Let’s Stop Calling New Atheism, “Atheism,” and Start Calling it What it is: Anti-Theism

[rug]

“Like religious fundamentalism, New Atheism is primarily a reactionary phenomenon, one that responds to religion with the same venomous ire with which religious fundamentalists respond to atheism. What one finds in the writings of anti-theist ideologues like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is the same sense of utter certainty, the same claim to a monopoly on truth, the same close-mindedness that views one’s own position as unequivocally good and one’s opponent’s views as not just wrong but irrational and even stupid, the same intolerance for alternative explanations, the same rabid adherents (as anyone who has dared criticize Dawkins or Harris on social media can attest), and, most shockingly, the same proselytizing fervor that one sees in any fundamentalist community” (Reza Aslan ).

November 23, 2014
by Frank Schaeffer

Why Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the ‘New Atheists’ Aren’t Really Atheists

By Reza Aslan (First published in by Salon republished here by permission)

Not long ago, I gave an interview in which I said that my biggest problem with so-called New Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is that they give atheism a bad name. Almost immediately, I was bombarded on social media by atheist fans of the two men who were incensed that I would pontificate about a community to which I did not belong.

That, in and of itself, wasn’t surprising. As a scholar of religions, I’m used to receiving comments like this from the communities I study. What surprised me is how many of these comments appeared to take for granted that in criticizing New Atheism I was criticizing atheism itself, as though the two are one and the same. That seems an increasingly common mistake these days, with the media and the bestseller lists dominated by New Atheist voices denouncing religion as “innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous,” and condemning those who disagree as “religious apologists.”

To be sure, there is plenty to criticize in any religion and no ideology – religious or otherwise – should be immune from criticism. But when Richard Dawkins describes religion as “one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus,” or when Sam Harris proudly declares, “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion,” it should be perfectly obvious to all that these men do not speak for the majority of atheists. On the contrary, polls show that only a small fraction of atheists in the U.S. share such extreme opposition to religious faith.

In fact, not only is the New Atheism not representative of atheism. It isn’t even mere atheism (and it certainly is not “new”). What Harris, Dawkins and their ilk are preaching is a polemic that has been around since the 18th century – one properly termed, anti-theism.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2014/11/lets-stop-calling-new-atheism-atheism-and-start-calling-it-what-it-is-anti-theism/#ixzz3Juwj6mLt

[ZombieHorde]

1. I don't like the term "new atheists" because it's not new.

Marquis de Sade was making strong critiques of religion over two hundred years ago.

[rug]

3. Frankly, very little new on the nonexistence of god(s) has been written since Epicurus.

As Hillel said 2,000 years ago, "The rest is commentary'".

Referring to the Torah, this is the full quote: “That which is hateful to you, do not unto another: This is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary — (and now) go study.”

http://forward.com/articles/14250/the-rest-of-the-rest-is-commentary-/#ixzz3Jv1xrMpH

[wickerwoman]

2. The difference is

if you presented Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens with proof that there was a God, they would change their minds. Whereas theists are constantly presented with evidence that there is no God but continue to assert that there is one.

All Dawkins has ever said is that presenting religious dogma as a certainty is false and that it is irresponsible to indoctrinate children. None of them have ever claimed to have a monopoly on the truth.

That said, I am both an atheist and an anti-theist. How can you not be when you look at the amount of harm that religious dogma has done and continues to do in our world?

Dawkins' great quote is "The problem with religion is that it teaches people to be content with not understanding the world." I am against anything that shuts down the testing and questioning process and says "Just believe this" or "We can never know". It's not a bad thing to be intolerant of those who turn ignorance into a virtue.

[rug]

4. Anti-theism is neither the natural nor logical consequence of atheism.

How could it be? Atheism is a simple statement about the nonexistence of gods. What is added to it constitutes anti-theism. The stuff of what is added to atheism is politics.

[cbayer]

95. What evidence has been presented that there is no god?

There may be evidence that certain events or specific things aren't due to god, but evidence that there is no god? I don't think so.

Lots of people are able to see both the good and bad in religion. I would even venture a guess that most people see it. I think most people also see that atheists are ok, too. So, I don't' think there is any justification for being an anti-theist or an anti-atheist.

Now, if you want to fight the bad in religion, I'm right there with you.

I am also against anything that shuts down the testing and questioning process, including those that make definitive statements like "God is a delusion" or "Religion is a disease".

It is indeed not a bad thing to be intolerant of those who turn fundamental beliefs which have no basis in fact into a virtue - be they theists or anti-theists.

[wickerwoman]

124. There is plenty of evidence that God as concieved by the major religions

does not exist.

No being responsible for our perceivable word could be at the same time omniscient, omnipotent and good. The only way to adequately explain atrocities and natural disasters is either a God who doesn't know about them, can't stop them or doesn't care. And none of those scenarios can be logically reconciled with any of the major Western religions. Neither can the apologies in ancient religious texts for slavery, incest, genocide, infanticide, sexism and homophobia be reconciled with modern ethical understandings.

Western religious dogma has also been systematically disproven by carbon dating, genetics, plate tectonics, astronomy, linguistics, anthropology, etc.

What can't be disproven (mostly because you can't prove a negative) is some kind of indifferent creative force that may or may not be sentient and which is probably just a single name for natural forces or physics. But that isn't the kind of "God" that most theists are talking about.

[cbayer]

130. Please, please share with me all that evidence that god does not exist.

I and others have been searching for it, well, forever.

You may reject specific features of a proposed god. You may reject certain concepts of a proposed god.

But you have zero evidence to present that a god does not exist. Zero.

Are you a gnostic? Do you know that there is not god?

Or is it simply your belief?

Do you have any data to show that the kind of god that "most theists are talking about" is not the god you describe?

Or is it simply your belief?

[wickerwoman]

142. As I said in my last post,

a. you can't prove a negative, so no, it's not possible to prove that God does not exist.

b. I am reasonably certain that the God(s) of all the major Western religions does not exist because of the internal logical inconsistencies which I pointed out in my last post.

It is a logical absurdity to reconcile an omnipotent, omniscient and good deity with the Holocaust, 9/11, famine in Africa, tsumanis that kill hundreds of thousands of people, crib deaths, etc. Either "God" is unable to stop these events, in which case it is not omnipotent and therefore not "God", or it is unable to anticipate these events, in which case it is not omniscient and not "God", or it doesn't care if people suffer excruciating pain and die for no reason in which case it is not good and not worth worshiping because it cannot be swayed into alleviating suffering.

There's a species of parasitic wasp that injects venom directly into its victims' brains turning them into zombies and controlling their every movement. It then lays eggs in its victim, which it keep alive long enough for the eggs to hatch and then eat the victim from the inside out for eight days while it is still conscious and in observable agony. It eats the victims organs in an order that ensures it stays alive for as long as possible. Tell me that this species was "created" by a benevolent deity to serve a "purpose" in some kind of divinely ordered universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp#Reproductive_behavior_and_life_cycle

There are also dozens of examples, including the flatfish, of species which would never have been "designed" the way they are because there are obviously simpler ways to achieve the same effect. Why do flatfish have jaws that show their heads have gradually turned to one side rather than just being designed with a flat straight jaw in the first place? Why do men have nipples? Why do blind mole rats still have eyes covered with skin if they were "created" blind? Why do flightless birds still have wings and hollow bones? Why are platypuses born with teeth that they almost immediately lose? Why do many snakes still have vestigial pelvises or even limbs? There are literally thousands of examples, including every major species on earth, of suboptimal design features from a divine engineering perspective.

So why would a benevolent or even interested God deliberately design something to be imperfect? Why would God create babies with foreskins and then demand that they almost immediately be cut off? Why would God create literally billions of human beings only to consign them to hell because they didn't follow the correct religion? Why does life on earth create literally billions of billions of unused seeds which simply rot or are strangled out in their infancy if there is any kind of divine being directing anything at all?

And this isn't even beginning to delve into all the bullshit that has been peddled and then conveniently "corrected" by all of the major religions over the past 4000 years. The earth is demonstrably not 6000 years old as the Bible say it is. The sun does not orbit the earth. Volcanos don't erupt because God hates gay people. Pimping out your daughter to stop your neighbours from raping your guest makes you an asshole as does trying to murder your child because voices in your head told you to.

I think knowledge is a continuum not a binary of know/believe. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being absolute certainty, no I cannot say with a 10 that there is no God. I can't say anything with a 10. But I am reasonably certain that there is not a God based on the above arguments and inconsistencies and the fact that prayer is not demonstrably effective. So I would say at about a 9 level that I am as certain as any person can be about anything that capital G God is a primitive human construct and not an actual phenomenon.

As I said before, there is conceivably some creative force that could be called small g god but it almost certainly exists, if at all, at a level of abstraction that would make it indistinguishable from a term like "nature" or "the universe".

42% of Americans believe in a personal God that takes an interest in what they eat and who wins football games. None of the major religions describe a primarily abstract and disinterested force as "God" and it can be inferred that the adherents of those religions (i.e. the majority of "theists&quot are not talking about a small g god when discussing their beliefs. They pray to an interventionist God who they believe is interested in their lives, capable of hearing them, able to help and willing to assist the "good". And that type of God cannot be logically reconciled with the kind of suffering, cruelty and indifference easily observable in nature.

[cbayer]

147. So, the bottom line is that you don't really have the evidence that

you claim exists and your reason for that is that you can't prove a negative? Do I have that right?

So if you can't prove a negative, my suggestion would be that you stop claiming that you have evidence that something does not exist.

BTW, pretty much all logicians and mathematicians state that you certainly can prove a negative. There are lots of great articles on this if you are interested. The meme (credit to Dawkins) is one that is often stated in order to avoid the responsibility of defending a definitive statement about their not being a god, but it's a false position.

If you are a gnostic, the burden of proof if on you. You can spend all day putting together the reasons why you think that there is no god, but you will not be able to provide any evidence. In the end it is just your opinion, or dare I say, your belief.

I am not at all interested in engaging in a debate about whether god exists or not. My position is basically apatheism. I don't know if there is a god and I don't care. Whether there is or not would change nothing about my life. I don't care if others believe in a god or not, as long as their position is not used to harm others.

Your treatise tells me only one thing and that is that you have reached your own conclusions and have your own ideas. Nothing wrong with that, but I think your conclusions are yours and are no more valid than those who have reached other conclusions.

Are you wickerman's wife? If so, please say hi to him for me.

[wickerwoman]

168. I think there's a distinction between evidence and conclusive evidence.

I never claimed to have conclusive evidence that there is no God. In fact I've said twice now that it's not possible to conclusively prove that. But there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests there is no God, at least as it has been conceived by any of the major Western religions. If you want some right now, pray for a million dollars and see if it appears. No? Well, that's evidence for you. And when enough of that evidence accumulates for one argument or the other, then you can say with reasonable certainty that something does or does not exist. What you can't do is "prove" it or express absolute certainty.

And conclusions based on the application of logic and the testing of observable phenomena are more valid that conclusions based on "I believe" or "I really think x is true". Gravity "exists" because it can be modelled mathematically and because it works in a predictable way. Actual unicorns do not exist no matter how many people "believe" in them. I can't say with absolute certainty that there is not a dimension in which unicorns exist, but as they have never been observed I can say with relative certainty based on the evidence of their never having been observed, that they do not exist.

When one appears in front of me, I will be happy to revise my claim. And that is why Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are not asserting their "beliefs" in the same way that theists are.

[cbayer]

169. That distinction is highly questionable, but I see that you

are modifying your position.

The overwhelming evidence that makes the suggestion that you embrace is only pertinent to your own position regarding the existence of a god. It is no more valid or "right" than those that embrace something completely different.

I have the same issue with people who claim that they know there is a god. They also have no evidence.

Comparisons with unicorns, etc, are dismissive and meaningless.

Ah, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. They know the one way and are going to save people. They are most certainly asserting their beliefs and doing it more stridently than most theists.

[wickerwoman]

171. No, it's based on the definition of the word evidence.

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion."

You can have "evidence" that someone committed a crime when they are in fact innocent. Evidence is the collection and assertion of facts that support one argument or another. There is some evidence that there is a God. For example, there is are books that have been written that are asserted to reflect God speaking to us. But this evidence is weak compared with the evidence that can be obtained through testing and the application of logic.

[cbayer]

172. I guess if you use it as something that simply supports an assertion

but does not prove that assertion to be true, I can see where you are coming from.

I really think that the kind of evidence you speak of only reflects an individuals position regarding religion. The problem starts when someone makes an assertion and then tries to apply their "evidence".

Since I dismiss any assertion that there is a god or that there is not a god, i also reject the evidence.

It's a belief or a lack of belief. IMO, we will never know and it is useless to even discuss it. No one will win, they will only argue for their unique position.

[wickerwoman]

174. Let's look at two assertions:

1. Earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics.
2. Earthquakes are God's punishment for gay people.

Assertion 1 is supported by observable geological phenomena such as rock stratification on cliffs. We know where the boundaries of the plates are and earthquakes and related phenomena can be predicted to be of higher frequency along the edges of those plates, such as the Pacific Ring of Fire. We understand different types of movements along those plates and the different types of phenomena they produce. We can predict flow-on effects such as aftershocks.

Assertion 2 is supported by the say-so of some people based on a 2000 year old book saying that homosexuality is an abomination and that God has the power to cause natural phenomena, such as floods, to punish human beings for wickedness. But if God has the power to create people, why create them to be wicked? Why not just stop them from being wicked? Why not just kill the wicked people instead of thousands of innocents? Why don't earthquakes happen all the time? People are gay all the time but earthquakes happen infrequently and not necessarily directly in places with high gay populations (like New York). If God made gay people to test their free will, why do animals also engage in homosexual acts? Is God interested in the agency of sheep and geckos? That's certainly not what the Bible seems to say when it gives man dominion over the beasts.

So there is evidence for both assertions but I think the evidence for 1 is strong and the evidence for 2 is weak. It is not useless to discuss it because accepting assertion 2 perpetuates discrimination against gay people and hinders research into earthquake prediction and mitigation which could save literally hundreds of thousands of lives.

"We will never know" and "it's useless to discuss it" is a cop-out and is morally negligent. And I thought you said before that you opposed shutting down the questioning and testing process. But rather than actually address any of the evidence which has been presented to you, you fall straight back into those old chestnuts: "I just believe it so leave me alone" and "It's impossible to know anything so why even try?" And those attitudes cause demonstrable harm to our society which is why I am anti-theist.

[cbayer]

175. Well of course those two assertions are completely different, but that is

not at all what we are discussing. The second assertion is ludicrous. I don't think you could find a single person here that would endorse it, so your argument is better suited for another place. That assertion should be strongly challenged whenever it is encountered.

But, let's take the two assertions we are actually talking about:

1. God exists

2. God does not exist

Neither is supported by, well, anything. Both are supported by the say-so of some people. You completely simplify people's religious beliefs by dismissing them as based on a 2000 year old book that has some ugly things in it.

But people's religious beliefs are so much more complex than that. The book(s) may be important but they are the whole thing.

Since you don't believe in god, it is absolutely meaningless for you to have a discussion about what god can and can not do. If you want to challenge a specific assertion put forward by someone, that is one thing. But these generalized discussions go nowhere and never answer a question. For every "god" that you describe, there are thousands more that your arguments don't address at all.

I see people's perceptions of god(s) like the elephant in the room full of blind man. Each one touches a certain part and builds all their conclusions on that part.

Are you calling me morally negligent because I believe that neither of these assertions will ever prevail? Really? I fully endorse continuing to question and test both premises, but don't have faith that there will ever be an answer.

BTW, in your last paragraph you begin to make it personal and you do this because you have made an assumption about me that is not correct. You might want to test that assertion and avail yourself of some evidence.

I am strongly in favor of challenging religion, and any other beliefs, when they cause harm to others. But, unlike you, I am able to also see the good that religion does. That's why I am not an anti-theist. Critical thinking in this area is critical and the inability to discern what is good from what is bad leads to blind prejudice, imo.

[wickerwoman]

177. Look,

I think it's pointless to continue this discussion if you can't see the qualitative difference between scientific evidence and belief/"say so". That is what I was trying to demonstrate with my earlier example. There are literally hundreds of other examples of scientific theories challenging religious dogma where the scientific theories can be, for all intents and purposes, "proven" and where any thinking and intellectually honest person would need to accept the scientific theory as superior to belief/"say so".

There is a process for establishing facts, evidence and proof which has given us modern medicine, computers, spaceships, agriculture, civil engineering, and on and on and which saves literally millions of lives every single year. We can apply that process to theology whether we happen to believe in God or not. And when we do, the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that God does not exist or if something like a god exists it is in a form so abstract that praying to it or worshipping it is meaningless.

1. God exists. Is supported by historic texts written by people X number of years ago asserting that divine truth has been revealed to them. Is supported by witnesses claiming to have experienced miracles. Is partially supported by the difficulty of human understanding trying to grasp the complexity of the universe.

2. God does not exist. Is supported by the fact that no one can prove they have ever seen or spoken with it. Is supported by the fact that prayer cannot be reliable and repeatedly shown to work. Is supported by myriad logical, factual, and textual inconsistencies in the sacred texts and the fact that many of them can be shown to be drawn from earlier myths or to be self-serving constructions of institutions. Is supported by thousands of scientific discoveries and observations that have disproven explanations provided by sacred texts. Is supported by the fact that sacred institutions have changed their position on a number of points repeatedly despite claiming to be repositories of divine truth and, in the case of the Pope, to be the infallible spokesperson of God. Is supported by the impossibility of logically reconciling human suffering with an interventionist and benevolent deity.

Good people, in the name of religion, have done good things. I am not disputing that. People take comfort in the idea of God or heaven. Fine. As long as they do not assert that they "know" there is a God or try to stop other people from questioning because "we'll never be able to understand" or "one belief is as good as another". If we all accepted that we'd still be sitting in huts dropping dead of the flu, malaria and polio by the millions and waiting for the next earthquake, flood or plague to wipe out our crops and houses.

We are discussing theism vs. anti-theism. Theism is defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures." As I have demonstrated in earlier posts an interventionist God cannot be logically reconciled with human suffering or numerous natural phenomena. I am anti-theist in that I oppose 1.) anyone asserting that divine truth has been revealed to them in a way that is not repeatable or demonstrable to others 2.) anyone asserting that the "big questions" are unknowable and we should be content with "belief" instead of striving to answer them 3.) praying to an interventionist God that causes or allows things like the Holocaust, crib deaths, severe birth defects, devastating natural disasters, etc. in order to "teach us lessons" 4.) worshipping/praying to a non-interventionist god to convince it to intervene when clearly it either cannot or is unwilling to (or does not exist).

[cbayer]

178. OK, you're call.

If you see my disagreement with your premise as my inability to understand, then we probably do not have much to discuss.

I am a scientist, so I don't need to be schooled about scientific process. There just isn't any scientific process available when it come to the assertions that god is real or god is not real.

This is an opinion without any factual basis.

the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that God does not exist or if something like a god exists it is in a form so abstract that praying to it or worshipping it is meaningless.

The evidence does not strongly suggest that god does not exist and your conclusion that if god does exist, it is in a form that would make praying or worshipping meaningless is completely baseless.

There are lots of things that do not have any proof. I believe that there is very likely intelligent life in this universe or outside of this universe. I have absolutely no proof of that. Lack of proof is an extremely weak argument for something being false.

If everyone took your position, though, they might stop looking, and that would be a mistake.

Anyway I feel the same way about those that make the assertion that there is a god as you do. The difference is that I also feel that way about those of you who make the assertion that there is no god.

You go way too far with your definition. Theism is nothing more than a belief in god. Were did you get your definition anyway? I searched using your quoted definition and came up with nothing. All of your assertions following that definition may apply to some people and some groups, but by no means does it apply to the aggregate of theists.

Your apparent inability to distinguish different subgroup is problematic. It causes you to draw conclusions without any basis in fact.

There is as much dogma in your post as there is in fundamentalist christian tracts.

In the futile and useless battle between theism and atheism, there is no winner, only those who believe they have the right answer, the one way, and are intent on converting or saving others. The list of things you reject in theism is pretty good and i think we agree for the most part. But it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what theism is.

So to be against theism in general, when in fact there are only some specific points that you disagree with, is, well, not pretty.

It would be like someone being against atheism because some atheists are harmful and despicalbe assholes. Not pretty at all.

[Fumesucker]

180. Plenty of people are against atheists "just because"

Atheists don't even have to be harmful and despicable assholes in order to be hated, we just have to be.

That you can't or won't see the difference is telling.

[cbayer]

186. And plenty of people are against muslims "just because"

and christians and jews and mormons and hindus and pagans, etc, etc, etc.

They don't even have to be harmful and despicable assholes in order to be hated, they just have to be.

I see it. Perhaps that you can't or won't see that is what is telling?

It was exactly my point.

[Fumesucker]

187. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

You are assuming that I hate theists, I try hard not to hate anyone at all. I spend a considerable amount of mental effort to avoid antagonizing people around me by questioning their philosophy of life which I have learned from experience is inevitably taken as being condescending.

In return I get to listen to my own philosophy of life consistently and dare I say religiously belittled and I'm not supposed to feel condescended to or else I'm an insensitive clod. Even my own fucking brother who knows how I feel about religion uses phrases like "Good Christian woman" and doesn't realize the unsaid subtext. I just keep my mouth shut because I know saying anything will just start a fight.

Listening to anyone over the age of about eight saying "Santa Claus Bless America" would have a great many people Christians included either getting irate or laughing at the speaker. I'm supposed to accept what is to me the same thing and always keep a straight face, indeed I'm thought odd and probably unpatriotic if I do not participate in saying Santa Claus Bless America.

To me at least the idea of publicly flaunting of religion denigrates both religion and the public space. But then I grew up both in the austere contemplative form and the more extroverted physical Christianity and I know which one makes me more uncomfortable.

Probably 99% of the time I shrug stuff off like a duck does water but every now and then the religious privilege gets to be a bit too smug. You come across to me as if I were to tell a black person, a minority, how they should feel about being black, not something I would dream of doing.

[cbayer]

188. I'm not assuming you hate theists. Where in my post did you pull that from?

You accused me of having a blind spot and I pointed out that your blind spot appears to be even larger.

I am sorry that you find yourself among people who religiously belittle you. I hope that you can find others who show you the respect you deserve.

Sorry, but I will dismiss Santa Claus, unicorn, leprechaun arguments en toto. They are a weak tool used to dismiss and infantilize religious believers. While I understand that you see your lack of beliefs in all those things and god as equivalent, that is different than saying that others' beliefs in god are equivalent to those things. Sounds quite similar to what you describe as "religious belittling" to me.

I'm not sure what you meant about public flaunting. I believe in both parts of the second amendment, and think that one part requires the other.

I'm not a believer, fs. I've told you that over and over again, so your last paragraph just comes off as an attempt to make this discussion personal.

[Fumesucker]

194. I'm going to say this knowing you'll almost certainly misinterpret my words

I'm not a a teetotaler but it's been over half my life since I've been drunk, I drink seldom and never more than maybe a couple of cold beers on a hot day.

One thing I find as someone who largely avoids alcohol is I don't like being around other people who are drinking to any extent, tipsy and drunk people don't usually mean to be obnoxious but they often are anyway because their inhibitions are loosened and their judgement is impaired.

The religious may not even intend to be obnoxious to atheists, much of the time it's simple ignorance of any other point of view than their own. Do you seriously believe that I don't know by now which of my thoughts offend and upset religious people if I should be so indiscreet as to tell them?

My own personal just-for-fun theology I've worked out is simple, far more logical than most theology and remarkably insulting to theists.

I've never told anyone in real life what it is and only twice on the internet.

[cbayer]

195. I think I understand what you say, and I don't think it is unique to theists.

It's obnoxious to be around anyone who is so drunk on their own beliefs that their judgement is impaired and they have lost the ability to judge or care how they are coming across to others.

That goes for those drunk on their religion and those drunk on their atheism and those drunk their beliefs in having been visited by aliens.

I am glad and not surprised that you have developed you own just-for-fun theology. I am sorry that it is remarkably insulting to theists and would guess that it is better that you keep it to yourself, unless your intent would be to insult.

Now, do you mean for this to be taken another way or did I interpret it correctly?

[stone space]

158. I prove negatives all the time.

It's my job.

you can't prove a negative, so no, it's not possible to prove that God does not exist

I'll pass on that particular "negative", though.

I have no evidence, and most certainly no proof. It's just a belief.

But proving "negatives" is fun.

[stone space]

173. If Science and Technology has shown us anything, it is that...

...Omnipotence isn't as powerful as it is cracked up to be, and Omniscience isn't as all knowing as formerly believed.

Given how little control we actually have over the world, even with all of our modern weapons and global eavesdropping capabilities, we are beginning to see the limits of Omnipotence and Omniscience, and how our reasoning about both have been faulty.

The limitations of both Omnipotence and Omniscience are becoming empirically evident in our modern society.

I won't trust abstract reasoning about either until those empirical observations about both are taken into account.

[Lordquinton]

143. Plate Tectonics

Evolution, there's two points of knowledge that changed the whole way God is perceived. Now, show us one little bit of proof that a god might exist, just one tiny, insignificant little bit of evidence that a god could exist.

[cbayer]

148. How does plate tectonics and evolution prove there is no god?

Those things may have changed the way god is perceived, but they are not evidence that there is no god.

I have absolutely no evidence that a god might exist. Not one tiny, insignificant bit of evidence.

Just like you have absolutely no evidence that a god does not exist, not one tiny, significant bit of evidence.

If you are a gnositc, then the burden of proof is on you. So bring it on and I will notify Oslo to prepare your Nobel.

[stone space]

166. Two points of knowledge that changes the way...

Last edited Tue Nov 25, 2014, 08:31 AM - Edit history (1)

...that quite a few things are perceived.

Many of which have nothing to do with religion.

Do you not expect scientific discoveries to effect people's perceptions of religious topics, just as it effects peoples' perceptions of nonreligious topics?

That is not evidence of anything but an open mind.

I'm sure that you weren't making the case for that, were you?

[edhopper]

5. That's fine

These writers would probably agree they are anti-religion.
The rest is him using his scholarship to express his opinion about thinkers and writers over the centuries. That's fine too, but when he states what people meant, it is just his educated opinion, and should be looked at as such. I am sure other scholars would disagree.
A debate between him and Susan Jacoby would be interesting.

[rogerashton]

6. Some atheists have always been militant.

The distinction between atheist and anti-theist is false. An atheist is a person who believes there is no god. A person who doesn't believe either way is a person who has "a problem with his faith." There have always been atheists who wanted to combat what they see as organized falsehood and others, like my father, who felt that people who can comfort themselves by believing falsehoods should not be distressed with the truth and perhaps were even to be envied. Similarly, there have always been theists who wanted to convert the gentiles and others whose faith was not something that could be shared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

That was William Kingdon Clifford, writing in 1877.

http://ajburger.homestead.com/ethics.html

[rug]

8. And many, I suspect the majority, have not.

I think there are very, very few who are militant about the nonexistence of a god(s). That would be silly, railing against the evil of something that does not exist.

The anger and the militance is against religion.

[stone space]

24. This militant atheist prefers to rant and rail against the Gods of Metal...

...of the twin religions of Militarism and Nuclearism, Gods whose physical existence is not in question, and Gods in whom we blindly maintain faith for our salvation.

I think there are very, very few who are militant about the nonexistence of a god(s). That would be silly, railing against the evil of something that does not exist.

Securing the nonexistence of these Gods of Metal is an extremely important goal of militant atheism in my view.

Temptations towards Omnipotence need to be actively resisted.

We, as a species, have become capable of creating a hell to surpass anything that has ever existed in human mythology and imagination.

[okasha]

32. +1000.

[edhopper]

38. So you think

atheists can't be concerned with rampant militarism and nuclear arms as well as the harmful influence of religion?

We can care and be active about many things, that's why some are on DU.

[stone space]

167. Of course we can. But sometimes, instead...

...of directing our ire at some of the False Gods of Metal worshiped by some in our society, manufactured and invested with powers of Omnipotence, we direct our ire at those victims whose only crime is thanking their non-metallic (and possibly nonexistent) God for surviving yet another day in that society.

This is not atheism as I know it, and I've been an atheist for more than half a century.

Maybe instead of bashing folks who thank God to be alive, we can take a look at some of the reasons why they feel the need to thank God in the first place.

That would be the path of reason, it seems to me.

And a path more befitting of atheism.

[Fumesucker]

181. They feel the need largely because they have been taught to feel that need

In societies that don't teach the need to thank God so much you don't get so much of it.

QED

[stone space]

184. Maybe it's the bullets. (nt)

[rogerashton]

58. As I said, against organized falsehood.

It may be that my dad was in the majority. But we can judge the number of militant atheists -- they make themselves obvious! If, as you say, the quiescent atheists are the large majority, then there are -- excuse the expression! -- a helluva lot of atheists.

[rhett o rick]

71. I don't call myself an atheist because there are different definitions of God. I definitely don't

believe in the God's of the major religions. But Buddhists believe in a concept like god that I am ok with. And I agree with Einstein's concept of God.

[stone space]

7. Old School atheist here.

Much of this newfangled stuff that currently goes by the name "atheism" is not anything that I've ever recognized as atheism throughout my life.

I recognize it from my own experiences, but as a form of fundamentalism not usually associated with atheism here in Iowa. Folks like that here are usually Christians.

I do wonder how many fundamentalist atheists were at one time fundamentalist Christians. Perhaps it's just old habits?

Atheists have many faults, but seeing this fundamentalist thingie in self-described atheists just seems weird to me.

We got our own problems. We don't need to import the problems of others and make them our own.

That's just weird.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I've been an atheist my entire life. I'm an anti-theist because I'm sick to death of religious

people trying to alter society to suit their whims.

Injecting religion into schools. Working to ban abortion and other family planning options. Working to overturn the ACA on religious grounds. Working to ban physician assisted suicide. Etc.

Don't pretend I haven't been provoked. If not for these RELIGIOUS influences on politics, I'd have no cause to bother telling anyone I'm an atheist at all. I just wouldn't give a shit.


Quell surprise you pretend not to be aware of that.

[Humanist_Activist]

9. This is the fucker who lied about being an atheist, wrote a book disparaging them, and

then has the audacity to whine when atheists criticize religion. Boo fucking hoo!

[rug]

10. He said he was an atheist? Got a link?

[Humanist_Activist]

11. The title of his book is "Why I'm an atheist who believes in God"....

http://sojo.net/blogs/2014/05/13/god-believing-atheist-qa-frank-schaeffer

Oh, and he says some outright offensive things about atheists, he's a shameless self promoter.

[rug]

12. Oh, you're talking about Schaeffer. Aslan wrote the article.

Schaeffer reposted it with permission.

Are you offended by his criticism of opinions or do you think he's insulting people?

[Humanist_Activist]

14. Sorry, I do have them confused, my bad, Schaeffer is still an asshole...

if you want, I can link to some of his interviews where he apparently attempts to psychoanalyze atheists, apparently we can't grieve or feel certain things. He's a fucking asshole, as far as Aslan, he's dishonest himself. Calling an awareness campaign proselytizing when its anything but. Saying that "New Atheism" is just like fundamentalism, then, when linking to examples, utterly fails to grasp what the fuck they are talking about. Its amusing if this guy didn't have a national platform to spout his nonsense, but he does.

[Trajan]

13. Proud Anti-theist here ...

Where's the problem? ... Theists are ANTI-FREEDOM ... I reject their premises and conclusions, as well as their anathemas and denouncements, ... with extreme prejudice ...

What's the problem?

[hrmjustin]

17. theists are against freedom?

[Humanist_Activist]

18. In general yes, depending on the sect, they either worship a great dictator in the sky...

of some sort or another, sometimes an entire class of divine aristrocracy, or, in addition, they have a belief, of some sort, of a future kingdom on Earth, where their chosen god(Jesus) gets to stamp all the unbelievers under foot, or throw them in a lake of fire, or some such bullshit.

[hrmjustin]

19. lmfao!

I kind of like freedom and all the other theists I know like freedom as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. You must not know many theists.

All the ones I know (that are Christian) worship the 'king of kings' in ways they wouldn't follow the King of England, etc.

I see them constructing constraints around themselves, and trying to foist same on society, based on what they think their 'king' wants.

[hrmjustin]

21. We have free will and can make our own choices.

[Humanist_Activist]

25. Yes, and that's why Jesus introduced the concept of hell, such a nice guy.

You know, if I point a gun at someone's head and tell them they are free to decide whether to eat chimichangas or tacos, but if they choose wrong, they get a bullet in the head, that's not a choice at all. Oh, and I tell them "Tacos or else!"

[hrmjustin]

27. Well I don't believe in hell so I feel very free.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. That's interesting, so you changed your religion to make it more acceptable to your...

modern, secular morality, a lukewarm Christian, as it where.

I find that both amusing and sad at the same time, you still are hung up on a book full of bad ideas that have no place in any society, much less a modern one, many commanded by the God you worship, and you still find ways to worship him.

I don't understand the cognitive dissonance this must cause, well, OK, I can, used to be a liberal Christian, a cafeteria Catholic, for a while before I lost my faith, so I've been there. Hell was one of the first beliefs I abandoned.

[hrmjustin]

34. My religion is based on the Anglican three legged stool.

Scripture, tradition, and reason.

I would not call myself a good Christian but also not lukewarm one as well.

I am not hung up on the bible. I understand it has contradictions in it.

You and I will just never agree on whether there is a God or not.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. I don't care whether we agree if there is a god or not, I just find it amusing...

that you threw away one of the key beliefs of Christianity because, I'm assuming, it conflicted with your morals.

Is original sin out too?, After all, the idea that we inheret sin is not only grossly unfair, but also unjust, would you not agree?

[hrmjustin]

43. I think are are all sinners.

And I also think if a soul does not get to heaven that that soul no longer exists. I don't believe in a physical place called hell. I think in the end most or all of us get to heaven.

I have never been big on original sin but we re all sinners.

[Humanist_Activist]

54. Oh what, so you believe in annihilation instead? That's so much better!

NOT!

And I would agree we are all sinners, in the fucked up, amoral framework of Christianity that is. Generally speaking I don't believe in sin, its a rather poisonous proposition, and the idea that "we are all sinners" is just sickening.

[hrmjustin]

55. You asked.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. True, and frankly it just confirmed why I believe Christianity to be, at best, an amoral...

framework for life.

[hrmjustin]

60. And I find that opinion equally..

... as you find mine.

[Humanist_Activist]

65. See, but here's the difference, I show a disgust towards a belief you have about other people...

you equate that with my disgust of your religious beliefs.

[hrmjustin]

66. So?

[Humanist_Activist]

68. See, this is the disconnect, I put people first, I'm a humanist, so that's how I view things...

my beliefs aren't even in the same emotional ball park as fellow human beings. The fact that I oppose and am disgusted by your belief that "we are all sinners" is an illustration of this, people before gods. Whereas you feel a revulsion/disgust at my opposition to your belief, because its a rejection of your god as well, you put gods before people.

This is the ultimate disconnect between the secular and the religious, ultimately we are diametrically opposed.

[hrmjustin]

70. No, no, no!

I don't feel a revulsion at your being an atheist. That doesn't bother me at all!

What bothers me is your opinion that Christianity is amoral!

[Humanist_Activist]

89. Why the revulsion. Christianity is just a series of ideas and beliefs...

Most of them bad in my opinion. Observation of people identifying as Christian, along with the many contradictions in the Bible and other christian sources that allows them all to justify any act, good or bad, using their religion, leads me to think its, at best, not a source for anyone's morality.

[hrmjustin]

94. You made the point it is amoral i believe. i find that repulsive.

[Humanist_Activist]

96. Amoral is not the same as immoral...

Athiesm is also amoral, but its not due to contradictions, but instead due to failing to address morality at all.

[rug]

81. It seems to me you believe in annihilation.

What exactly do you think happens at death?

[Humanist_Activist]

87. True, but at least I don't think I would be spared that because I'm a Christian or something.

Not part of the Elect, so to speak, there is no Elect.

[Dorian Gray]

185. Isn't nonexistence

pretty much what atheists believe happens after we die? Isn't that what annihilation would be?

(I'm not stating this to be argumentative. I truly don't understand why you would think that non-existence would be problematic?)

[Humanist_Activist]

189. I don't believe in an afterlife, that is true, but that applies to everyone...

unlike what Christians believe. They are, on some level, "saved" after all.

[Dorian Gray]

190. That's fair enough

I was reading the discussion, and I that stood out to me, so I thought I'd ask for clarification. The point makes more sense now (to me!). Thanks.

[okasha]

36. Disbelief in hell,

and the related opinion that it exists but is empty, goes all the way back to the early Church fathers.

That's what the "Universalist" in UU stands for--everybody saved, no exceptions.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. And what of free will, in this supposed inevitable universalist afterlife?

Could I still choose to 'sin' then?

[okasha]

44. And you would choose to harm someone

because....

[Humanist_Activist]

52. When the fuck did sin equal harming someone?

Wow, this is what you think of atheists? What the fuck!

[okasha]

77. In all cultures I'm aware of,

from the beginning. It has nothing to do with being an atheist or a theist. Harm someone, you've offended your fellow humans and their gods. Exceptions for self defence and such, as a rule.

Why, did you believe theists thought you were "sinning" by making bombastic posts on a discussion board? Not even close.

[Humanist_Activist]

88. Well that's just not true, just look in the Bible for examples of that...

sins are offenses against gods, whether there are human victims that are possible is irrelevent. In addition, at least in Christianity, all sins are equal, so a person who blasphemes is as bad as a murderer. Its a crazy belief.

[okasha]

127. Eh?

Where did you get the.notion that in Christianity all sins are equal?

[Humanist_Activist]

139. Actually, you are correct in a way, but still incorrect...

You are correct that many Christians don't view all sins as the same, its more perverse than that. I'll give an example.

To give an example, in the Catholic Church, they have Venial and Mortal sins. Venial Sins are slight sins, like gossiping about someone behind their back, whereas mortal sins are things like having homosexual sex. Oddly enough, the sin that harms another person, in this case, is the less serious of the offenses against God.

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/homosexuality-sin.htm

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Funny, don't recall saying anything about harming another person.

[okasha]

78. See above.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. Different religious groups vary. Some include self harm.

So let's start with that. Am I allowed to harm myself in this UU heaven?

Not rules gaming, looking for the underlying principle.

[okasha]

117. Assuming you were in "this UU heaven,"

1. Why would you want to harm yourself; and

2. how would you accomplish that?

[AtheistCrusader]

119. You first.

[okasha]

120. Sorry, but your question

is meaningess in the context of a Christian heaven. You would be in an eternal state of grace, which would preclude anger, despair, grief and any other motive for harming yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

121. If I'm not capable of anger, despair, grief, etc, I am not free.

It makes perfect sense. Risk taking, and other potentially self-harming actions are part and parcel of who I am.

What is excitement without risk? Thrill without chance of failure?

You may not see it this way, but an eternity of that sounds to me, an awful lot like torture.

[okasha]

122. It's not my idea of the afterlife, either.

But neither is cherishing anger, grief or thrill-seeking.

[AtheistCrusader]

123. What I cherish, is the freedom to choose.

What virtue is there, in refraining from harming others, if you are incapable of harming others?

[Cartoonist]

109. Let me interject

I won't put her on ignore, but I will no longer speak with okasha until she grows up. As usual, she is confused. She interprets sin as harm. Sin can be as simple as eating meat on Friday, or not wearing the appropriate headgear. The problem with sin is who decides what a sin is.

[Humanist_Activist]

111. okasha changes the meanings of words to suit her argument, it renders her arguments meaningless...

it becomes an infinite egress of interpretation and reinterpretation with her.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. Well, in this case, UU itself declines to define sin for the most part.

I think she's engaging in good faith in this instance.

[Humanist_Activist]

140. No, okasha claimed that to sin is to harm others in "all cultures she's aware of" this is false.

Its just factually wrong, I of course, also erred in my correction in taking what some sects of Christianity believe and spouting off a post before I could think under the assumption that most Christians believe that all sin is equal.

[okasha]

114. Now, that is pathetic.

Last edited Mon Nov 24, 2014, 12:00 AM - Edit history (1)

[Humanist_Activist]

41. UUA doesn't consider itself a Christian Denomination anymore...

and the definition of Christianity only goes back to about 350-400 C.E. or so, after most of the great debates occurred about the nature of Jesus and his teachings, the Universalists were considered heretics by that time. There were also sects that thought Jesus wasn't God, was fully human but not fully divine, etc. By today's definition of Christianity, they wouldn't fit.

[okasha]

47. Irrelevant.

The UU was formed by the merger of the Unitarian (non-Trinitarian) and Universalist Christian denominations. Its present inclusiveness stems directly from that Universalist background.

[Leontius]

59. I don't think it is irrelevant at all.

If what I hear about the UU church is true they in no way are still a Christian denomination. I have personally not researched them so I am going on second hand info I have not checked out so it may be faulty and I have jumped to a wrong conclusion.

[Humanist_Activist]

64. They no longer claim to be a Christian denomination themselves...

They are largely an umbrella group for various different theologies. So you have UU Christians, UU Wiccans, UU Atheists/Agnostics, etc.

Mostly they provide fellowship and worship spaces for minority groups that aren't quite large enough to support their own.

[Leontius]

67. I find their inclusiveness laudable

And I admire and share their acceptance of all viewpoints to help make this a more peaceable world.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. So can a subject of the crown. Free will doesn't imply no consequences.

[Humanist_Activist]

23. You would be surprised, there are significant fractions of Christians and Muslims...

in various different countries around the world who would like at least part of their religions to be codified into current secular law. This includes criminalizing apostasy, adultery, homosexuality, etc.

Not saying they are a majority, at least when it comes to Christians.

But various religious beliefs are pro-totalitarian, so the ideas are there, its just that most Christians don't follow them.

[hrmjustin]

26. Ok you have a point there.

[stone space]

30. I've met such Militant Christians in real life.

in various different countries around the world who would like at least part of their religions to be codified into current secular law.

They want to ban stuff like guns and attack helicopters and nuclear weapons and stuff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218163197

Many Militant Christians, like Militant Atheists, view them as False Gods, and their worship as Idolatry.

[Jamastiene]

125. Yeah, everyone else's freedom.

Most of the theists I have known are for their own freedom and against everyone else's freedom, up to and including shoving religion down our throats every chance possible.

[hrmjustin]

126. Meet different theist then!

The ones I know live and let live.

[cbayer]

131. This is just a reflection of your unfortunate experience with theists, Jamastiene.

But it's not reflective of all theists.

I think it is a mistake to paint them all with the same brush.

If you really want a different perspective, check this out:

http://notalllikethat.org

At the very least, look at Dan Savage's introductory piece in the middle.

[Lordquinton]

144. Besure to check out their sister group!

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/

[cbayer]

149. You are calling the reddit Mens Rights group the sister group of NALT?

That shows exactly how much you know about NALT.

And I'd be very careful about calling the reddit group a "sister" group. I understand the punishment for that kind of insult could be castration.

BTW, I wouldn't go anywhere near that group, but how exactly were you able to get the link?

IIRC, this is the second time you have brought reddit into the conversation in the last few days. Are you pushing reddit sites?

[rug]

45. The problem is your assumptions. It leads you to untenable opinions.

[Trajan]

73. Yeah ... right

[rug]

76. Glad you afgree.

[cbayer]

98. Theists are anti-freedom? MLK? Eugene Robinson? William Barber?

All of them?

[longship]

15. Well, he's painting with a rather broad brush.

There are quite a few atheists today who came out because of the so-called new atheists books and writings. What I see as the new atheism is not any witnessing or conversion. Although many like discussions on religion -- I certainly do -- I don't often see such a thing as proselytizing. But many atheists just want to live in a world where they are free from imposition by religions. If that is fundamentalism, so be it. Actually, I would never call it that. I don't give a damn what other people believe as long as they stay out of my hair. I have no data, but I imagine there are many atheists would agree with that principle.

However, maybe there is no new atheism at all. Maybe there are just non-believers and believers of different flavors.

[Daemonaquila]

16. Sounds a lot like standard right wing christian fundie whining to me.

"Waaaaaaah, I'm being oppressed because people disagree with my beliefs and dare say so!"

[djean111]

29. Exactly. n/t

[rug]

46. That sounds like you're describing your reply.

[Cartoonist]

28. OK, I'll admit it.

I became an atheist by walikng in the anti-theist door. Anti-theism is still my prime motivator. I went to a Catholic school and church. In the vestibule of the church was a map of the United States highlighting religious landmarks. In California, there were a number of drawings showing the old Missions along the coast. When I learned the truth about these missions, I became ashamed of my religion. As I learned more about the genocide and oppression commited by Christianity, how could I not lose my faith?

Religion leads the world in acts of murder and oppression. From the war on Gays to the bombing of Iraq, the crimes commited by religion and its adherents far outweigh any good its apologists claim. How anyone who values human life and decency can believe in a just and merciful God is a mystery to me. So damn straight, I am an anti-theist. And if you don't like it, that's too bad.

[okasha]

42. Got stats?

[Cartoonist]

74. About what?

The number of victims by genocide?
The number of victims of the inquisition?
Witch trials?
Homophobic attacks?
Capital punishment for apostasy?
The carpet bombing of Iraq?
Botched back alley abortions?

No, I don't have the numbers, but I bet they're huge. Bigger than any other group, and that includes the Nazis.

[okasha]

80. "Religion leads the world in acts of murder and oppression."

Thanks for being honest enough to admit you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. That's an improvement on your Santa fiasco.

[Cartoonist]

86. I don't get you

You always chide in with similar remarks to my posts, but you never say anything counter. You claim to have ties to Native Americans. Do you think their genocide had nothing to do with Christianity? I wasn't there, but I read history differently than you, I guess. Even if you disagree, it doesn't warrant the insult that I haven't the faintest idea of what I'm talking about. Educate me then. You've had the opportunity in the past, but you always just insult me and then disappear. At least rug and the sailor engage in spirited conversation.

Merry Christmas. I hope Santa is generous to you.

[okasha]

91. I don't "claim to have ties" to Native Americans

I am a Native American.

The genocide of my people was driven by greed--for land, for gold and other resources--and by racism. Most of the immediate victims of the southeastern Removals were themselves Christians. One of the few advocates to speak up for them was the Baptist Church.

Educate yourself. You're not my responsibility.

[Cartoonist]

104. Is this the same Baptist church

that used the bible to support slavery? Yes it was. I don't know why you fail to see the connection between Christianity and genocide. Apparently it is you that needs to educate yourself. In any case, it is clear you have nothing of value to say other than insults, and they have no value.

[okasha]

107. Wrong again.

It was the Baptist Church before the split over slavery.

I'm not insulting you, my dear, I'm calling you out on your bias and ignorance.

[Leontius]

141. To him that's an insult, an indescribably huge insult.

[rug]

48. If I understand you, one of your reasons is you're ashamed of what the RCC has done.

Following that, would you consider yourself anti-American as well?

[Cartoonist]

72. That's a good question

On the surface, I'd have to say yes. One of the problems I have is what do I do about it? I don't possess the funds to move to another country. One thing I hold as a positive is that my country can change, and I can participate by voting. I don't recall my church ever holding an election for Pope. We didn't even have a say about the priests in our parish. So while I would say I'm ashamed of our government, I hold out some optimism. In the past, we abolished slavery. We passed a Civil Rights Bill. We sent a man to the Moon. These are things that are good. We can do more.

In comparison, I rail against the things I am angered about. I used to do political cartoons. A puny sword, I agree, but it's what I did best. I tried to bring down the GOP just like I try to bring down the church, but I was as effective as Don Quixote. I support many of the ideas in our Constitution, so I am not totally opposed to America. The Church has nothing in its dogma that I support. Some of the things Jesus said are beautiful, but I don't recognize his divinity.

I haven't heard anything from Pope Francis that shows any significant change. I hear good things from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but I know politicians can disappoint. So while there are similarities between my objection to religion, my objection to America is not on the same level. Ultimately, it comes down to reality. I don't believe in God, I believe in people.

[rug]

79. I think it's a mixed bag.

I have no doubt I'd be hauled before HUAC in an earlier decade. But I very much adhere to a class analysis of things. This country is composed of lots of layers and lots of interests. I try to find the reason for the atrocities that occur and almost always it's not because of "America" but because of monied and power interests. I try to do the same thing with the RCC.

You should post some of your political cartoons in the Media forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1017

[okasha]

82. That would be two of us.

As it was, my phone was tapped for several years and all my foreign mail opened.

[rug]

90. Did you ever hear of the HUAC hearings in Buffalo in 1964?

It was the last hurrah for HUAC. Their hearings were disrupted by students and members of the Progressive Labor Movement which had just split off from the CPUSA. I used to know two people who took part in it. HUAC was a truly nasty group.

[okasha]

103. I had read about them.

Some of my profs had been subpoenaed in previous hearings. I became politically active a bit later--SDS.

[rug]

108. Ah, I was with the WSA faction.

Don't tell me you were RYM.

[okasha]

112. I was.

I left when the Weathermen coopted the RYM and became violent.

[rug]

115. Tsk.

[okasha]

118. I know.

But I still think a brisk round of self-criticism is good for the soul.

[Cartoonist]

83. The corruption in the RCC

Pope Francis could do one simple thing that would earn him my respect. End tithing. The raffle he has proposed just doesn't cut it.

I don't do cartoons anymore. It was fun while it lasted. I don't post them here because I would lose my anonymity. Here I'm just a nobody like everyone else. I achieved a small level of celebrity back in the day. I believe it would color the perception of my posts if I revealed my identity.

[gordianot]

33. How about my religious views or lack of views are my buisness and have nothing to do with you.

I might tell you my views if you ask but they really have nothing to do with you.

[immoderate]

35. Standard, right-wing word-gaming.

--imm

[rock]

49. If you want to call what I, uh, 'practice'

Anti-theism, go ahead, I don't mind. Of course you'll be wrong. I would better describe it as non-theism. I'm not peddling anything but I don't like people mischaracterizing me. Hey, maybe you didn't mean me!

[rug]

50. Who the hell are you?

[rock]

51. Exactly

Now let's keep it that way.

[rickford66]

53. Who cares?

If you don't like football and completely ignore its goings on, would you care that you were called an anti-footballer? I don't believe in the magic guy in the sky. Call me what you want.

[catbyte]

62. +1000

[procon]

75. What a perfect response to these daily jeremiads. nt

[Prophet 451]

129. No, but...

...if you spent your time writing about how awful football was, how the world would be a better place without football and how everyone who liked football was delusional, then we might call you anti-football.

[rickford66]

138. So?

[cbayer]

150. I think you miss the critical point that these particular people don't completely

ignore theism.

They have made careers out of attacking it, and quite successful careers at that.

They are kind of the Rush Limbaugh's of anti-theism.

If you don't believe in god, then you are simply an atheist. But if you begin to mock others that do, perhaps by using childish statements to describe that god, then you might be an anti-theist.

[Fumesucker]

182. Now if football fans would just stop trying to use law to force me to act like a fan too

Even though the game bores me to somnolence.

And if they would just shut the fuck up about football every now and then, praise the quarterback...

Jesus Christ Football Star by Martin Mull

It was a beautiful day, it was a sellout crowd
and the air was filled with a mighty yell
folks was carrying pennants -
some said Heaven and some said Hell
and the referee stepped to the field
and he flipped a coin, and it revealed
what every faithful Christian should believe -
that Jesus was elected to receive.

so let's give Jesus Christ the football
let him even up the score
let him run it through the crossbars
and be on the cross no more
let's give Jesus Christ the football
let him even up the score
let him run it through the crossbars
and be on the cross no more.

well, satan, he used an onside kick
thank God that matthew was thinkin quick
he took that ball from satan
it was Christians, first and ten
and with the strength that moved the rock
well, the Savior made him a mighty block
and found himself the way he'd been conceived -
free and clear, and open to receive

so let's give Jesus Christ the football
let him even up the score
let him run it through the crossbars
and be on the cross no more
let's give Jesus Christ the football
let him even up the score
let him run it through the crossbars
and be on the cross no more.

well, Jesus took that ball and ran
a straighter path than any man
he had to win that game
for both his Dad, and all mankind
but satan sent his finest man
he said "forget the rulebook - just defend.
it isn't how we play, we've got to win!"
but J.C. left them standing in their sin

so let's give Jesus Christ the football
let him even up the score
let him run it through the crossbars
and be on the cross no more
let's give Jesus Christ the football
let him even up the score
let him run it through the crossbars
half of which he's seen before.

[Jim__]

57. I'd say Aslan has it right! - n/t

[bowens43]

61. Anti-Theism is a good thing

[KansDem]

63. If you must label me, make it "Anti-myth-and-superstition."

Religion and myth have very similar definitions --

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

myth (mth)
n.
1.
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.

Add superstition to the mix --

su·per·sti·tion (spr-stshn)
n.
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

[okasha]

84. I'd forgotten Dawkins' comment

about waving his wand to end religion rather than rape.

What a misogynistic, suppurating little asshole he is.

[hrmjustin]

85. He said that? wow what a jerk he is!

[stone space]

92. “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, ...

... I would not hesitate to get rid of religion”.

[Humanist_Activist]

93. I find amusing that in this circlejerk, no one has pointed out that it wasn't

Dawkins who said that.

[hrmjustin]

99. Who said it?

[stone space]

100. Sam Harris, I think. (nt)

[hrmjustin]

101. Thanks. whoever said it should be ashamed.

[rug]

102. You're right. It was Sam Harris.

“If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.”

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2012/11/18/atheist-bigwig-sam-harris-if-i-could-wave-a-magic-wand-and-get-rid-of-either-rape-or-religion-i-would-not-hesitate-to-get-rid-of-religion/comment-page-2/

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/faq/

Can't say as how I feel better about it.

[Humanist_Activist]

105. Oh, I'm not defending him, Sam Harris is an asshole in many different ways, this just being one...

I just thought it was amusing that people misattributed it.

I won't say I'm immune from such idiocy though, as can be attested by my first post to this thread.

[okasha]

110. Wups, I misread that.

Thanks for the correction. I'll amend my statement: Dawkins and Harris are both misogynistic, suppurating little assholes.

[hrmjustin]

97. I am a rape survivor and appalled that someone said that.

Just freaking infuriating!

Edited to reflect that Dawkind was not the one whosaid this apparently.

[cbayer]

106. I reject calling it new atheism. Call them what they are - religophobes.

It's a movement based on bigotry that has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.

It is led by those with so much privilege they can't see even see the next rung below them. Those same people have no education or training in the field of religion, but are considered experts by other religophobes.

They think they are better than others who experience the world differently.

They speak with authority and call others deluded and diseased.

I support Aslan calling them out, but I reject calling them atheists.

Call them what they are - religophobes.

[Prophet 451]

128. Some of the "New Atheists" are assholes

From observation, there are three kinds of atheist. There's your standard atheist, probably the majority of atheists, the "I don't believe in god" atheist. They mostly don't bother us believers, they just get on with living their lives. Then there are your "strong" atheists. They go a shade further and say "there is no god" which is slightly arrogant (as we don't have universal knowledge) but by and large, still not a problem.

Then there are the anti-theists. They're frequently just as aggressive as theists with their proselytizing, seem to hero-worship Hitchens et al and affect a smug, sneering contempt for faith and believers. The reason they're so annoying is partly their proselytizing and partly that they don't even respect our feelings as much as they would respect someone in love's feelings. I think that's the best comparison. Faith, like love, is not provable, often illogical and invisible. Yes, it motivates and shapes our personalities. Now, I'm not asking atheists to share our faith, just that they afford our beliefs the same amount of respect they would accord to love. Finally, the "New Atheists" seem incapable of understanding that the attempts to impose religious beliefs on others are done by fundies, not by the mainstream.

Oh, one more thing. I look in on the religion group here fairly often and I've seen far more threads started by militant atheists about how awful religion and believers are than I have seen threads about religion otherwise.

[edhopper]

132. How dare they write books

That millions of people read.
Why can't they just let our irrational beliefs alone and not analyze and critique them
It's not like religions ever try to promote their beliefs or actually impose them on others. Unlike these writers, who haven't imposed anything on anybody.


Thanks for the post, I needed a good chuckle before bed.

[Prophet 451]

133. Glad to have entertained you

Although you don't seem to have understood what I was saying. I'm not complaining that they write books or that those books sell. I believe in the free market of ideas a great deal more than I believe in the actual free market. What I was complaining about was firstly, that our beleifs are not given the same respect any other strong emotion would be and that secondly, many of the "New Atheists" have a self-satisfied I'm-so-superior attitude toward believers (and yes, believers often have shitty attitudes too, not disputing that).

[edhopper]

134. So you don't want to address

What they said about religious beliefs and the concept of God.
Just that they hurt your feelings and are don't show deference to ideas they clearly see are wrong.
Sorry if pointing out the illogic and lack of evidence for religious beliefs is a problem for you.
But no claim, belief or idea gets a pass because challenging it bothers someone.
If you have a problem with what they said, address the content, not the tone.

[Prophet 451]

135. Again, not seeing what I'm saying

I'm not addressing what they said about religious beliefs and the concept of god because I don't have much to say beyond that I disagree. They have the right to their opinions, I have the right to disagree. Their tone is all I have taken issue with.

I presume you've been in love sometime? Well, for believers, that's how we feel about our deity. We are not asking anyone to share that feeling but simply to respect our feelings just as you would respect the feelings of someone in love. Because the attitude of teh "New Atheists" is the equivalent of telling someone that the person they love is a crack whore and you have no right to love them.

Once again, it is not what they are saying that I have a problem with, it is the way they say it. It is possible to disagree with someone's views or beliefs without being a prick about it.

[edhopper]

136. No

It's telling someone that the person they love does not exist.
Your feelings play no part in challenging the concepts of religion.
They don't get a special previledge from examination.
If the ideas are flawed or can be shown to be illogical or irrational, then so be it.
You can counter their arguments. But how you perceive their tone is immaterial.

And I am talking about the writers, not a one on one personal conversation.

I guess you think believers don't also have a tone towards people who believe differently, or don't believe.

[Prophet 451]

137. I already acknowledged that many believers have shitty attitudes

Telling us that teh person we love doesn't exist is a good comparison. When we have felt their presence, we are not likely to believe you when you say they don't exist. Look, you're not understanding me, whether deliberately or not so I suggest we leave it there.

[edhopper]

157. I guess I am not

if you don't think my answers are in response to what you are saying.

[Lordquinton]

145. Love, unlike gods, can be proven

There is a chemical in the brain that corresponds with what we call love, so yes, you can test love.

"Mainstream" believers fail to realize they they give legitimacy to the fundies. And they also fail to realize that fundies have a lot of power in getting their religious laws passed as real laws. And it's not just fundies that do that, despite what people here claim, the Catholic church is still very conservative and getting their anti-woman agenda codified as law across the country, and where they can't pass it as law, they are taking over hospitals to at least get some of that anti-abortion love in.

I look at this forum and see a bunch of privileged theists post thread after thread about how awful atheists are, and when it's turned back on them they get outraged. You want to talk hero worship, look at how the pope is treated here by believers.

[Prophet 451]

146. OK

You are aware that prayer and meditation can both be mapped neurologically? I'd also like a cite on the claim that love can be detected chemically.

How are mainstream believers legitimizing fundies when they frequently denounce them and their views? I suspect your answer is going to be some variation of simply by belonging to the same religion. That would be a case of artificially limiting the possible answers to produce only the one you want. That's essentially the same as claiming all Democrats are racist bigots because the Dixiecrats were.

Catholic church: I'm neither a Catholic nor even a Christian. I'll happily agree that the anti-abortion, anti-woman, homophobic laws passed and attitudes held are a disgrace. Not sure the RCC does that more than protestant fundies. I suspect that deciding which side is worse would rather miss the point though.

I look at this forum and see a bunch of privileged theists post thread after thread about how awful atheists are, and when it's turned back on them they get outraged.

And that's simply not true. There are a great deal more posts in the Religion group about how awful religion is or how great atheism is than there have ever been about how awful atheists are. While believers are privileged in the US/UK culture, here on DU that is reversed and theists are attacked vastly more often than they do the attacking.

And yes, many believers do hero-worship the Pope. That doesn't cancel out the fact that many atheists hero-worship Hitchens, Dawkins, et al. This isn't a zero-sum game where pointing out one cancels out the other.

[zazen]

154. +1,000, including for your faith that one day one of these posters may open their minds n/t

[cbayer]

152. What would be the name of that chemical, Lord?

I think you may get two nobels.

Before you waste your time, I will tell you that there is no chemical. One can see patterns on certain types of scans, but one can also see patterns in the same scans when people are praying or thinking religious thoughts.

Privileged theists? I think your point of privilege is probably well above most of the people on this earth. Let me guess - white, male, straight, educated, employed and living in a 1st world country? Am I right?

You have been asked before and failed to provide proof of thread after thread about how awful atheists are. I am asking you to provide that evidence once again.

Your tendency to make statements for which there is no evidence is beginning to look like a set of beliefs that you take on faith. If you continue to hold them despite being given clear evidence to the contrary, then someone might even call you deluded. Not me of course, but someone could.

[vi5]

151. How about we call atheists atheists..

...and just call out atheists who are also assholes for being.......assholes?

Problem solved. Just because Sam Harris is a racist dick doesn't mean I have to change what I am or call it something different.

[cbayer]

153. I agree. It's the same problem that, say, christians have

because of the Pat Robertsons of the world.

The solution is in marginalizing the assholes and calling them something else.

[Prophet 451]

156. That's fair enough n/t

[Feral Child]

155. And bible-thumping, self-righteous assholes

who have a desire to interfere with the lives of others that burns brighter than Moses' bush, are "Pro-Life":.


You can't just make words mean what you want.

I'm Atheist. And I'm Anti-Religion. I don't care how people delude themselves, until they band together like hyenas, their jaws braying and dripping carrion, and tell me how I have to live.

[rug]

159. So you're not anti-theist?

As to your anti-religion, you qualified it in you your first sentence. But then you went from religion to people. Is it correct you are not anti-religious believers unless there's meat hanging from their jaws?

[cbayer]

160. Religophobia - the irrational fear of religion and those that are religious

Origin: me

[rug]

161. Maybe s/he's a vegetarian.

[cbayer]

162. I'm guessing that kidnapping by a band of hyenas was involved.

Hence the user name.

[rug]

163. The dingo ate me soul!

[edhopper]

164. do you think someone

can have a rational fear of religion?

[cbayer]

165. Yes.

[MellowDem]

170. Reza Aslan is an apologist for bigotry...

And identifies with a misogynistic belief system. Now he's trying to define who is and isn't an atheist based not on the definition of the word, but his own fucked worldview. What an asshole.

[rug]

176. OTOH, he does not prefer outlawing religion to outlawing rape.

That would be Sam Harris, the one he criticizes.

[MellowDem]

179. OTOH, your post is a non-sequiter...

Reza Aslan is an apologist for powerful, privileged, misogynistic belief systems, one of which he identifies with, disclaiming all the nasty parts while claiming the privileges of being a believer, the ultimate religious privilege and hypocrisy.

In this piece, Reza Aslan is trying to change the definition of atheism to exclude actual atheists just because he disagrees with them or because they're assholes sometimes. This is similar to how all asshole Muslims aren't "true Muslims" to Reza. It's base dishonesty. I suppose he doesn't think Stalin was an atheist either? And what Reza really doesn't get is that atheism has nothing to do with being an asshole or not, while religion definitely can. He wants atheism to be an ideology so bad, just like the religious right, and he wants to define atheism as only that which conforms to his worldview. It's the ultimate exercise of privilege, defining a minority group in a way that conforms to the status quo of serving the majority.

[rug]

191. OTOH, you wouldn't recognoze a non sequitur if you spent half a day following one.

As to the rest of your post, I've read the exact same thing written by others. The only difference is theirs was more well written.

[MellowDem]

193. You provide plenty of examples...

I point out Reza is an asshole in the article for trying to define atheism, you respond with irrelevant bullshit, namely, snark and deflection, and personal attacks for good measure.

You're a bully.

[Dorian Gray]

183. I'm sure this thread went well.

[rug]

192. Aside from the predictable squealng.