Atheism Sucks! - "Here to expose atheists and theophobes alike!"

[DistressedAmerican]

Was looking for some info on the release of the Abu Ghraib photos and vids and I found this little fundie asshat blog.

http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/

It promises to "expose" atheists. Not sure what that means exactly. This Frank Walton guy that runs it must be a real piece of fundie work. Chock full of homophobic and anti-liberal screeds.

Seems to be fighting some great battle (in his head). Here's a small taste:

http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2005/09/alvin-k-hellerstein-orders-release-of.html
He is quite unhappy about the Hellerstein ruling to release the stuff. Not sure what that has to do with atheists...
-----------------
"In conclusion, Cook and Morey won the debate for the simple matter that they gave justifications of morality and logic and offended the atheistic human ethic and reasoning all the while Finley and Price did not give any defense whatsoever."

WTF??? "Morality and logic and offended the atheistic human ethic"? Is this guy kidding?
------------------
"Atheist, Doug Krueger, is quite a contender for atheism. He's among the few atheists who believe that the term "atheism" is a belief that there is no God. However, as smart he is, he's also a complete and utter jerk and fool. You need only read this to know what I mean. At one point Krueger even boasted on his crappy looking website that he has "debated xians numerous times on the existence of god and on secular v. xian ethics. I whipped them all. " Whipped them all? Not quite."

"He's among the few atheists who believe that the term "atheism" is a belief that there is no God. "??? WTF? I don't know any of us that define it differently...

Worth a look on the "know your enemy" front...

[Kipling]

1. That graphic is BRILLIANT!

[DistressedAmerican]

3. Still one of my all time personal favorites...

If you liked that youu may also dig these.





and



They were a sort of series.

[DistressedAmerican]

4. Oops...

[LittleClarkie]

2. Rabid fundamentalists AND rabid atheists both bug the shit out of me

They deserve each other. They like to egg each other on, near as I can tell. alt.atheism on Usenet was always full of that weirdness. The only useful think I ever really learned was the name of many of the fallacies of logic, and that you can't prove a negative. It's on the shoulders of the theist to prove God, not the atheist's to disprove God. Even so, insisting on a pure logical debate seems somehow constricting, though I'm not sure how to explain why. Too much of an intellectual game, I suppose, one I've seen played as almost a "gotcha" game. Not my cuppa really.

But it was interesting being the token theist on alt.atheism for a while. And accepted too. There were only a couple of us who could claim that. I was kinda proud of the distinction.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. I guess I never knew they were out there battling. Funny...

I think you nailed it, "Too much of an intellectual game".

Not an interest of mine at all. You can never debate a "true believer" on a true belief. Pointless round and round.

[LittleClarkie]

6. And despite the inherent error in logic

Militant atheism often strikes me as being as much of a "faith" as the belief in God. They KNOW there's no God.

I prefer agnosticism. The big "I dunno". More honest somehow, though atheists react to agnosticism the way the left side of the Democratic Party reacts to Moderates. "Get off the damn fence!"

[cynatnite]

13. I'm an 'I don't know' kind of gal

'Either prove it or get out of the way' is my way of thinking.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Whoa! That'll get you on the roasting spit every time...

tell a hard atheist he's working on faith, too, and watch the veins pop out of his head. Happens here a lot when the militant atheists go on the rampage, but I stuck my head into alt.atheists a while back and they can really go to war.

I kinda like the Existentialist types who consider the whole religion thing largely irrelevant, but don't call you a jerk for trying to resuscitate God. Some of them kinda wish God hadn't died.

(So, if God is dead, does that mean he was really alive at one time? And why should we care any more anyway if he's dead?)

[Walt Starr]

20. Most atheists I've ever known are not of the "THERE IS NO GOD" variety

In fact, every atheist I've ever met has been of the "there is no compelling evidence to support the existence of any of the over 4000 gods alleged to exist by humans in history, therefore there is no compelling reason to believe in any of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist" variety.

[Skittles]

7. all I know is

athiests do not show up on my doorstep

[DistressedAmerican]

8. Let Me Know When It Would Be Convienient For Me To Send A Rep Over!

I'd be happy to call my people and set up a little "sit down".:evilgrin:

[Skittles]

10. LOL

:D

[LittleClarkie]

12. No, but I thought it was over the line when some of them complained

about those little crosses you see at intersections where somebody died. Even some of their fellow atheists thought that was stupid. The "nay" people tried to defend themselves by saying it was an issue of road safety, as those who put up memorials are endangering themselves and others.

Because, you know, when you think of atheism, you think of road safety.

And do we really mind that much if a government office has a Nativity set on the lawn?

But the protests and hissy fits from both extremes can get quite annoying.

And actually, I have had an atheist or two show up on my doorstep. My cyber doorstep during the prayer threads that used to start up during the Bush/Kerry debates. There we were, Catholics, Lutherans, Jews and Muslims getting along and just sending good vibes to Sen. Kerry, when suddenly somebody just HAD to let us all know how stupid we all were. O-B-K-B. Of course folks are free to express their opinions. Just seemed unnecessary and kinda flamey if you know what I mean. Would be kind of like showing up in one of the Democrat groups just to let them know you think they're stupid for believing in their chosen Dem, ya know?

But anyway...

[NMMNG]

9. Mildly amusing, devoid of facts and full of vitriol

As most of these sites are.

[DistressedAmerican]

11. Atheophobes perhaps?

[NMMNG]

14. Quite possibly

But more likely complete imbeciles.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Actually, it says...

"We are college aged students here to expose atheists and theophobes alike!"

Now, exactly what does that mean? It doesn't sound like they're in college, so could they still be high school students?

More likely they're "students" in some fundie cult-like commune gnawing their guts out at the lack of true faith in the world, but i dind't take the time to explore that place any further.

Personally, I see the only thing about atheism that sucks, aside from a few very annoying atheists, is the holiday thing.

[DistressedAmerican]

17. I Wish I Could Offer the World A Day Off For Atheism. Gladly.

We also lack nice artwork and architecture. Shame really.

[Loonman]

18. Exposed as an atheist?

Horrors!

[von Staufenberg]

19. Hate to split hairs

"He's among the few atheists who believe that the term "atheism" is a belief that there is no God. "??? WTF? I don't know any of us that define it differently...


Actually, he has a point. You do not have to believe there is no god to be an atheist. You simply must have a lack of a god belief. Now, you may ask, what is the difference? Well, in terms of logical argument, there is a very important difference. The first, the belief that there is no god, is a belief. In other words, it is a statement that purports to answer some question (i.e. existential questions). This implies a position to support by argument (not necessarily prove as that crosses into agnosticism/gnosticism). The second, the lack of a god belief, simply leaves the space blank (i.e. a null set). This implies no need to support by argument because there is no position to support.
This distinction often leads to confabulation with agnosticism, as you suggest. However, agnosticism and atheism are two completely different concepts. The first deals with knowledge, the second with belief. In a sense, all individuals have a position relative to both agnosticism and atheism (or gnosticism and theism). To make things even more complicated, these positions vary according to the deity in question. For example, except for pantheists, all people are atheists. I say this because most Christians, for example, have no belief in Thor, correct? This makes them atheists in relation to that deity. Basically, the only difference between most individuals calling themselves atheists and theists is that the latter are simply atheists relative to only one fewer deity.
It is possible to be atheist/agnostic, atheist/gnostic, theist/agnostic or theist/gnostic, all relative to specific deities. Atheist/agnostic=no belief but no knowledge to disprove a deity's existence; atheist/gnostic=no belief and the ability to prove (through syllogism) a deity does not exist (I'll give an example shortly);theist/agnostic=belief but the acknowledgment that there is no knowledge (ability to prove) of a deity's existence; and theist/gnostic=belief and the ability to prove a god's existence (note, this category generally requires a liberal use of the term deity, extending the label 'god' to something we normally don't consider divine but has provable temporal or theoretical existence).
The second category, atheist/gnostic, is the only one that really fits the description "there is no god." Some refer to this as 'strong' atheism. I am a strong atheist in relation to certain particular conceptualizations of a deity, and I can support this through what is called the argument from evil. What is important here are the characteristics ascribed to certain deities. For example, in many Christian traditions, it is sometimes held that this 'god' is 'tri-omni', i.e. omni-prescient (knows all), omnipotent (all powerful), and omni-benevolent (all good). This puts the believer in a pickle because such a being cannot exist because of one thing: suffering. Suffering is undeniably a part of human existence. But, if we were truly operating under the auspices of a tri-omni god, there could be no suffering. This is because there is no way to define suffering as 'good.' By definition, it is a bad thing. An omni-benevolent god would not allow it, under any circumstances (remember, omni has BIG implications in terms of argument, it allows no exceptions). Appeals that suffering now warrants a reward later don't wash because such a system still permits something bad, regardless of payoff later. And since this god is also both all knowing and all powerful, if it were truly all good it would not have created such a system. Now, it may be tempting for Christians or others to simply say, "OK, I guess we don't really mean tri-omni then." But this has big implications as well because then we bump into limits for their deity. Not something some theists like to consider. However, I would argue that many (maybe most)Christians don't really ascribe to the "tri-omni" god anyway because of their ready acceptance of a "vengeful" god, but that's a different topic for discussion.
Anyway, sorry for the long-winded rant, but the definitions of atheism and agnosticism have long been pet topics of mine.