, one should simply laugh and suggest they get a dictionary (and, perhaps, look up phobia).

I don't have a problem with the word, for I'm certain that the condition is likely to exist; I just object to extending the definition beyond the meaning of '...phobia'.

I think that I'll have sea kittens for dinner. I'm getting kind of tired of sea chickens.

Let me be clear.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'phobia' in atheophobia is not a medical one. There is no mental health implication attached.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With all due respect, allow me also to be clear.

A non-medical term should never make use of a medical suffix.

I feel that this word is just sloppy english. The etymology of '-phobia' is pretty clear: from Gk. -phobia, from phobos "fear," originally "flight" (still the only sense in Homer), but it became the common word for "fear" via the notion of "panic, fright" (cf. phobein "put to flight, frighten").

What the term reflects is mere Anti-atheist, and we already have that word available. Clouding up the language with extraneous and poorly constructed alternatives, in this case, is unnecessary and divisive.

Frankly, that said, I'd hate for an anti-atheist hate crime to be diminunized by ascribing a pseudo-medical term. Imagine the criminals getting off with a little psychiatric vacation because a jury decided that they were 'overcome' by their '-phobia'.

Better to call a hate crime a criminal act.

I, for one, will neither be using it nor recognizing it in conversation, as having any meaning other than irrational fear of atheists. At least in that sense it is a valid term.

Where-as a rational fear of atheists is just plain old common sense and a good survival strategy if you have a metaphysical bone in your body or soul.

~jwf~

I'm not sure whether you're being serious or not.

Serious is a relative term. And I don't have many relatives to weigh me down with social responsibilities and am therefore at liberty to see the Universe as an absurd joke.

That said, I cannot deny a metaphysical quality to life, or at least an undeniable set of circumstances and realities that defy logical or scientific explanation. Those who 'believe' in Science are growing increasingly hostile toward anyone who holds on to any form of spirituality be it an organised religion or just a refusal to accept Science as 'omnipotent'.

So, yes. And no.

~j~

I was referring to: "Where-as a rational fear of atheists is just plain old common sense and a good survival strategy"

Yes. So was I. A conservative and cautious approach to the whirled is the best survival strategy. Reliance on the dictates of others, such as embracing any religious conviction (including the negative conviction that all religions are erroneous), is not a good way to evolve the species.
peace
jwf