Are Believers Searching For The Atheist Seal Of Approval?

Greta Christina - Image by Zeshiku via Flickr

Over on Alternet, Greta Christina published an article entitled “Why Religious Believers Are So Desperate for the Atheist Seal of Approval“.  In her piece, she posits that believers are desperate for the approval of atheists because, as she states:

They think atheists have higher standards than most believers, so our approval will mean more. And they don’t want to think their religion has anything in common with those other sucky religions… and getting atheists’ approval would let them keep on thinking that.

Seriously?

She then goes on and on how believers are desperate for the approval of atheists because we believers see atheists as “more knowledgeable” or believe atheists have “higher standards” or that atheist’s approval is the “gold standard”.  She says as much when she says:

They know that most atheists have rejected religion for a reason: they know we take religion seriously, and that we’ve examined it carefully and thoughtfully before rejecting it. They know that we’re more familiar with the tenets and traditions of religion than most believers: that we not only know more about religion in general than most believers do, but that we know more about specific religious beliefs than the people who actually adhere to those beliefs.

Again, the “we atheists are smarter and know more than you” argument.

But wait….it gets better.  Greta goes on to say, to those who distinguish the progressive, ecumenical, and tolerant believers from the conservative, fundamentalist believers:

“Nope, sorry, your snowflake looks like all the other snowflakes”

Not content with saying that, she goes on with such well thought position that believers get hurt when atheists say things like “that their version of religion is far from harmless” or that they “think your religion fucks people up”, and then wonders why believers get upset.

Gee, I wonder why.

Later in the piece, she does say:

Some of us — and again, I’m among them — will even say that, if the only religions in the world were the tolerant, ecumenical, moderate and progressive forms of religion, we wouldn’t care all that much about it. We’d see it about the way we see urban legends about alligators in the sewers and whatnot: just another silly mistaken idea that some people are mysteriously attached to. We’d still disagree with it, we’d still argue against it if you asked our opinion… but we wouldn’t be devoting time and energy to building a community of people who don’t believe it, or to persuading people who do believe it out of their beliefs.

So, after first telling believers that their “snowflake” is no different from any other “snowflake”, she then says that “if the only religions were the tolerant ones” she wouldn’t care nor actively oppose it.  In my opinion, what Greta says here serves two purposes:

1. It further demonstrates her inability to accept varying degrees of believers by saying that if the only religions were the tolerant ones, it’d be ok.  It still demonstrates her need to put all believers into a single box.
2. It also sounds like someone trying to convince themselves they’re not as bigoted as they sound, akin to the “I’m can’t be racist, I have black friends” argument.

Sorry, Greta, you can’t have it both ways.  You can’t say there’s no difference between believers and then turn around and say, well, if all believers were tolerant I wouldn’t care.

Sounds like someone is desperate for the believer’s seal of approval.