Stereotypes and prejudice are essential for daily living. For better or worse it's impossible to take the time and energy to get to know everyone personally and to fairly determine their true merit; stereotypes are shortcuts that allow us to function. Even though stereotypes are somewhat inaccurate when applied to individuals, they're often more right than many of us would want to admit.
This critical realization undermines (what I presume to be) the purpose of behind an article denouncing stereotypes of atheists as "uncaring" by Austin Cline.
Anti-atheist bigotry isn't just widespread, it's also very fundamental to how bigots view the world around them. By this I mean that when someone is bigoted against atheists, they are unable to grant any real sympathy or consideration to atheists: they refuse to accept that atheists can be kind, moral, decent, civil human beings. Atheists are barely even human from such perspectives and it really drives home just how destructive religious theism can be.
Of course, the article is immediately silly because the author denounces stereotypes of atheists by leaning on stereotypes of Christians in the very first paragraph. So it goes! I'll be the first to admit that stereotypes of Christians have some basis in reality, and it's transparently clear to most people that stereotypes of atheists aren't completely vacuous either. The author, however, completely obfuscates the matter by drawing nonsensical parallels, imagining the reaction if the "anti-atheist bigotry" he perceived were instead aimed elsewhere:
Imagine if they had said:You can't be Jewish because the ability to care for others' feelings isn't Jew trait.You can't be Catholic because the ability to care for others' feelings isn't a Catholic trait.
You can't be liberal because the ability to care for others' feelings isn't a liberal trait.
You can't be black because the ability to care for others' feelings isn't a black trait.
However, being (racially) Jewish or black is completely different from being atheist, Catholic, or liberal. Skin color has little or no inherent effect on behavior, but religion and philosophy are determinitive. If someone were to say, for instance, "Wow, you're sure nice for a Nazi!" no one would complain that Nazi-ism was irrelevant to niceness. Is this "bigotry"? Not in the pejorative sense.
Atheists have a reputation for being condescending, arrogant, smug, closed-minded, intolerant, irritable, and pretentious. This reputation is based on the words and actions of many of the most prominent atheists (cf. the South Park episodes where Cartman travels through time to get a Wii). It's not surprising that a person who doesn't know many atheists (perhaps the "bigoted" teacher in the article) would think that most atheists fit that stereotype.
By refusing to concede (or even consider!) that the widely-held stereotypes of atheists have a basis in reality, the author actually reinforces those stereotypes. I, personally, find life's little ironies such as this to be eminently amusing.
MW said: "Atheists have a reputation for being condescending, arrogant, smug, closed-minded, intolerant, irritable, and pretentious"
Few people wouldn't fit those characteristics whose religion and philosophy are obvious and apparent.
Ok. So atheists have a reputation for being arrogant and condescending, thanks to the fact that most vocal atheists do tend to be like that. And it is understandable that someone who grew up not interacting with atheists in any meaningful way can grow up to think that all atheists are like that. I will grant you those two points.
However: "the author denounces stereotypes of atheists by leaning on stereotypes of Christians in the very first paragraph" is not quite correct. The author simply explains how a bigot has a hard time empathizing with (or just respecting) an atheist. The author does not imply that this is a characteristic of most Christians. The first paragraph does not have the word "Christian" anywhere on it (although, ok, it does say that the existence of this bigotry is one of the dangers of religious theism). In fact, the first time the word "Christian" comes up is when the teacher is being quoted.
And I will agree with you that being an atheist or Christian can be indicative of something about your behavior and about how you think - which is not true of being black or white or some other race. However, both Christians and atheists vary in their behavior and outlook and opinions so much, that any correlation can't be seen as anything but an initial estimate, a tentative assumption - not a fact. In fact, most discrimination laws include race, gender, and religion - implying that the fact that a person is Christian, atheist, or a follower of another religion, is not by itself indicative of anything bad.
Would it be all right for a science teacher to tell a student "I don't think you're really a Christian, because in this assignment you demonstrated some great critical thinking, and critical thinking is not a Christian trait"? I mean, there's a stereotype that Christians are not great critical thinkers (as ridiculous as it sounds), and it's true of many visible Christians... But this stereotype should not stop anyone from evaluating people on a case-by-case basis (rather than by race, gender, or religion).
So I think the real issues here are:
1) Isn't it a bad thing that this stereotype exists? What, if anything, should be done to fight it? If this stereotype is only held by a very small fraction of the population, is it worth doing anything about it? Is it the responsibility of atheists to make sure everyone else realizes that we are not all as extreme as Dawkins?
2) Shouldn't Christians be taught that people who do not share their beliefs can still be good people? That Christian beliefs cannot be reasonably proven? That the fact you need faith (in order to be a Christian) should mean that it's perfectly understandable and reasonable for someone to say "that's not for me"? That just because someone chooses to not believe in some mythology written in a book thousands of years ago in a time before we understood the natural world, this does not make that person immoral or incapable of compassion?
3) A public school teacher should be prevented by the US Constitution from telling a student that only people of a certain religion can be considerate. (No, this part is not a question.)
Yes, stereotypes can be handy shortcuts. But when a person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) cause this person to be thought of as inconsiderate before they can demonstrate otherwise, and when this is not true of most people who share those beliefs (or lack thereof), you have to admit that this is an undesirable situation.
Again, if a child is brought up by atheists and taught to think that Christians are not good critical thinkers... you have to admit that this is a bad thing. Is it not a bad thing that Christians are being taught bad (and equally false) things about atheists?
As soon as I saw a 1000 word comment I knew Bernardo was here. : ) I have had substantial correspondance with 100's of atheists as a result of a few online debates that I've initiated or joined. First, if those are the stereotypes of atheists, I would say most are just wrong - at least regarding those who are interested enough in defending their belief that they participate in forums.
The one stereotype I would agree with is close- minded (present company Mr. B excepted.) Or at least so defensive as to appear so.
However, I don't think stereotypes change by legislation or sensitivity training. They change as folks relate to those in the sterotyped group, and find out the truth.
If you'd like to meet and discuss God with some pretty cool atheists, come on over to http://godvsnogod.blogspot.com. Especially you, Michael. I know you could add some powerful insight into the goings on over there.
RK: I've taken a look, but I don't really feel inclined to argue with people who I don't feel are genuinely seeking the truth, and that's my impression of most atheists. Another way of phrasing that is that I don't feel inclined to argue with people who have already decided what they believe and are unlikely to change their minds. I'm sure I fall into that category as well, so it's pretty much a waste of time for atheists to argue with me as well.
As of now, there are about 6 people contributing, but 30 or so spending an average of 6 minutes per visit. These could be seekers or folks just hoping to prop up their own beliefs. But if we can shed some light by this effort, get to know and appreciate folks with a different POV, and potentially help some to think of Christians in less stereotypical ways by the way we conduct ourselves in this forum, might that not be worth a bunch?