Atheism and the VT Massacre

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
I found this on the website DailyKos. I used to be a fan of D'Sousa, but over the years I found his writings more and more hateful and repellent. Here is D'Sousa getting spanked for some very common and hateful ideas about Atheists:





Dinesh D'Souza, Atheism, Virginia Tech [Second Update]

by mapantsula

Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 03:55:16 PM PDT

I am an atheist and a professor at Virginia Tech. Dinesh D’Souza says that I don’t exist, that I have nothing to say, that I am nowhere to be found.


But I am here.

Dinesh D'Souza writes:
Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found. Every time there is a public gathering there is talk of God and divine mercy and spiritual healing. Even secular people like the poet Nikki Giovanni use language that is heavily drenched with religious symbolism and meaning.



The atheist writer Richard Dawkins has observed that according to the findings of modern science, the universe has all the properties of a system that is utterly devoid of meaning. The main characteristic of the universe is pitiless indifference. Dawkins further argues that we human beings are simply agglomerations of molecules, assembled into functional units over millennia of natural selection, and as for the soul--well, that's an illusion!



To no one's surprise, Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it's difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil. The reason is that in a purely materialist universe, immaterial things like good and evil and souls simply do not exist. For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules.
If this is the best that modern science has to offer us, I think we need something more than modern science.
It is hardly surprising that Dinesh D’Souza is once again not only profoundly mistaken but also deeply offensive. But I thought it worthwhile to say something in response, not because most people would put the point in the same morally reptilian manner as D’Souza, but because there is at least some vague sense amongst people that we atheists don’t quite grasp the enormity of Monday’s events, that we tend towards a cold-hearted manner of thinking, that we condescend to expressions of community, meaning, or bereavement.


So I will tell you, Mr D’Souza, what I grasp and where I am to be found.


I understand why my wife was frantic on Monday morning, trying to contact me through jammed phone lines. I can still feel the tenor of her voice resonating in my veins when she got through to me, how she shook with relief and tears. I remember how my mother looked the last time she thought she might have lost a son, so I have a vivid image of her and a thousand other mothers that hasn’t quite left my mind yet.


I am to be found in Lane Stadium, looking out over a sea of maroon and orange, trying not to break down when someone mentions the inviolability of the classroom and the bond between a teacher and his students. That is my classroom, Mr D’Souza, my students, my chosen responsibility in this godless life, my small office in the care of humanity and its youth.


I know that brutal death can come unannounced into any life, but that we should aspire to look at our approaching death with equanimity, with a sense that it completes a well-walked trail, that it is a privilege to have our stories run through to their proper end. I don’t need to live forever to live once and to live completely. It is precisely because I don’t believe there is an afterlife that I am so horrified by the stabbing and slashing and tattering of so many lives around me this week, the despoliation and ruination of the only thing each of us will ever have.


We atheists do not believe in gods, or angels, or demons, or souls that endure, or a meeting place after all is said and done where more can be said and done and the point of it all revealed. We don’t believe in the possibility of redemption after our lives, but the necessity of compassion in our lives. We believe in people, in their joys and pains, in their good ideas and their wit and wisdom. We believe in human rights and dignity, and we know what it is for those to be trampled on by brutes and vandals. We may believe that the universe is pitilessly indifferent but we know that friends and strangers alike most certainly are not. We despise atrocity, not because a god tells us that it is wrong, but because if not massacre then nothing could be wrong.


I am to be found on the drillfield with a candle in my hand. “Amazing Grace” is a beautiful song, and I can sing it for its beauty and its peacefulness. I don’t believe in any god, but I do believe in those people who have struggled through pain and found beauty and peace in their religion. I am not at odds with them any more than I am at odds with Americans when we sing the “Star-Spangled Banner” just because I am not American. I can sing “Lean on Me” and chant for the Hokies in just the same way and for just the same reason.


I know that the theory of natural selection is the best explanation for the emergence and development of human beings and other species. I know that our bodies are composed of flesh, bone, and blood, and cells, and molecules. I also know that this does not account for all aspects of our lives, but I know no-one who ever thought it did. That is why we have science, and novels, and friendships, and poetry, and practical jokes, and photography, and a sense of awe at the immensity of time and the planet’s natural history, and walks with loved ones along the Huckleberry Trail, and atheist friends who keep kosher because, well just because, and passionate reverence for both those heroes who believed and those who did not, and have all this without needing a god to stitch together the tapestry of life.


I believe this young man was both sick and vicious, that his actions were both heinous and the result of a phenomenon that we must try to understand precisely so that we can prevent it in future. I have no sympathy for him. Given what he has done, I am not particularly sorry he has spared the world his continued existence; there was no possibility of redemption for him.



You think we atheists have difficulty with the concept of evil. Quite the contrary. We can accept a description of this man as evil. We just don’t think that is an explanation. That is why we are exasperated at your mindless demonology.


I feel humbled by the sense of composure of a family who lost someone on Monday. I will not insult that dignity by pretending there is sense to be made of this senselessness, or that there is some greater consolation to be found in the loss of a husband and son.


I know my students are now more than students.


You can find us next week in the bloodied classrooms of a violated campus, trying to piece our thoughts and lives and studies back together.


With or without a belief in a god, with or without your asinine bigotry, we will make progress, we will breathe life back into our university, I will succeed in explaining this or that point, slowly, eventually, in a ham-handed way, at risk of tears half-way through, my students will come to feel comfortable again in a classroom with no windows or escape route, and hell yes we will prevail.


You see Mr D’Souza, I am an atheist professor at Virginia Tech and a man of great faith. Not faith in your god. Faith in my people.
----
Update
Mr D'Souza has more to say:
And boy the atheists are up in arms! They're mad as hell about my post "Where is Atheism When Bad Things Happen." Many responders informed me that tragedies are normally considered a problem for religion, not atheism. Where is God when bad things happen? Yes, people, I know this. My point was that if evil and suffering are a problem for religion--and they are--they are an even bigger problem for atheism.



The reason is suggested from the quotation given above. When there is a tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech, the ones who are suffering cannot help asking questions, "Why did this have to happen?" "Why is there so much evil in the world?" "How can I possibly go on after losing my child?" And so on.
In my post I noted that Richard Dawkins had not been invited to address the mourners at Virginia Tech. Several atheists--who haven't yet lost their fundamentalist habit of reading--took this sarcastic statement literally. "So what? The Pope hasn't been invited either!" My point was that atheism has nothing to offer in the face of tragedy except C'est la vie. Deal with it. Get over it. This is why the ceremonies were suffused with religious rhetoric. Only the language of religion seems appropriate to the magnitude of tragedy. Only God seems to have the power to heal hearts in such circumstances. If someone started to read from Dawkins on why there is no good and no evil in the universe, people would start vomiting or leaving.



One clever writer informs me that atheists don't deny meaning, they simply insist that meaning is not inherent in the universe, it is created by us. Okay, pal, here's the Virginia Tech situation. Go create some meaning and share it with the rest of us Give us that atheist sermon with you in the pulpit of the campus chapel. I'm not being facetious here. I really want to hear what the atheist would tell the grieving mothers.
We think the pain is complete and absolute. We know it is.


We think that nothing can heal these hearts, that time can only take the sharpness off the agony, that only in time can beauty be wholeheartedly seen again or laughter felt deep inside.
We insist there is no sense or meaning to be made of this massacre. There was only sense and meaning to be created within the lives of each person gunned down. That is why we are horrified by it. That is precisely why it is so horrific.


We don't believe these people have died for anything: God's plan, as a beacon to the rest of us, to be a vivid memento mori for all. We just believe they have died, brutally and without mercy. We refuse to lie to grieving mothers out of some patronising sense that a pleasant myth is more respectful than a terrible truth.


Those of us with the slightest shred of deceny do not tell widows to deal with it, to get over it. That the world can be callous is no reason to be so myself. I know that no family could ever get over this loss, that no family should ever be expected to get over this loss -- either by themselves, by religious rhetoricians bearing false platitudes, or by inane political pundits -- but that not getting over the loss does not preclude some other kind of happiness, some other source of joy, at some other time. Not now, not in this moment, not when they have moved on, but only when it comes to them one day, like light dawning slowly.


We know the world is cold, and that only people can make it warmer. We believe we can live in this imperfection, like a child can live without fulfilling her desperate wish for wings. We rail against injustice and tragedy, not the absence of deeper guarantees.


Some of us are those grieving mothers and wives and friends and colleagues. Some of us are inconsolable, but dignified for all that.


There is no language appropriate to the magnitude of the tragedy. Not stories about a poor man nailed to a cross, not fine words about a time for healing and a time for dying, not even the lines of the poet who, in the midst of his own horror, struggles to ask:
How can I embellish this carnival of slaughter,
How decorate the massacre?
But it is that same poet who also writes of death:
I have certainly
no faith in miracles, yet I long
that when death come to take me
from this great song
of a world, it permits me to return
to your door and knock
and knock
and call out: "If you need someone
to share your anguish, your simplest pain,
then let me be the one.
If not, let me again
embark, this time never
to return, in that final direction,
forever.
Spring has come to Virginia. Monday morning was the last snow we will have this season. All those who have come to Blacksburg this week have told us how beautiful our countryside is. They're right, of course, there is all this terrible, unforgiving beauty here.


----


Second Update


I would leave this alone, but Mr D'Souza is once again demonstrating his truly remarkable vapidity:
Actually my point was a simple one, and it seems to be unrefuted. Atheism seems to have nothing to say to people when there is serious bereavement or tragedy. Of course atheists have feelings and there were undoubtedly atheists among the mourners at Virginia Tech. But the Richard Dawkins philosophy--that we live in a meaningless world where there is no good and no evil--whatever its intellectual merit, seems arid and unconsoling when human beings are really hurting.
Atheists are hurting here themselves, and we don't see much to console ourselves or our colleagues and students and their families. But there is nothing arid in what we believe. Our lives are replete with colour, and friendships, and loving relationships, and curious books to read, and papers to write, and difficult points to figure out. There may be no deity, but there is a world of wonder to take its place.


And this week, our lives have also been trashed by this brutal man, So part of that world is heartache and horror, and in the middle of that heartache and horror we will spurn your trite consolations, your happily-ever-after fairy tales, as a denial of our grief, as a repudiation of the reality of this pain.
Atheists like to portray themselves as devotees of reason, but read the responses and see how much reason you discover there. Rather, it looks like these fellows hate God, and this hate spills over to anyone who brings up God's name. Call it the atheism of revenge. They blame God for screwing them over in some way, and unbelief is their form of payback.
How can I hate an entity that I don't believe exists? If I did actually blame a god for something, then I could hardly be an atheist. Atheism is not high school silent treatment, Mr D'Souza. It is not the rejection, forsaking, or loathing of a god, but the belief that there is no god there to reject, forsake, or loathe.


We atheists are liberated from the belief that these events must make sense, that there must be something else to it other than the eruption of a psychopathic impulse. We are horrified, not puzzled, by its absurdity.


I don't blame a god for screwing over my campus, for murdering my colleagues, for terrorising my students, Mr D'Souza, I blame the man who thought he was your new christ.




Any thoughts?



Pangloss
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
JTF -

The awful thing is that his sentiments are by no means rare. How many times have I heard the faithful tell me - tell me! - that as an atheist I cannot have moral values! That my ethics must, because there is no supernatural being in my worldview, be cold and hollow and utilitarian.

That as an atheist I cannot truly appreciate beauty.

That I cannot love wholeheartedly.

In effect, that I am somehow less than human.

Sad. And an effective example of the intolerance spawned by religion.

Pangloss
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Hmmm.... frankly, it really doesn't even read like an issue between religion/atheism. It reads like an issue of how to grieve. Even amongst my religious family members, fights erupt when family members die that all center around this issue.

Which is the right way to grieve?

Should you be out in public with a candle, singing your heart out? Immersed in prayer? Cold and indifferent? Is socializing and distracting yourself the key? Drinking and doing drugs to numb your mind? Can relief be found in religion? Anger?

The way we grieve is a personal thing and we know it, and yet SO many people still seem to try to institute their way upon those around them.

D'Sousa obviously knows only the most hurtful and hateful of atheists if he believes that they are not capable of giving comfort in times of loss. Perhaps he doesn't realize that tactless creatures, who take the most inappropriate time to share their religious beliefs, exist at both ends of the spectrum.

Frankly, it's sad to see this event torn apart to become fodder for debates.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Sad. And an effective example of the intolerance spawned by religion.

Pangloss

You are aware that intolerance is a human trait, right? Not merely a religious one? Trying to attribute a flaw inherant in ALL humans, to one group, is a bit silly.
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Hmmm.... frankly, it really doesn't even read like an issue between religion/atheism. It reads like an issue of how to grieve. Even amongst my religious family members, fights erupt when family members die that all center around this issue.

The article is exactly and only about religious prejudice and ignorance towards atheists

Which is the right way to grieve?

Whichever way is most appropriate to the person, family, community. There is no "right" way to grieve, if it is sincere.

Should you be out in public with a candle, singing your heart out? Immersed in prayer? Cold and indifferent? Is socializing and distracting yourself the key? Drinking and doing drugs to numb your mind? Can relief be found in religion? Anger?

Perhaps, at one time or another, all of the above. To a greater or lesser degree. But this is really off-topic.

The way we grieve is a personal thing and we know it, and yet SO many people still seem to try to institute their way upon those around them.

Witness D'Sousa's anti-atheist rant.

D'Sousa obviously knows only the most hurtful and hateful of atheists if he believes that they are not capable of giving comfort in times of loss. Perhaps he doesn't realize that tactless creatures, who take the most inappropriate time to share their religious beliefs, exist at both ends of the spectrum.

Yes. And finally, we atheists are speaking out and rebutting this hateful prejudice.

Frankly, it's sad to see this event torn apart to become fodder for debates.

Karrie: If this issue does not spark debate then what? If the magnitude of a horror precludes debate, then perhaps the issue of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and the disabled should never be mentioned.

Pangloss
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
You are aware that intolerance is a human trait, right? Not merely a religious one? Trying to attribute a flaw inherant in ALL humans, to one group, is a bit silly.

Oh, indeed, all of us can be prejudiced. Does that make it wrong to point at specific examples of it, as a way of fighting it?

Pangloss

BTW - I reserve the right to be at least a bit silly.
p
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Pangloss wrote...."Yes. And finally, we atheists are speaking out and rebutting this hateful prejudice. "

I find that hilarious, considering that in my life, atheists are more prone to what I was discussing, than anyone else. I give you the honor of not generalizing you by the hateful speak I've heard from other athiests, the attempts to strip people of their religious convictions at the most tactless times. I won't lump you in with the woman who told my dying aunt to be ready for a slow painful death with no heaven at the end. Or with the man who told my grieving uncle that there is no heaven, no hope of walking in his ancestors' 'hunting grounds' with his wife and son again, that he should let go of his delusions.

Not everyone will stand by a grieving family and let them grieve in their own way Pangloss. Many seek to use grief as their debate platform, even in the precise moment of loss. I've seen it all too often. So to say that atheists are lashing out against something Christians do, is just BS. Humans are humans, atheist or religious, and all do the same ignorant things thinking that they're not really being ignorant, because they are 'right'. It's ignorant from both sides, and it happens from both sides. And yes, you can be silly all you want, and try to pretend that you stand on a superior platform to Christians, but you don't.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Oh, indeed, all of us can be prejudiced. Does that make it wrong to point at specific examples of it, as a way of fighting it?

Pangloss

BTW - I reserve the right to be at least a bit silly.
p

By all means, we're all a bit silly once in a while.

I just find it hard to swallow when any one group stands up and complains that some other group possessses human flaws. Without turning around and looking at what your own group is doing, expecting both to change, it is a hollow endeavor.

"I think you're not as good as me, and I expect you to be better than me", is the way the whole complaint ends up coming off to me. If that makes any sense.

I see it in here all the time. Conservatives are liars. Democrats are wusses. Religious people are too hopeful. Atheists are too calculating. Well, I'm human first and foremost. And I'm pretty sure you were born human first too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niflmir

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Pangloss wrote...."Yes. And finally, we atheists are speaking out and rebutting this hateful prejudice. "

I find that hilarious, considering that in my life, atheists are more prone to what I was discussing, than anyone else. I give you the honor of not generalizing you by the hateful speak I've heard from other athiests, the attempts to strip people of their religious convictions at the most tactless times.

So to say that atheists are lashing out against something Christians do, is just BS.

Karrie - go back and read what D'Sousa wrote - that is exactly the kind of hate mongering and bigotry the faithful toss at atheists.

No compassionate person kicks someone when they are down. That's just bullying, and should be roundly condemned.

Pangloss
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Karrie - go back and read what D'Sousa wrote - that is exactly the kind of hate mongering and bigotry the faithful toss at atheists.

No compassionate person kicks someone when they are down. That's just bullying, and should be roundly condemned.

Pangloss

As I said in my original post Pangloss....

"D'Sousa obviously knows only the most hurtful and hateful of atheists if he believes that they are not capable of giving comfort in times of loss. Perhaps he doesn't realize that tactless creatures, who take the most inappropriate time to share their religious beliefs, exist at both ends of the spectrum."
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
I don't think I've met many atheists. Helluva lot of agnostics. Plenty of the religious. Even more people so worn out by life that making such a decision would be impossible. How could I ever be sure someone was an atheist? Simply walking out on a beautiful day like today, seeing life rebounding after this short, intense winter, has got to put questions into the most grizzled heart. Foremost: is there something out here far larger than ourselves?
 

Libra Girl

Electoral Member
Feb 27, 2006
723
21
18
48
Pangloss wrote...."Yes. And finally, we atheists are speaking out and rebutting this hateful prejudice. "

I find that hilarious, considering that in my life, atheists are more prone to what I was discussing, than anyone else. I give you the honor of not generalizing you by the hateful speak I've heard from other athiests, the attempts to strip people of their religious convictions at the most tactless times. I won't lump you in with the woman who told my dying aunt to be ready for a slow painful death with no heaven at the end. Or with the man who told my grieving uncle that there is no heaven, no hope of walking in his ancestors' 'hunting grounds' with his wife and son again, that he should let go of his delusions.

Not everyone will stand by a grieving family and let them grieve in their own way Pangloss. Many seek to use grief as their debate platform, even in the precise moment of loss. I've seen it all too often. So to say that atheists are lashing out against something Christians do, is just BS. Humans are humans, atheist or religious, and all do the same ignorant things thinking that they're not really being ignorant, because they are 'right'. It's ignorant from both sides, and it happens from both sides. And yes, you can be silly all you want, and try to pretend that you stand on a superior platform to Christians, but you don't.
As usual, I am in awe of your well balanced perspective of life and humanity. It's always, (for me anyway) hard to choose which of your posts to comment upon without flooding a thread. This one is very insightful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: karrie

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
As usual, I am in awe of your well balanced perspective of life and humanity. It's always, (for me anyway) hard to choose which of your posts to comment upon without flooding a thread. This one is very insightful.

Wow, I'm honored. Thank you for that.
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Unfortunately, LG, D'Sousa is a respected and widely read right-of-center public intellectual with a great deal of influence.

Not, sadly "just another dood."

Pangloss
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Pangloss wrote...."Yes. And finally, we atheists are speaking out and rebutting this hateful prejudice. "

I find that hilarious, considering that in my life, atheists are more prone to what I was discussing, than anyone else.

Odd that you write that, in a thread that starts with D'Sousa's hate rant about athiests.

Pangloss
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
I don't think I've met many atheists.
You probably wouldn't know if the people you meet are atheists or not until you get to know them pretty well. Most of the atheists I know, including myself, don't make a big deal of it, except perhaps in a place like this. I doubt, for instance, that any of my co-workers ever knew I'm an atheist, the subject just didn't come up much, and if it ever did, like around the table at a coffee break for instance, I generally held my counsel unless I was facing a rabid fundamentalist who pissed me off. And that didn't happen much either. Expressing the atheist position socially so often leads to such extraordinary hostility and incredulity it's not worth talking about with most people. Any thoughtful atheist knows about the public excoriation public atheists like Richard Dawkins endure, and I think most of us choose not to deal with that. I'm quite free about it here, which obviously offends some people (and I really don't care at all about that), but there's nobody here who's ever met me in real life, and odds are there never will be unless I make a particular effort to meet them. And if I ever do that, it'll be directed at the people I already know think pretty much the same way I do.

Except for selfactivated and sanctus, of course, who I'm sure would be worth meeting regardless of our fundamental disagreements about the nature of things. ;-)