The atheist is always wrong II
13 June 2007 by vastleft
From Newsweek:
In March, in remarks to the Associated Press, [humanist chaplain of Harvard University, Greg] Epstein called the popular writers Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins “atheist fundamentalists.” He accused the best-selling authors—he now includes Christopher Hitchens among them—of being more interested in polemics, in tearing down and waging war on religion than in doing anything positive; his own responsibility, he says, is to speak out for the positive aspects of disbelief. “My problem with the atheists,” he told NEWSWEEK, “is not that they’re saying God doesn’t exist. What I’m saying is we’ve got to build something.” (Harris calls the term atheist fundamentalist “an empty play on words.”)
All the handwringing about outspoken atheists strikes me as a sign of non-buyer’s remorse.
And I’ve seen a lot of it about — even from bloggers I respect, worrying aloud that our fellow doubters are being too uppity.
Does the National Organization for Women call people who speak out against wifebeating “feminist fundamentalists”? Does the NAACP urge civil rights activists not to criticize racism, telling them instead to focus on the benefits of non-racism?
So, why are articulate and well-reasoned folks like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris constantly being tarred as militants, even by humanist leaders?
Seems to me to reflect a sort of residual shame about defying the superstitious norms.
Could an atheist go too far? Sure.
Is such behavior a clear and present danger in 21st century America? Not based on anything I’ve seen to date.
A snarky video or two, or a barb on a blog, is a zillion times more benign than the hate that the Religious Right heaps upon atheists and its other targets (gays, women, the Constitution) or the hate that other god-fearin’ folks demonstrated one sunny September day a few years back.
If an atheist ever goes all Eric Rudolph, or even advocates such a thing, I’ll be the first to condemn him or her. But if all we’re doing is arguing — even a little brashly — the merits of enlightenment, maybe folks could lighten up a little bit?
13 June 2007, on 12:27 pm
I think “Atheist Radicals” would be a better term for Harris and Dawkins, and Epstein would be a “Moderate”. That is, if we even care to use such meaningless labels. Doing so equates atheism to theism, which you can’t since they’re polar opposites.
13 June 2007, on 1:27 pm
When atheists start bombing “Right-to-life” offices I’ll call those particular atheists “fundamentalist”. When atheists start condemning the believers rather than the belief, I’ll start wondering about so-called “atheist fundamentalism”. When atheists start promoting a specific world view and stop asking merely for logic and reason, and that science be left alone, I’ll subscribe to the idea that there are atheist fundamentalists…
But as long as religion is used as the motivation to bomb abortion clinics or fly planes into buildings, as long as so-called preachers advocate the assassination of elected Venezuelan presidents, as long as the separation clause is in the Constitution, and as long as we have Presidents who advocate “teaching the controversy” I’m gonna assume there are better discussions for such people to engage in than whether Dawkins et.al. have legitimate points and views.
13 June 2007, on 1:45 pm
I am very grateful for the likes of Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins. When I was beginning the exploration of my non-belief, there wasn’t much in the main stream available to tell me what I thought had merit and wasn’t “wrong”. I think the more we are seen and heard, especially in the internet age, the more closeted and still exploring atheists will feel comfortable with who they are.
I think the exposure is wonderful and important if it gets even just one high school student thinking about their “faith”.
I know I wouldn’t be so “angry” sometimes if the fundies would just stay away from the constitution, the rights of gays and all minorities, the classroom, and my uterus (if I still had one). If organized religions were truly about helping society and not just growing their wealth and membership numbers I might have a little bit more respect for them. Until then I will continue to “rant”.
13 June 2007, on 2:11 pm
Interesting. Fellow atheists/humanists are the ones telling their fellows to “turn the other cheek”.
My guess it has something to do with stature. Every study I’ve seen shows that atheism grows with intellectual accomplishment (e. g., only 7% of elite scientists are theists, 40% of “rank and file scientists are”,, etc.)
And, well, “it isn’t nice to make fun of the dummies”, so to speak.
13 June 2007, on 2:18 pm
Poodles, the only thing I disagree with you is your choice of dog.
What is happening now is the natural progression of a oppressed minorities finally standing up. Religion has been forced into every corner of America since Bush let 9/11 happen (or perhaps made it happen?) that atheists are finally fed up. And I’m glad to be a part of it. I’ve an overly opinionated loud mouth. It works so well.
I was listening to a podcast that was talking about how there would be no way that America could possibly have another Constitutional Convention because everybody and their brother would be trying to enshrine every single stupid belief into it. Those who actually DO have freedom and liberty on their minds would be spending so much time trying to keep idiocy from the document that nothing would get done.
If the original convention got into fisticffs, the new one would become a war. And the sad thing is is that it’s a good bet that people like me, people who live by the philosophy of freedom, would lose.
I don’t understand how these fucking morons could look at the Constitution, the enshrinement of freedom and liberty, ADMIT as much, and then try to get HATE and OPPRESSION written into it?!
The whole reason the xian nutbags in this country are afraid of atheists, just like they were afraid of women, blacks, etc., is because they were losing control, and if we suddenly start making ourselves known, then their control will begin to wane, especially since I bet some of the so called “xians” in this country are atheists, they just didn’t know it was an option.
13 June 2007, on 3:07 pm
It is when they’re willfully stupid, as most of them are.
13 June 2007, on 3:09 pm
There are only two types of religious people, the suckers and the crooks. Epstein has clearly placed himself with the latter.
13 June 2007, on 3:19 pm
AUM:
I have a lab mix too, does that help?
;P
13 June 2007, on 3:21 pm
Actually, Bernarda, there are only two types of people, those who divide the world into two types, and those who don’t.
13 June 2007, on 4:16 pm
B80vin,
There are two types of people in the world: Manicheans and everyone else.
13 June 2007, on 5:08 pm
I stand corrected. Mea culpa.
13 June 2007, on 5:47 pm
The holy folk need a new slogan. Personally I like “Who Would Jebus Hate?”
Seems appropriate.
13 June 2007, on 6:10 pm
Aha! Beethoven! I’m slow…
I have a problem when we allow the other side to frame the debate and set the lexicon. Especially when they use words used to describe them - to describe us. Although it shows how desperate they are, it still irks me to hear “fundamentalist-atheist”, as if we have any dogma in our belief-DNA, are xtened “atheist” shortly after birth, are confirmed in our atheism in childhood, are married under atheist-covenants, are buried with atheistic traditions! As if we hate because our atheist Book tells us to. As if we try to rule the world according to our atheist-traditions, because a Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris commands “thou must”.
Of course, they do hate us because they can’t get to our wallets…
13 June 2007, on 6:35 pm
Naomi,
I tend to think it’s more about groupthink than the wallets. Certainly there are the Falwells who crave the money and the power, but mostly I think what we’re dealing with is brainwashing/addiction/fear of being exposed as foolish/fear of losing group identity. Those are powerful forces, no?
13 June 2007, on 7:47 pm
I don’t know I think it is a good thing. I heard there are books coming out soon; dealing with Harris, Dawkins and the other guy, from a theistic point of view…..so money will be made by both sides.
I think it is amusing, all this fuss, with nothing in the end changing. Atheist will remain atheist, believers keeping their faith, and yes a lot of books selling. Each keeping within their own ghetto egging each other on…..kind of crazy really, childish, the same silly insults from both sides flung so often that they have become mere background noise.
Get a life folks…. life goes on, people pray, go to church, experience God, are happy, and there is nothing that can change that.
Yes a good thing indeed. Can’t wait for the books to come out so I can line some pockets.
Peace
Mark
13 June 2007, on 10:57 pm
Before Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins & Dennett (sounds like a law firm when you say them in that order, doesn’t it?), there was, for me, Bertrand Russell.
Russell’s Why I am not a Christian is quite vintage stuff, but still potent as ever. The OT of the Bible is easy to criticize, abhor, etc, but Russell was the first philosopher I read who aimed squarely at the pretensions of the NT.
I just finished the audiobook version of Sam Harris’s Letter to A Christian Nation;
It said basically everything I ever wanted to say to my fundamentalist Ex-In-Laws, though I know that would just turn them all into babbling Bible-verse-o-matics, the brain completely shut down and spinning out bible verses in stream-of-consciousness style.
I’m definitely sharing it with my doctor friend at work who is also a closet Humanist atheist.
Laughter and ridicule is the best way to combat religion. Outright repression just strengthens their resolve, and would be morally wrong besides. That’s THEIR way, not ours.
13 June 2007, on 11:05 pm
believers keeping their faith, and yes a lot of books selling.
I thought that the Bible was the only book Christians need?
life goes on, people pray, go to church, experience God, are happy, and there is nothing that can change that.
People merely imagine god experiences. If you are on a deserted island, no people around and get a disease or break a limb, and you pray, and pray and pray…no god will come help you. No rescue will come without human intervention.
14 June 2007, on 12:07 am
Mark, if you’re really interested in the “other side”, you may want to pick up the book Doubt: A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht. I’m currently halfway through it, and it’s an interesting look at the history of skepticism through the ages. It doesn’t only cover Christianity, it covers movements of doubt in ancient Greece, within Judaism, in the Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism etc.
Some may be turned off by the perception of testosterone-laden arguments by the male skeptic writers of the world, and you won’t find that in this book. I also recommend Freethinkers by Susan Jacoby for the same reason. I’m a guy, so I didn’t mind the books written by Harris, Dawkins and Dennett and didn’t find them to be “testosterone-laden”, but there’s definitely a noticeable absence of emotional charge in the two books I mention here.
14 June 2007, on 12:32 am
Stardust, It always kind of made me laugh when babble believers turn to “sources” (and I use that term loosely) OUTSIDE THE BIBLE in order to clarify and defend biblical subjects.
14 June 2007, on 3:38 am
JJR, besides Russell, don’t forget Robert Ingersoll. A random collection of quotes.
http://thewaronfaith.com/aq_ingersol.htm
There is also Baron d’Holbach, often considered as the first real atheist.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8909
You can find more about him on Johathan Miller’s documentary “A Brief History of Disbelief” part III. (it is also called “A Rough History of Disbelief”)
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v2901107jearSnF
Also found on Youtube. Probably someone has already mentioned this in the past.
14 June 2007, on 5:25 am
Stardust, I completely agree with you, however “People merely imagine god experiences. If you are on a deserted island, no people around and get a disease or break a limb, and you pray, and pray and pray…no god will come help you. No rescue will come without human intervention. ”
All it requires is a change in perception to see..
“If you are on a deserted island, no people around and get a disease or break a limb, and you pray, and pray and pray…. No rescue will come without human intervention (Which was of course sent by gawd)”
14 June 2007, on 7:35 am
Mark,
But things are changing. Christianists and Islamists are stoking theocracy, and atheists are beginning to come out of the closet. Different world from what I was born into.
This is the gibberish of someone who loves the status quo. Just call an important, growing debate “noise,” rather than engage on the substance.
Good advice, Mark, ’cause there probably ain’t no afterlife.
Nice to hear that religion brings nothing but happiness.
14 June 2007, on 8:36 am
(((((But things are changing. Christianists and Islamists are stoking theocracy, and atheists are beginning to come out of the closet. Different world from what I was born into.)))))
Yes that is true, but sides within your movement are being taken, soon you will have the usual three groups competing with one another. The right wing (villiage atheist), the moderates, which will probably get the best audience, and those on the left, not sure what they will be like.
I am reading the “Reason driven life”, written by an atheist, but he seems to be in middle, I am enjoying his book, he has something to say, a very wise man, though I will not become an atheist.
peace
mark
14 June 2007, on 8:39 am
(((((People merely imagine god experiences. If you are on a deserted island, no people around and get a disease or break a limb, and you pray, and pray and pray…no god will come help you. No rescue will come without human intervention. )))))
You don’t know that, that statment is based on your already established belief system.
Amazing atheist complain that we worship Santa Clause, then say God does not exists because he is not……
Peace
mark
14 June 2007, on 10:09 am
You don’t know that, that statment is based on your already established belief system.
Based on my personal experiences of all the times when I was a Christian and called out to a silent god. I finally realized it was a waste of time.
Who helped the “devout Christian” child, teenager and other believers who are kidnapped by evil people, bound and gagged and no humans can hear him/her? Very few are found alive, but many become victims of a gruesome death.
14 June 2007, on 10:17 am
Stardust, you probably think that someone whose head is chopped off is going to die. But “that statment is based on your already established belief system.”
14 June 2007, on 10:18 am
Stardust, you probably think that someone whose head is chopped off is going to die. But “that statment is based on your already established belief system.”
vastleft…oh yes, how silly of me.
14 June 2007, on 10:53 am
(((((Based on my personal experiences of all the times when I was a Christian and called out to a silent god. I finally realized it was a waste of time.))))
Yes and I think you need to go with that, the problem is that mine is different than yours, so for me it is not a waste of time.
(((((Who helped the “devout Christian” child, teenager and other believers who are kidnapped by evil people, bound and gagged and no humans can hear him/her? Very few are found alive, but many become victims of a gruesome death. )))))
That for me is not an argument for or against the existence of God, for you yes, for me no. It is men who are responsible for evil, we are left free. God is not Santa, nor the pink unicorn….. Interference would take away our abiilty to act. Yet I understand your concern over this issue.
Peace
mark
14 June 2007, on 10:55 am
(((((Stardust, you probably think that someone whose head is chopped off is going to die. But “that statment is based on your already established belief system.” )))))
That is absurd. I was talking about atheist seeming to take on the role of speaking for everyone else, and thinking they can actually tell them the meaning of their experiences, that is what I was dealing with. Though I think you know that. Being a villiage atheist it is not surprise that you would say something like that.
14 June 2007, on 11:42 am
Mark, you seem like a nice person, intelligent, interesting, and inquisitive. So no disrespect here, I mean whatever floats your boat and gets you through the day as long as it doesn’t impinge on my reasonable freedom so be it. But (always a big “but” somewhere hey!) at least recognize within yourself (don’t argue with me – I’m pointing out something – but who am I) that basically your concept of “god” defines him/her as basically a non-entity. And (reading between the lines) I assume you are not insane and would basically act like an atheist when the chips are down.
Again don’t feel like you have to argue with me … just asking you to internalize a question: if your beloved child was deathly sick and you had a choice of ONE or the other (not both) of (a) all the prayers from all the most devout in all the world imploring “god” on your child’s behalf OR (b) a famous successful specialist physician (specializing in this disease and its cure) in devoted attendance with all the material technology available to the cause what would you chose? See we cannot help but feel that any sane, knowledgeable, intelligent parent would chose the latter (b). That is to say for all PRACTICAL purposes sane “believers” would act like an “atheist”; a step farther perhaps, but I’d say in doing so expose themselves for what they really are: an practical atheist. The fact that good people like you (have no reason to assume otherwise – again no disrespect intended) act like atheists in life situations but apologize for their no-op god simultaneously seems dishonest [not deviously] to many of us (at least to me).
I say I cannot know ANYTHING is the truth – but have no need to invoke or worship or rely on that which fails every real test to produce exceptional results. I’d like to believe in Santa too – but just don’t have any reason to put my – shall I say it – “faith” in him or anything else that consistently fails to perform according to spec. Until proven unreliable I’ll stick with what I can judge as testable and in those tests reliable. I think that is what is under the covers in ALL atheists.
Pace
14 June 2007, on 11:49 am
It is men who are responsible for evil, we are left free. God is not Santa, nor the pink unicorn….. Interference would take away our abiilty to act. Yet I understand your concern over this issue.
If this god was here first, and created everything, he created the choices of good and evil, did he not? Why make evil a choice in the first place? Where did Satan’s rebellious attitude come from? If Satan were real, we could say that maybe Satan was protesting against this god’s “evil ways”.
Your reasoning is also implying that humans have a stronger will than this god. We say that it is moral to try to stop evil, but then Christians make excuses for a god who allows evil and immorality.
If we use the Christian god of the Bible as a moral example, then it is okay to be evil, to kill, destroy, curse, hate, etc.
14 June 2007, on 12:35 pm
(((((that basically your concept of “god” defines him/her as basically a non-entity.)))))
Yes true, hence the problem with language. God does not exists, is nowhere, is not the surpreme being, these are all human constructs or theories, yet for a better word: I believe in God, persoanl and loving. All men and women show me God, that is our essential identity. Again language is a bitch. I read Pannikkar, he speaks for me I think.
(((((And (reading between the lines) I assume you are not insane and would basically act like an atheist when the chips are down. )))))
Well it depend on which atheist you mean LOL.
Being an atheist does not frighten me.
(((((if your beloved child was deathly sick and you had a choice of ONE or the other (not both) of (a) all the prayers from all the most devout in all the world imploring “god” on your child’s behalf OR (b) a famous successful specialist physician (specializing in this disease and its cure) in devoted attendance with all the material technology available to the cause what would you chose?)))))
I don’t see a problem. Of course I would go with the doctors. The first hospitals and nurses where christians, at least in Europe. Your point is not logical. Seeing a doctor and believing in God are do not exclude each other. Working for a living does not either.
(((((sane “believers” would act like an “atheist”; a step farther perhaps, but I’d say in doing so expose themselves for what they really are: an practical atheist.)))))
Well ok, I guess, though it makes little sense to me. I have no conflict with science or medicine. I work with the old and the dying, have been for over 25 years…..I am an old fart.
(((((The fact that good people like you (have no reason to assume otherwise – again no disrespect intended) act like atheists in life situations but apologize for their no-op god simultaneously seems dishonest [not deviously] to many of us (at least to me). ))))))
The model for what it means to be a believer is very limited.
(((((I say I cannot know ANYTHING is the truth – but have no need to invoke or worship or rely on that which fails every real test to produce exceptional results. I’d like to believe in Santa too – but just don’t have any reason to put my – shall I say it – “faith” in him or anything else that consistently fails to perform according to spec. Until proven unreliable I’ll stick with what I can judge as testable and in those tests reliable. I think that is what is under the covers in ALL atheists.)))))
I have no problem with that. What I react too, to my own saddness, is atheist becoming so much like a fundie, if not in content, at least in how they deliver their points. Village atheist are simply bracketted and ignored, I don’t like that. I wish more could simply communicate the way you do. Though that will not happen.
The faith experience is a little more complex than many atheist believe, but I will not go into that, time constraints.
Peace
Mark
14 June 2007, on 12:39 pm
(((((If this god was here first, and created everything, he created the choices of good and evil, did he not? Why make evil a choice in the first place?)))))
Men and women don’t choose evil, they seek a good, the problem is how far they are willing to go to acheive that good. How much force they are willing to use etc.
(((((Where did Satan’s rebellious attitude come from? If Satan were real, we could say that maybe Satan was protesting against this god’s “evil ways”. )))))
You are free to do that, some do, perhaps many.
(((((Your reasoning is also implying that humans have a stronger will than this god. We say that it is moral to try to stop evil, but then Christians make excuses for a god who allows evil and immorality. )))))
If freedom of choice was taken away, then we would cease to be human, rational and self aware.
(((((If we use the Christian god of the Bible as a moral example, then it is okay to be evil, to kill, destroy, curse, hate, etc. )))))
Oh come on! You know their is a development in the bible. We are all men and women of our time, back in OT times the evolution of mankind was not as advanced as it is today. At least in regard to human rights etc. We still have a poor record in living it out.
Peace
Mark
14 June 2007, on 2:32 pm
B80vin, “Actually, Bernarda, there are only two types of people, those who divide the world into two types, and those who don’t.”
I didn’t divide the world into two types, I divided a particular part of it, the religious–meaning the superstitious morons and crooks–world into two parts.
14 June 2007, on 2:39 pm
Men and women don’t choose evil, they seek a good, the problem is how far they are willing to go to acheive that good. How much force they are willing to use etc.
This did not answer the question as to why a good god would create evil as an option? You did not answer how Satan, who according to Christian mythology was here before humans…so why does this god make bad things? Was he bored with goodness or something?
If freedom of choice was taken away, then we would cease to be human, rational and self aware.
But according to Christians there is no choice…believe, or perish. That isn’t a choice, that is a threat.
Oh come on! You know their is a development in the bible. We are all men and women of our time, back in OT times the evolution of mankind was not as advanced as it is today.
Exactly. You have just admitted that god beliefs are adjusted to whatever a person wants them to be, and god beliefs are irrelevant in these modern times and we do not need god beliefs to lead a moral and good life.
14 June 2007, on 2:48 pm
Men and women don’t choose evil, they seek a good, the problem is how far they are willing to go to acheive that good. How much force they are willing to use etc.
mark, Christians are always saying how hard it is to be good. I don’t see it that way at all. I see that it is less of an effort to seek good and to be good, and goodness seems almost automatic for most humans. For instance, in extreme situations and disasters, people in far-off lands around the planet come to the aid of victims of natural disasters. People are always working to try to feed the hungry, save the whales, save the environment, and a million other things people do expecting no rewards, no recognition. Humans are basically interested in self-preservation and preservation of the species which comes instinctively for most people.
On the other hand, it takes much more effort to commit evil acts like war, murder, thievery, etc. It takes much more planning to be devious, keep track of lies and deceit, to plan a violent act and then try to hide from it.
14 June 2007, on 2:58 pm
The faith experience is a little more complex than many atheist believe, but I will not go into that, time constraints.
Mark, keep in mind that most atheists (and that includes most atheists here) were once Christians, and some of us for many years before walking away from god beliefs. We are well aware of what you are talking about “faith experience”, which to me is “wishful thinking” and a denial and rejection of how things really are. (especially the fact that all things come to an end.)
14 June 2007, on 4:19 pm
Mark thank you for your candid responses.
Hope I don’t sound defensive but to clarify: what I mean by (a) prayer vs. (b) doctor as a binary is simply believers mouth off about an all-loving god who protects us and answers prayers etc. yet few (maybe NONE that are sane) really take “god” up on his promises when chips really down. To me I say: if it walks like a duck…. etc. it is a duck. I say most people are FUNCTIONAL atheists - but just avoid the honest title for on reason among others is they’d hate giving up the feeling of moral and tribe superiority that claiming affliation with the god-state gives them in the Usa.
I would not phrase it that way “…All men and women show me God, that is our essential identity… ” but I think we’d agree on the real point — and so would Stardust I suspect (to wit “…goodness seems almost automatic for most humans …”)
Thanks for your comments … regardless of how others (myself included) would like them recast to our mental model of rationality.
14 June 2007, on 5:03 pm
Good discussion, everyone.
mark, all I’m hearing from you is basically, “Shut up, atheists.” You’re welcome to do so, but in the interest of your continued survival I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath until we do.
If you really were just “amused” by “all the fuss” as you claim, you wouldn’t have bothered to comment on this thread and tried to put us down. You wouldn’t be trying to insinuate disparaging labels like “village atheist” into the conversation. If you truly think that none of this “fuss” will ever change anything, you would have simply said “whatever, dude” when Stardust addressed your comment, dusted off your sandals as your bible commands you to, and sauntered away from this site never to return.
But you didn’t.
JJR says that “laughter and ridicule is the best way to combat religion.” I agree. That irritation you’re feeling, the one you’re trying to cover up by calling it “amusement,” is your response to the threat you perceive to your comfortable, complacent faith. Of course you want us to be “moderate;” what you really mean, like I said above, is “shut up” or be so nice and polite we might as well continue being invisible.
In fact, now that I think about it, you’re using some of the same insidious tactics that opponents, many of them xian and even church leaders, used against the civil rights movement in the ’50s and ’60s. They too wished those uppity black people would just “shut up” or ask for their rights so nicely it would be easy to keep refusing them.
Interrresting; verrry interrresting…
14 June 2007, on 5:16 pm
Wow such responses, very cool. No I don’t want atheist to shut up. The whole point in talking I think is to open communication, at least it is for me. I also think that for atheist and believers to actually communicate a lot of time has to be put into it, something that is hard to find over the net. I do however have agnostic and atheist friends with whom I do converse.
We spend a lot of time at it, and still it is hard to really understand where the other is coming from. Sterotypes, past experiences often get in the way. However we don’t get into a ‘we versus them’ mentality.
Religion has done that, to the point of wars and the evils that flow from that. What I see is atheist doing the same thing, which in reality is only continuing down the same road. It did not work in the past, and I guess it will not work now. Today we have many avenues of communication with which to seek some ground for working togeather. If that is not done then we all lose.
The reason I am writing this is that one of my charges is dying, and for the present he needs a lot of care, also we are preparing for his family to arrive, so I won’t be back for awhile.
Peace
Mark
14 June 2007, on 10:22 pm
But don’t you see? By making this statement you’re basically still trying to frame the discussion as a “we vs. them” conversation - the very situation you say you avoid with your agnostic and atheist friends.
First, you set up “religion” as some kind of a monolithic, organized, institutionalized entity and use “atheism” in the same way, thus implying that “atheism” is just like “religion” by virtue of being its opposite. Then you actually come right out and say that “atheism is doing such and such;” in other words, the entity atheism is acting, again in the same way that the entity religion is acting.
What we’re saying is that atheism is not like religion. Atheism is not an organized institution in people’s lives the way religion is. Atheism does not “act” the way religion “acts.” Atheism has no widely-agreed-upon dogma, doctrine, ritual, ceremony, sacred spaces, leaders, followers, etc. There is no “holy writ” nor “code” that atheists follow.
Therefore, I find your claim that atheism is “doing the same thing” as religion invalid. In fact, you yourself are an atheist. You don’t believe in Fred Phelps’ or Muslim Shiite or Yoruba concept of “god” or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, do you? And yet no one goes around calling your lack of belief in the Muslim Shiite concept of god “ashiamuslimism” and you an “ashiamusliminist” - let alone a “village” or “fundamentalist” ashiamusliminist.
That is the basic distinction that so many theists don’t get. From what you’ve written so far, I actually don’t think you’re conscious of the framing you’re doing, and maybe your agnostic and atheist friends haven’t noticed it. One thing many of us on this blog have caught on to, and that’s part of what this post is about, is that much of the time the theists get to frame the discussion/conversation/argument/debate in their own terms.
And the person who manages to frame the discussion automatically starts off with the upper hand, not on equal footing with the rest of the debaters.
I do agree with you that we have to work together on issues that affect us all such as keeping religion out of our government, because a theocracy threatens theists and secularists alike by begging the question: what religion will become the state faith? If the current crop of Republicans have their way, it certainly won’t be Catholicism, for one.
Be well.
14 June 2007, on 11:12 pm
This is a tangent, but if you perceive some “anger”, “militancy”, or to be more accurate, intense passion in our trying to reveal the ruse of faith in things unseen, it is because most of us WERE Christian (as in my own case) for a huge part of lives. Can you place yourself in our shoes and understand what it is like to live 30+ years of your life having one overarching view of the cosmos, and then coming to the realization that it was all a lie? So much time wasted …
It’s not the same in the opposite direction, to put myself in those shoes it would be a “revelation”, a “bonus” if you will. The previous part of my life not spent worshiping would not seem like a sham, because I did not expend effort in “not worshiping”. But the other way around, for us former Christians, yes, there is some frustration, we cannot change the past. There’s still somewhat of a period of reconciliation for me, I can’t speak for others, for coming to terms with all the effort spent on illusory goals.
For something more concrete that you can identify with, imagine that you believed in astrology for a major part of your life, and used it to guide your decisions daily - I actually know some people that still do this
Then, imagine noticing a consistent failure of this worldview to correspond to the events that occur in your life, doing intense research and questioning, and finding that you have to abandon this view. How would you feel then about all that effort? And now imagine, that 90% of the people around you still follow astrology …
15 June 2007, on 1:36 am
We’ve gone ‘around’ so much on GifS, and elsewhere, with so many believers; and it really never changes.
One point that always comes to mind in all these “Dances With Sheeple” relates to why WE all believed, early in our lives, in one religion or another; at least the majority of us who, perhaps unfortunately, were probably not raised by atheist parents.
The first thing we were taught, WAS to believe; without ANY evidence for believing. The principle of thinking rationally; even at the age of so-called ‘reason’…7 years old?…was not at all emphasized. Usually it was one, or both parents; followed by, possibly (like myself) the nuns, certainly clerics, and society in general…actually cooperating in reinforcing the irrational belief in an invisible god, or as we atheists like to call ‘It’: “Sky Daddy”. After all, it IS, in effect, an extension of the MALE parent; at least in Western theological traditions.
Not only that; but we were ‘tested’ in our gullibility with the absurd notions of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, boogie man…erm…Honest Politicians?
It’s as if all these ‘fairy tale’ delusions were purposely invented to be used as ‘warm up gullibility tests’ of the potential success of the “granddaddy” of all brainwashing scams…Religion!
Aaaah!…I hear you guys clamoring for a little ChuckA scene?…
[Scenario: Parental discussion about the situation...let's listen in...or not?]:
[Cue the violins from "Psycho"?]
“See, my dear…little Johnny and Janie swallowed that bunch of totally made up, illogical, and impossible silly nonsense; I think its safe to say they’ll swallow this other mean spirited, fear-based crap about our slave master Gawd…so necessary for them to believe in; to continue, of course, our own brainwashed, totally moronic tradition!
Now, if they say: “You lied to us, mommy and daddy, about Santa Claus and those others; why should we believe you about Gawd?” Our reply?: “Why, you little sniveling brats!…it’s Just…because…WE say so!!! Why, we oughta!
(or maybe: D’Oh!) And besides…you’ll end up in never ending, painful torture; burning and screaming in agony in a VERRRRY hot, nasty, smokey place called Hell, with all the other nasty little boys and girls…who sometimes “die before they wake”!
Now shut the fuck up…erm…I mean…
say your prayers to your wonderful, loving, invisible Sky Daddy…
and sleep tight!…What’s that?…
No…we took care of the bed bugs yesterday! SHEESH!!!”
OK…
)
So what’s my basic point in all this?
In my, questionably humble, opinion; the exact opposite of what normally takes place in childhood should be the rule: In other words; among the FIRST things a child should learn are…to THINK and freely QUESTION…definitely NOT to automatically believe in unquestioned nonsense…which has no discernible evidence.
I also think it’s never to early to tell the ‘relative’ truth to children.
(Nothing about the relatives, though!
Obviously the facts involved must be proportioned to the child’s age and readiness to understand. Perhaps, the old guiding principle applies:…
When the child asks?
15 June 2007, on 1:42 am
“never TOO early”! “Aargh!” or maybe: “Harr!”
15 June 2007, on 4:53 am
Of course xians or other god groupies are always right, even when they disagree about the details. Here is another example of how they rationally and logically deal with disaster.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282733,00.html
“Bruised but in good spirits, a group of Wisconsin pilgrims who were injured in a bus accident this week continued their trip to a Catholic shrine Thursday, praying for two passengers who remain hospitalized.
The bus carrying the 34 Americans to the Medjugorje shrine collided with a truck on a wet road Monday evening 12 miles south of Sarajevo, plunged down a ravine, and ended up sideways in a shallow river.”
…
“Twenty-seven passengers were injured. Meier’s husband, Andy, remains in critical condition due to a spinal injury. The Rev. Rick Wendell, associate pastor at Holy Angels Parish of West Bend, Wis., also remains hospitalized for multiple fractures that are not life-threatening.
“Andy is paralyzed,” Elisabeth Meier said. “But we keep praying and we want everybody at home to pray for him.”"
Why didn’t they think of praying beforehand that god not send the bus down the ravine?
15 June 2007, on 6:18 am
I am .. in case anyone missed it .. firm in my conviction that theism overall is a waste of time, energy, and mental power. It is also dangerous (to wit intolerance, strife, illogical and barbaric customs, etc.).
Furthermore there is no god nor other powerful “unseen” entity that merits attention from us. And while I don’t believe for a second that there is/are “god(s)” as humans babble on about, that is not so important to me as my feeling that “god(s)” as they reveal themselves (by NOT revealing themselves) are as irrelavant to us as anything can be.
I believe we (sane honorable atheists AND believers) MUST vigorously confront and win the battle against the destructive strains of belief (religions) that seek to destroy and/or halt progress of modern free society in its best sense. And that actually poison children’s minds.
So personally I find belief in “god(s)” a silly use of mental resources at best and an extremely dangerous aspect of humanity at worst. We need to vigorously promote and defend reason and freedom.
However… I think I could have a beer and discuss this (without compromise on my part but with civility) with Mark. My being naive I guess (also people mellow in old age sometimes!)
Thanks all for the discussion
15 June 2007, on 7:27 am
Bernarda, B80vin, and Vastelft, There are 10 types of people: those who know binary, and those who don’t.
Mark Dohle wrote:
Things are changing, and a lot. There are also those who are in the process of freing themselves from religion. For them, learning that non-believing is a possibility, and that one can lead a happy and succesful life without religion is very useful. The books (and the blogs and the videos) serve that purpose. When I read “The God Delusion” it was a nice read, but nothing new for me. However, how different it would have been if I had read it when I was 14. It would have changed my life for the better back then. How many teenagers have managed to accept themselves as atheists rather than continue lying (like they would have done 50 years ago) because of all the “noise”, as you call it?
15 June 2007, on 7:37 am
I ran across one of the daughter’s of the woman who I mentioned who had recently died. Yhis lady is actually a very delightful person and about as opposite from her mother as you can get. I really like her. She is a ‘minister of music’ at one of the local mainstream churches, and a ‘believer’, and she had a bit of a joke for me. She said she figured her mother and I would both wind up the same place, and the eternal question would be: would that make it hell? My take is that oblivion awaits us all. And a damn good thing, too.
I have what are now termed “learning disabilities”. In my school days these were termed laziness, stupidity, and non-cooperation. Well, I admit to being on shaky ground on the last one…but the main way I managed to get through school was memory, especially with math, because I didn’t have the faintest clue about what was going on. I didn’t “read the right way”, dyslexia being one of the problems. Finally I recieved some tutoring from a team from a local university and they taught me a different method of mathematics using a process of transposition. This stuff started to make sense! I’m actually starting to get good grades, learning! Mathis not a nap time or degrading, frustrating experience! And then, alas, we had to come to the board to work problems, and I was stopped. What the hell did I think I was doing? My explanation fell on deaf ears, the State of Virginia as embodied by the teacher decreed that there was one proper way to do this, and if it wasn’t dome thusly, it was a failure. So, back to nap time. And they revised my past good grades because I wasn’t doing it right.
And so it is with religion. The end result is really not that important, not compared with the approved processes. It’s the rituals, movements, hymns, guilt and fear. I heard a person at the barber shop a while back (a ‘good christian’) who was holding forth against atheists (’no brake’ on us) and gay unions. At the time he was on his third wife, and it has since come out he was cheating on her. But he was saying the right words, conforming to the accepted norm.
At its core I think that’s what most people’s religion comes down to, a process that they claim makes sense to them even when they admit it doesn’t.
15 June 2007, on 1:07 pm
Something completely off-topic…well…maybe not.
Erm…”Speaking of life”…a musical interlude?
For those of you who may have missed the Tony Awards [the Broadway musical haters?]…one of Stephen Sondheim’s greatest songs (in this musician’s opinion), in arguably the best performance of the night:
“Raúl Esparza - Being Alive - 2007 Tony Awards”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-63q88zpmc
Patti LuPone did his introduction; so in honor of her; here’s her marvelous performance from 1992 of the song…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbE_Y_9fMuU
Be Well, GifSters.
15 June 2007, on 2:54 pm
ConcernedJoe, I too could have a drink (in my case it would be a real tart Margarita!) with Mark and discuss things both politely and passionately. I’ve noticed a lot of people tend to label passion and intensity as “militancy” and/or “anger,” and I think xianity’s insistence on meekness and humility may be the culprit there. The only people expected to speak heatedly are preachers in the pulpits!
Good point, Zipi. How’s Japan?
Sarge, that’s so true.
ChuckA, as soon as I get a chance I’ll check out that vid; thanks!
16 June 2007, on 10:01 am
I have very recently left Japan, Eve. I am soon moving back to your continent. *nervous laughter* Will I survive after geting used to Japanese secularism?
17 June 2007, on 9:23 pm
Contrary to what Mark wrote above, people do change. He must not realize that many atheists were formerly religious people, like myself. Just as some people who are atheists end up embracing religion.
22 June 2007, on 12:55 pm
While religious fanatics may see a bright future where they run everything and interfere with everyone, the pendulum has swung as far as it will go in that direction. The sleeping giant of public awareness has been awakened and will begin to pull it back towards the center. The popularity of Dawkins’ book and the others is the first sign of this as well as the open discussion of theocracy as a problem.
22 June 2007, on 4:51 pm
Remember what our old pal Thomas Jefferson said:
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”
Now *that’s* something our kids should be saying in class every morning!
27 June 2007, on 7:13 pm
Zipi, I think it will depend on where you are; even if you’re in a liberal place, you’ll still have us, though, to remind you of this country’s nutty bits!
Ramen, Jack of Hearts!