So this little incident is flying around the atheist-o-sphere. What makes the story especially juicy is that atheism actually doesn’t seem to have anything initially to do with the story, which was about misappropriation of funds, albeit in a way that involves a church. I get the impression that secular activists are agitating, because they don’t think the government should be in the business of buying real estate for churches. But to summarize, Rep. Monique Davis (sadly, a Democrat), all but said that atheists have no right to testify in from of state legislatures, and her logic seems to be that speaking about atheism in public is criminally offensive in the way it would be to film a porn in broad daylight at a jungle gym in a public park. You know, because of the children. Davis loses her mind on atheist activist Rob Sherman.
Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy — it’s tragic — when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.
I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?
I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous–
Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?
Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!
Sherman:Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court–
Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon. [Chicago Tribune]
You can hear the audio here. She seems to all but think his atheist self is contaminating the building.
I confess—I’m always shocked at the bone deep hatred—well, let’s be honest, fear—that so many people exhibit towards atheists. The majority of the anger expressed at the so-called New Atheists goes back to this hatred/fear, though there are a few people who don’t hate or fear atheists (and may even be atheists) who scold the New Atheists for being rude and aggressive, though New Atheists have a fraction of the aggression that the religious do as a whole. On the latter point, I often detect a note of condescension, as if to say, “It’s up to atheists to be the bigger people, since we’re the ones who are coming from a place of rationality, and they’re naturally going to be defensive since they are forwarding a baseless argument.” But on the former, what’s with the anger? What makes people so eager to smear atheists so quickly? I guess most believers probably have lots of moments of doubt, and the existence of atheists just makes it seem like it’s so possible to quit struggling to believe in something that’s not true. So we’re a threat, just by existing, but even more so if we start speaking up.
But is that really it? Because Davis, like a lot of people who have some weird ideas about atheists, trots out one of the most common and baffling myths: That we have something against god, or we’re angry with him or something like that. It’s utterly illogical. The only people who have a reason to be mad at god are the people who believe in him, and especially if they believe that he’s loving and giving only to find out that the world he supposedly created is routinely cruel, indifferent, and unjust. Atheists don’t believe in god. I’m no more angry at god than I’m angry at Santa Claus, Zeus, or Charlie Brown. We’re blessedly free of trying to figure out why there’s a god who supposedly loves us and then makes us suffer all the time. That entire quandary, while fun for bringing up to make people’s heads spin, is as emotionally compelling to me as to why the guy on “Everybody Loves Raymond” can’t laid, which is to say not at all, since I don’t watch that show.
No, I’m afraid that if you have a problem with people who are angry at god or have something against him, you’re going to have to mine believers, since they’re the ones that have a reason to curse god when something goes wrong. Atheists are stuck looking at real world causes.
It’s too bad, but somewhat understandable, that so many church-state separation activists are atheists, because the issue affects everyone. Freedom of conscience benefits believers and non-believers alike. The only people that have a real reason to resist it are people who can get some money out of it, or people who consolidate power by having their religion treated as the official religion of the state.
114 Responses to “Atheist cooties”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Personally, I’m waiting for the sure-to-be-revealed-soon information that Davis had a financial stake in these shenanigans, which would be why she would want to discredit the witness.
Xtians couldn’t justify their abusive behavior toward atheists if they weren’t threatened and victimized by the mere existence of other ideas. How are they going to get elected if it isn’t to keep the barbarians from the gate?
The fact that their fear is illogical isn’t much of a stretch for them, is it? I mean, they’re used to believing illogical things–they do it all the time.
I think they fear us in part because they just can’t understand us. Not every religious person is this way, mind you, but the ones who tend to get it are the ones for whom God is a benevolent being who’s there to give us advice as opposed to spank us. But if you believe in the spanking god, and another person mocks that god, well, that would freak you out a bit, especially when god doesn’t come down and kick some immediate ass like you’ve been led to believe he will.
And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!
Damn straight. Especially if they can see how insanely desperate the believers are to squash all arguments better than their own. Religion doesn’t stand a chance.
I guess most believers probably have lots of moments of doubt, and the existence of atheists just makes it seem like it’s so possible to quit struggling to believe in something that’s not true.
The last time I really took religion seriously was during high school and my first couple of years of college, and it was really distressing to me to talk to atheists. I would dwell on my conversations with them for days afterward, because it bothered me so much that I couldn’t come up with a defense of religion that was satisfying to either me or them. It took me a few years to take the hint and drop the belief altogether, though, because I was still convinced that I was in touch with some “higher” or “deeper” truth beyond pathetic logic and reality.
Probably for certain believers it is almost impossible to conceive of someone who 100% doesn’t believe in the existence of god. Therefore, they can only conclude that atheists must believe in him, but hate him.
The more I talk to people, the more I think it’s not just atheists, per se, that the religious are afraid of. I consider myself something of a “benevolent agnostic”, verging on Pagan in many ways, and that seems to piss off and frighten the Christians just as much. I know that most Christians seem to think that theirs is the only “correct” church, and the members of others (say, the Catholics) are all going to hell, but the fear isn’t there in the same way as it is for an atheist, agnostic, or pagan (or heathen, or wiccan, etc). Even the more established Eastern religions like Buddhism or Hinduism don’t seem to incite the ape-shit crazy reaction a Christian will have toward an atheist. (Muslims, of course, are different story these days, but I don’t think it was that way 10 years ago.)
Probably for certain believers it is almost impossible to conceive of someone who 100% doesn’t believe in the existence of god. Therefore, they can only conclude that atheists must believe in him, but hate him.
I once had an hour-long discussion with my roommate’s friend about football with a Kansas City Chiefs fan that comprised in its entirety me saying that I don’t care or know anything about football and was trying to play Zelda followed by him saying that no the Chiefs really were a much better team than I thought and this was really going to be their year and what did I have against them, anyway?
I suspect the same thing was going on here. Just totally incapable of grasping the concept of indifferencee.
I wonder what Rep. Davis would have to say if confronted by a Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/Shinto/Anamist/etc. “activist”? What about Mormons? What about Jehovah’s Witnesses? Scientoligists?
I’m sure she would start down the path of “Belief in god, any god, is better than being an atheist!”
But I’m also sure it wouldn’t be long before other qualifications would sneak in - and before you know it, only Southern Baptist Christians would really be OK (or Catholics, or Lutherans, etc.).
But always remember - America is the Land of Religious Freedom!!!…
I’m always surprised and saddened whenever something like this happens, revealing just how much some people hate atheists. And I guess it probably shouldn’t surprise me, given the number of times people have assumed I’m an atheist because I don’t think they’re evil incarnate.
More information can be found here
NeoTheocratic Bigotry
and here
streetprophets.com
Maybe it is like some kind of mental block even for some one who attends a more liberal kind of church; maybe its like the first time coming across a third-generation american my own age who had never had spaghetti before he knew me…I suddenly had no idea how to respond to him, and I had known him for at least 6 months at that point.
the corrected second link
streetprophets.com
sorry about that.
Is it just me, or does anyone else notice the same panic and defensiveness against socialists and communists by capitalists or other ‘true blue Americans’?
Its interesting to me which may inform the other, especially in these types of defensive screeds.
The bible beaters scare me way more than atheists do and I was an altar boy in one of the churches that I was raised in.
(Also trying out new blog)
People coming from a fundamentally Christian worldview are so steeped in the concept of sin that they can’t see other people’s actions in any other terms. “Sin” is inherently seductive; almost by definition. Turning away from God is, in their worldview, necessarily a sin. Hence, the mere existence of people who promote this “sin” makes it dangerous: children will be seduced by any sin they’re not protected from, hence open atheism is perceived as inherently dangerous.
This is the same thing that’s going on with their belief in a Homosexual Agenda: the mere existence of people who embrace this “sin” must mean that they’re advocates of the sin. Advocating the sin must inherently mean trying to seduce more to commit the sin, especially the innocent (because they’re worth more points on the celestial scoreboard?), so just being gay must inherently mean trying to convert everyone.
The these deeply-held assumptions about human motivations are the bedrock of the fundamental Christian worldview, so it’s no surprise that they see sin and the Devil’s influence everywhere they look.
Ah….okay. I think I know what’s going on here.
Davis is black. I don’t have a picture, but I suspect Sherman is white. Especially with the comment about how he won’t fight to keep guns out of school, I’m guessing that this is at least in part about race and the Chicago/Rest of the State divide.
Please note: I am not saying that Davis is right, or justified, or anything other than a whackjob. Her rant deserves condemnation. But I don’t think it came entirely out of the blue, like the article makes it sound.
Some atheists, especially former serious believers, may have strong antipathies toward particular churches or creeds, but I think a lot more have a sort of wry affection for their former beliefs, the same way that many adults like playing with the idea of Santa Claus. But all of that is about the human institutions, not the supposed higher power.
And that line about “it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists” is, of course, antithetical to pretty much every principle this country was supposedly founded on. Heck, even the author of Paradise Lost would have called Davis out as a dangerous fool.
Keith just named her today’s “Worst Person in the World”
Amen, my atheist brother, testify!
She’s a member of Trinity UCC. I wonder how this is going to get woven into the “Obama is an Islamofascist who goes to a racist Christian church!” meme.
I wonder what Rep. Davis would have to say if confronted by a Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/Shinto/Anamist/etc. “activist”? What about Mormons? What about Jehovah’s Witnesses? Scientoligists?
I’m sure she would start down the path of “Belief in god, any god, is better than being an atheist!”
But I’m also sure it wouldn’t be long before other qualifications would sneak in - and before you know it, only Southern Baptist Christians would really be OK (or Catholics, or Lutherans, etc.).
But always remember - America is the Land of Religious Freedom!!!…
I have a feeling that its actually going the other direction; there is a stigma in America against railing against other mainstream religions, and I don’t see that going away anytime soon.
Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy — it’s tragic — when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.
Not wanting prayer in school, along with selling ova and producing genetically modified foods are one of those issues in which I was completely surprised to learn that there where people who actually opposed it.
Yeah, well, we got some wacko politicians here in Illinois…..ol’ Monique is just nuttier along the religio-political axis than the sleezy-political axis (of which we have far too many as well).
Illinois politicians are God’s plan for religious nuttiness. Any other country, she’d be hanging on a street corner and braying out “Jeezus LUVES you!” while accompanying herself on a tambourine.
oh my ceiling cat.
again, and again, and AGAIN i weep for my home state.
[tiny voice] except for Obama….it’s not all bad…
Praise Jesus for this…. Those atheists are truly dangerous
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080409/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat_91
“Investigators determined that there is a widespread pattern and practice of the (Yearn for Zion) Ranch in which young, minor female residents are conditioned to expect and accept sexual activity with adult men at the ranch upon being spiritually married to them,” read the affidavit signed by Lynn McFadden, a Department of Family and Protective Services investigative supervisor.
McFadden said the girls were spiritually married to the men as soon as they reached puberty and were required to produce children.
Patrick Peranteau, lawyer for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment Tuesday.
An unknown number of men and women church members were at the ranch while authorities completed the search of the gleaming 80-foot-high temple, a cheese-making plant, a cement plant, a school, a doctor’s office and housing units. Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Department of Public Safety, said Tuesday the adults were not being held, but if they left the compound, they could not return while the search continued.
At least two FBI agents were seen entering the back entrance of the temple on Tuesday.
Spokesmen for the FBI and DPS declined to comment.
Exchange between Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, and then Vice-President George H. W. Bush, campaigning for president in 1987:
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
So now I’m trying to decide if we’ve come a long way, cause people actually do appear to care more now that they did 20 years ago…or not, because elected officials still want to disenfranchise us and people still don’t care like they would if our “dangerous philosophy” was a religion.
Also recalling M. Romney’s speech back when he was still a candidate, about making a clear distinction between Mormon and secular authority:
…”There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders…Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone…It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. …But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life…The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust…We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty. Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty? They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united. We believe that every single human being is a child of God …The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God…Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government…And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me…In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine ‘author of liberty.’ And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, ‘with freedom’s holy light.’God bless the United States of America.”
Okay, I’ve decided. We haven’t come all that far.
What freaks me out is that people have accepted this God stuff at face value and never thought about it. Then, when it is challenged, suddenly the challenger is dangerous, mocking, etc. Why? Because this shit cannot be challenged because it falls to dust in the modern world.
My sons decided early in their lives that God didn’t exist, and have dealt with a lot of casual weirdness in school since they challenge all the Sunday school hoo ha. Some of it is very amusing - like when they run rings around faith and demands that they believe with logic and sense. Some of it is really over the top. Both kids have reported incidents where they have been “told” on to teachers by kids who just don’t get that it is okay to not believe in God!!! WTF?
Religion taps in to something basically human, but the problem with superstition is that it is not defensible in a rational world. Perhaps the only defense, born of fear of losing your world frame, is to prevent that reason and logic from ever touching your pure superstition.
“…though New Atheists have a fraction of the aggression that the religious do as a whole…”
I don’t buy this at all. My understanding of New Atheists is that they are definitionally evangelical, unlike the average believer (or nonbeliever) who is a relatively casual one. Those religious people who spend their time on message boards crowing about their superiority based on their beliefs are called fundamentalists. The atheist version of that is a New Atheist.
Well, Harq, you’re wrong. New Atheists aren’t evangelizers so much as they’re atheists who refuse to take shit from believers. We don’t go looking for trouble, in short, but we don’t back away from it either.
It is a matter of numbers, Harq al-Ada - a few evangelical atheists versus giant teeming megachurches full of hellfire and damnifying folk.
I can’t think of many atrocities committed by countries in the name of a non-God, either. I guess forced abortion in China may count, but it wasn’t to glorify non-God.
It’s easier, I think, to be an atheist in Australia, where the very religious are a smaller group with much less power. I know I felt a huge weight off my shoulders when I realised that I didn’t, and never really had, believed in god. My whole conception of the world changed, my entire philosophy of life became clearer to me and more authentic. Allowing children and young people to know about that sort of thing IS dangerous if you are a fundie because it will mean that some (many?) of those children will come to believe differently than their tradition and fundamentalists just cant handle that. Religious people for whom spirituality is a very deep, private philosophy don’t have the same fear of atheists.
Harq al-Ada, “New Atheists”, as I understand it are atheists who have decided to speak openly about their beliefs, not “crow” about it on message boards. The majority of “crowing” is done by the loudly religious. As I said, I live in Australia, and from here, atheists in the US seem to be quite persecuted in a way - considered almost “beyond the pale” of respectable people. If more of them want to talk about it, and debate with religious people about why their tradition deserves so much deference, more power to them I say.
Darkrose, that’s the sort of thing that frustrates me. If belief is in fact enshrined by the government, guess what churches will be left out? Black churches. Once you start making religion official, then a non-white church is going to be cruising for the label “blasphemous”, even if they are Christian.
WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
WE HAVE A RULE HERE AT PANDAGON.
Every time there is a religion/atheism thread, some indignant theist is supposed to make a so-erudite complaint about proving a negative, then imply that we’d all be happier if atheists would just shut up already, and then ask incredulously, “just what are you atheists so afraid of, anyway?”
He or she has missed the curtain call. What’s the holdup?
Supposing that we take Harq’s definition of New Atheists as atheists interested in converting others to atheism. What is wrong with that? If a person is convinced that theism is not just false but pernicious–and, even if not everyone is convinced this is true, it is a reasonable position to take–it seems perfectly sensible and even generous for someone to try to convince others to give it up, provided one isn’t an asshole about it. I can’t force anyone, but what’s wrong with convincing them? We don’t complain about Democrats or feminists, or prison-abolitionists trying to convince others to adopt their views; we should not then complain about atheists doing the same.
The comparison to fundamentalist evangelical Christians is inapposite. We might grant that New Atheists, like fundamentalist Christians, want to convert others–but the same is true of Republicans, Democrats, feminists, flat taxers, etc. To the extent we criticize these groups, it’s for the content of their views, not their desire to convince others–though admittedly, an asshole is an asshole whether zie is right or wrong.
Rob Sherman is a silly man, though.
Oh, Sherman, no you didn’t.
I also want to point out that Trinity UCC is one of those progressive churches that criticisms of the New Atheists hold should be exempted or carefully distinguished from conservative, gay-bashing fundamentalists in arguments against the existence of god.
It’s great that they’re progressive, but it’s still nonsense.
http://news.google.com/news?q=monique+davis+apology+OR+apologized
Your search - monique davis apology OR apologized - did not match any documents.
“It is a matter of numbers, Harq al-Ada - a few evangelical atheists versus giant teeming megachurches full of hellfire and damnifying folk.”
“Harq al-Ada, “New Atheists”, as I understand it are atheists who have decided to speak openly about their beliefs, not “crow” about it on message boards. The majority of “crowing” is done by the loudly religious.”
It is a numbers issue, but you must compare the megachurchgoing population with the much larger population of religious people who are more moderate, just as you compare the New Atheists with the comparably more numerous atheists. Perhaps it is not a fair comparison, on reflection, as many New Atheists’ shows of general contempt for theists might just be venting among themselves. Human behavior is directed in large part by the group we’re in, whether we suppress our true feelings around those who agree with us or exaggerate our beliefs around those who generally agree. Most of the comments I have heard from atheists were on atheist boards and probably just venting, whereas fundies are more likely to stray into boards unrelated to the topic and preach.
“it is a reasonable position to take–it seems perfectly sensible and even generous for someone to try to convince others to give it up, provided one isn’t an asshole about it.”
I agree with you somewhat. I suppose those who consistently believe theists are personally stupid by virtue of their beliefs (rather than merely that the beliefs are stupid) do not necessarily comprise all of the New Atheists. It is probably the availability heuristic playing out on my part–the most memorable of a group tends to be the most virulent.
As for whether religion is harmful as a whole, there is nearly enough evidence for that to justify an evangelical confidence in the idea whether one can make a reasonable argument against aspects of some religion or not. Evidence for specific beliefs being harmful, sure. But the subject of religion’s value or harm overall is a sprawling, multivariate one that scholars have barely begun to scratch the surface of.
“whether we suppress our true feelings around those who agree with us”
That should be “disagree.”
Tell me one good thing that a theist has done that an atheist could not have done.
My family and I were active members of the UCC back when I was in middle school and contribute the church greatly to the distaste I have for both God and cultural liberalism. There really was not any major things about the church that made me feel that way, besides the pastor being ridiculously anti-Catholic and the fact that they showed AdBuster-sponsored videos in conformation class, but whenever I look back at the whole experience I realize that liberalism, at times, can be just as insulting, condescending, and hateful as conservatism is. All while they put on a face of acceptance and tolerance.
My sons decided early in their lives that God didn’t exist, and have dealt with a lot of casual weirdness in school since they challenge all the Sunday school hoo ha. Some of it is very amusing - like when they run rings around faith and demands that they believe with logic and sense. Some of it is really over the top. Both kids have reported incidents where they have been “told” on to teachers by kids who just don’t get that it is okay to not believe in God!!! WTF?
To be fair, I remember back in middle school a girl told on me because she thought that the picture I drew of her made her look ugly. Kids are idiots. Most of them, at least.
Although I have to say, I’m kind of annoyed when my fellow atheist friends drive down the fact that they have “logic and sense” on their side. Even if it’s true, by talking that way they are setting themselves up for a knock down the next time some creationist throws a sophism-filled argument into their face and they begin to stammer a failed attempt to wrap their mind around comprehensible goofball logic.
“Dinosaurs existed in the Garden of Eden. And bananas are proof that evolution is a lie”
“No-you see-I-uh…wait WHAT!?”
“Where is your logic now, Mr. Reason?”
*punches creationist*
I remember a while ago me and one of my atheist friends where talking to a person trying to convert us, and at some point in the conversation she mentioned that she was a born again Christian. His response was;
“Well that’s funny, because I was born right the first time.”
The comments on this page are frightening. “God stuff”? People who accept this “God stuff” have never thought about it? Whaaaa? Belief in some form of deity, a creation myth, an explanation of the universe which gives it more meaning than materialism… I mean, it’s happened in every tribe, every community, everywhere all over the world. People have thought about it! For thousands of years!
I understand this woman behaved atrociously. What makes it so abhorrent is that this took place in our government, and was not a discussion in one’s home, or church, etc etc. It must not be allowed in our government. I believe, just the way people do in God or whatever, in the separation of church and state. But the mindless attacks on people of faith! All Christians are not the same, nor are all people of any group, and to say that is just not true. I mean, wow. I could go on and on, but this is just too depressing. It’s so rigid. Religion will be defeated? As long as there is children may be born who can be exposed to ideas of all sorts, then religion and atheism will carry on. Seek not to destroy one another, the pursuit of truth takes many forms.
The comments on this page are frightening. “God stuff”? People who accept this “God stuff” have never thought about it? Whaaaa? Belief in some form of deity, a creation myth, an explanation of the universe which gives it more meaning than materialism… I mean, it’s happened in every tribe, every community, everywhere all over the world. People have thought about it! For thousands of years!
I understand this woman behaved atrociously. What makes it so abhorrent is that this took place in our government, and was not a discussion in one’s home, or church, etc etc. It must not be allowed in our government. I believe, just the way people do in God or whatever, in the separation of church and state. But the mindless attacks on people of faith! All Christians are not the same, nor are all people of any group, and to say that is just not true. I mean, wow. I could go on and on, but this is just too depressing. It’s so rigid. Religion will be defeated? As long as there is children may be born who can be exposed to ideas of all sorts, then religion and atheism will carry on. Seek not to destroy one another, the pursuit of truth takes many forms.
I wholly endorse the emphasis on having a stupid belief or stupid reasoning an the notion that this does not entail a totalizing claim like “this person is stupid.” But if we agree there, you don’t seem to have a problem with New Atheists at all–New Atheists, as we both agree, may or may not make the stupid belief/person distinction.
But if that distinction is the whole of the complaint, the objection becomes vanishingly small. I may say your belief in a deity is stupid, that the arguments in support of it do not withstand even the most elementary application of reasoned analysis, that the grand scale of the empirical claims that are coupled to such weak arguments is comedic, and so on, but so long as I do not say, “and so, you must be stupid” I raise no complaint from the theist.
There are very good reasons for maintaining the belief/person distinction, and it is one I maintain, but I am skeptical (surprise) that this is the crux of the complaint. It is far more likely that withering attacks on the belief itself are similarly objectionable–it is the lack of respect for those beliefs that is the problem, I think.
But even if not, it’s *still* not a good complaint against the New Atheists since it’s not a characteristic unique to universal among them.
No, I think the problem is that the New Atheists don’t meet the social demands of being properly reverent of faith claims. But hey, they’re atheists. There’s no reason for them to be.
Weeeell, not really. I mean, they open themselves up to having to respond to reasoned arguments, but that’s the goal, not a bug. The solipsism-filled arguments ape the form of well-reasoned arguments, but fall well short of the mark. It is a problem, I’ll grant, if your friends are using “logic and sense” as cudgels rather than understanding how arguments are put together, but crowing that your position is well-reasoned (which is what I assume they mean by logic and sense) is unusual only because we should expect such reasoning to begin with.
“But even if not, it’s *still* not a good complaint against the New Atheists since it’s not a characteristic unique to universal among them.”
I was already pretty much conceding that.
“Tell me one good thing that a theist has done that an atheist could not have done.”
Leaving aside the fact that that goes both ways, it is a non-sequitur. The question is about net effect on actual behavior, not theoretical constraints on behavior. I agree with Daniel Dennett that it is a question worth asking but which researchers haven’t taken a comprehensive and rigorous look at yet.
Rob Sherman makes it his job to fight for atheist rights here in Illinois. I think it started back when he didn’t want his daughter to say “underr God” in the pledge, but he goes to all the communities in Illinois to see if they put up creches or have crosses in their village/county/city flag.
He pisses a lot of people off. And he is a suburbanite, but a chicagoland suburbanite.
We’ve had a rash of well publicized school shootings lately, but that still doesn’t excuse Davis’ nuttery.
My little guy doesn’t believe in god. His 2nd grade classmates tell him he’s evil and going to hell. It’s a public school. he doesn’t care–he doesn’t believe in Santa either.
I’m caught between sort of wanting to train him in some of my ethnically Catholic traditions and being utterly repulsed by every current Catholic representative in the Chicago area. I think it’s much better if he’s not damaged in the first place, but I hope he figures out a way to deal with the “You’re evil” children.
The comments on this page are frightening. “God stuff”? People who accept this “God stuff” have never thought about it? Whaaaa? Belief in some form of deity, a creation myth, an explanation of the universe which gives it more meaning than materialism… I mean, it’s happened in every tribe, every community, everywhere all over the world. People have thought about it! For thousands of years!
I understand this woman behaved atrociously. What makes it so abhorrent is that this took place in our government, and was not a discussion in one’s home, or church, etc etc. It must not be allowed in our government. I believe, just the way people do in God or whatever, in the separation of church and state. The phrase ‘under God’ shouldn’t be in the pledge of allegiance. But the mindless attacks on people of faith! All Christians are not the same, nor are all people of any group, and to say that is just not true. I mean, wow. I could go on and on, but this is just too depressing. It’s so rigid. Religion will be defeated? As long as there is children may be born who can be exposed to ideas of all sorts, then religion and atheism will carry on. Seek not to destroy one another, the pursuit of truth takes many forms.
That’s the point I was about to make.
Bear with me. Even if religion has been a net good, it doesn’t bring anything new to the table. Anything good it does, in societies or in individuals, can be salvaged from a secular perspective by those same societies or individuals.
So even if religion was a net good up until now, that isn’t an argument for keeping it around in the future. (And you didn’t say otherwise, but I needed a sounding board.)
… sadly he might get the same result if he told those kids he was Catholic.
“So even if religion was a net good up until now, that isn’t an argument for keeping it around in the future. (And you didn’t say otherwise, but I needed a sounding board.)”
I agree. I just think they are different questions.
Personally, I think that if religion caused societal good promoting blind faith for social engineering purposes would still be a cynical maneuver that would people’s intellectual growth. It is better to derive morality from reason and intuition than from some authority. However promoting atheism or agnosticism because religion is harmful seems insufficiently empirically-based to me at this point.
I want to promote some atheism anyway because I feel believers outnumber us too many times over. My instincts tell me it’s a dangerous circumstance.
I’ve always enjoyed the elegance of “Everyone is atheist, I’m just slightly more atheist than you.”
Davis, one can assume, does not believe in the Indian Pantheon. or Allah. Or Ahura Mazda. or the Eight Immortals. the list goes on. because only a tiny minority will ever claim “yes, all gods worshiped by anyone exist, but only my god is real and the rest are trickster demons.”
So I, as an atheist, believe in exactly one god fewer than Davis, out of the countless hundreds of thousands of gods from all pantheons.
When she has an understanding of why she does not believe in Amaterasu, she will understand why we do not believe in Jesus.
Wow. Just…wow. Here I was thinking that people actually cared about the Constitution before 9/11.“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”
Atheists are more or less by definition prevented from using this argument, but with a theistic worldview, the answer is, “Yes, it is, and God loves atheists too, so shut up, fool.”
I’m not sure how theist I am at this point (I firmly believe in God, absolutely disbelieve in Sky Grandpa, and am not all that worked up as to whether there’s a Person there at all in any form.)
But one of the really sad things is that the center of Christianity, properly understood, absolutely prevents its followers from doing the sort of condemning, public praying, or taking over the government that have been hallmarks of it, since, oh, about 3:15 on the day of the Crucifixion.
The strongest condemnation of these wingnuts should be coming from other Christians. I am not holding my breath.
I always enjoy the open mouthed fish impressions (”That’s different!”) I get when I ask if their support for prayer in school includes public prayers to Allah, Cybele, or Vishnu. Because it forces them to deal with the fact that they aren’t looking for “prayer in schools” - they are looking for the RIGHT prayer. BAH.
My favorite experience with a religious person came shortly after one of my newspaper columns mentioned my atheism. This older lady called the office and started yelling at me “and my kind” for ruining the country. The kicker was that she told me to “go back to where I came from.”
I started laughing at her. “Ma’am,” I told her, “I grew up here in West Virginia and have no plans to leave.”
She hung up on me. Classy.
Anna, the idea that because people have believed it for a long time gives it more, not less meaning, is to believe that all these other things must be true because people have been committed to them for a long time:
The belief that men are better than women.
The belief that homosexuals deserve to die.
The belief that slavery is right.
The belief that illness is caused by demons or humors, instead of germs or biological malfunction.
The belief that the world was created a couple thousand years ago.
The belief in the divine right of kings, instead of democracy or freedom.
The belief in curses, witches, and that menstrual blood is contaminating.
I could go on, but you get the idea. That people used to believe something is a reason to be skeptical, not to swallow it whole.
Tell me one good thing that a theist has done that an atheist could not have done.
Or doesn’t already do. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told that, because atheists are “amoral”, they have no conception of charity.
I don’t need a god to compel me to donate money to good causes. In fact, if you do need a reward/punishment matrix before you reach for you wallet, who exactly between us is amoral, here?
Harq, evangelizers stand on street corners, aggressively attack friends, knock on doors, and pass out literature.
New Atheists write books and blogs.
What makes New Atheists seem “evangelical” is that to merely hear their arguments is persuasive, whereas believers have to strip you of your logic by emotional aggression. But to say, “Well, you need to take a big handicap, because it’s unfair that your arguments make more sense,” is baffling. Why is religion so special that it needs to be put in a bubble and protected from reality?
“But one of the really sad things is that the center of Christianity, properly understood, absolutely prevents its followers from doing the sort of condemning, public praying, or taking over the government that have been hallmarks of it, since, oh, about 3:15 on the day of the Crucifixion.”
…and that’s the rub, isn’t it. One person’s “properly understood” is another persons heresy.
They start by looking at other distinct religions and calling them “superstitious beliefs” and their followers “ignorant” or “misguided”. But it doesn’t stop there.
The differences between people’s beliefs get so magnified that by the end if one person believes the wafer is symbolic of Christ’s body and the wine is symbolic of his blood, another will come along who believes the wafer and wine become Christ’s actual flesh and blood, and a fight ensues. Or a fight over some other insignificant-to-an-outsider detail.
People in Ireland literally killed each other until recently because the Protestants feared the Catholics and vis versa.
Shiite Muslims hate Sunni Muslims. Christians and Muslims have fought each other over “The Holy Land” for centuries. And they all hate the Jews.
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were all part of “India” under British rule, and when the British left the religiously-based fighting was so bad the country was split up to stop it. And, of course, the British were there to begin with, at least in part, to bring Jesus to the unenlightened, superstitious, misguided Indians.
Differences over “Proper Understanding” have lead to more death and destruction during the history of humans on Earth than just about anything else…
Anna Bobanna April 9, 2008 at 12:40 am
The comments on this page are frightening. “God stuff”? People who accept this “God stuff” have never thought about it? Whaaaa? Belief in some form of deity, a creation myth, an explanation of the universe which gives it more meaning than materialism… I mean, it’s happened in every tribe, every community, everywhere all over the world. People have thought about it! For thousands of years!”
yeah, but for thousands of years we didn’t know there is this thing call “gravity”, entropy or microorganism either. (Did Moses save a pair of bacteria and algea too?)
what’s your point?
just because everybody is an idiot doesn’t mean you have to be one too right?
Well bear in mind that most people here are atheists. Many of us have studied theological arguments in our lives, but once you reject the underlying premise of God and the Supernatural, then theology becomes… well… fan-fiction. “How many angels could dance on the head of a pin” carries roughly the same meaning to our lives as “Who would win in a fight, Luke Skywalker or Spiderman?”
I also disagree with your view of seeking more than materialism. I think human beings are by nature curious about the world around us, and seek explanations for our actions and the role of the world around us. Before we had the scientific method, we lacked the tools to understand the world, so myths and religion formed a basis for those explanations.
Now that we can recognize the phenomena of a materialist universe in materialist terms, we can better understand ourselves and our world without invoking the supernatural. Understanding the biological process of love doesn’t make it less meaningful. Understanding the semi-directed randomness in a flower’s evolution doesn’t diminish it’s beauty, it enhances our appreciation of it.
Welcome to the challenge of secular society. People with very real differences are going to have to live together and co-operate despite those incompatable views of reality. Very few, if any of us argue for State Enforced Atheism. In fact, i strongly oppose state-sponsored atheism as much as I would oppose state sponsored Buddhism or Christianity.
What almost all the New Atheists are calling for is to maintain the strict separation of church and state that protects both from each other, and encouraging individual people that Atheism is a virtue to be embraced.
I mean, it’s happened in every tribe, every community, everywhere all over the world. People have thought about it! For thousands of years!”
No, people have tried to make sense of their world and lives, and used religious structures to imbue it all with meaning absent factual evidence.
The fact that almost everybody who could cultivate plants in their habitat figured out how to do so is consistent with a universal reality that it is advantageous and possible to do so. The fact that people all over have thought about spiritual things for millenia and never reached any sort of consensus on any aspect of their deities, the number of their deities, the teachings of said dieties, etc. speaks to the mythologic nature of God Stuff (and against the validity and reality of any one group’s god stuff and, therefore, godstuff overall).
“Frightening?” *Snerk* Honestly, you sound just like ole Monique Davis. “Yipes. Keep your scary, atheist views away from me and my chiiildren!”
Funny how easily frightened Christians are. If you’d read your Bible, you might notice that it is filled with admonitions against fear. (E.g. “Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the LORD your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.”)
Nowhere in the comments do I see anyone fomenting violence or any kind of harm against Christians and other people of faith.
As for the notion that God is validated by a persistent “belief” through time. Meh. Just because humans have used the belief in the supernatural, throughout time, to explain that which scientific knowledge cannot explain, doesn’t proof the supernatural exists. Nor does it validate any of those beliefs.
Wow. Just…wow. Here I was thinking that people actually cared about the Constitution before 9/11.
—– —–
Many people cared about the Constitution. There is little evidence that the Bush family did, though, and there is that little snippet of affirmative evidence that they didn’t.
Kind of under-reported, wouldn’t you say? Put it to the Clinton Test — what if Bill Clinton had said that, or anything close to that? Forget the reaction, just try to imagine that years later it wouldn’t still be bandied about by Chris Matthews and his ilk, and defended as relevant because it “shows where HRC (or any other Democratic candidate, or any other Democrat, period) is coming from.” (Gasp, faint, pearls… where are my pearls?)
But our only Professional Journalists™ somehow missed it.
Like the New York Times somehow forgot, in their recent retrospective story, that a third of Manhattan took to the streets as part of a world-wide protest against the coming invasion of Iraq.
These things somehow are too slight to be noticed by our Professional Media™. It’s only DFH’s who see them … being so concerned with trivial crap.
doesn’t
proofprove the supernatural exists. Nor does it validate any of those beliefs.Ugh. Butter fingers.
Okay … nested blockquotes don’t work. I’d have sworn the preview looked OK.
Sorry Titania, for what unintentionally looks like my putting words in your mouth.
:/
My bullshit detector gives me the same hives whenever I see “New Atheism” in print that I do when I see “Web 2.0,” “value added” and “generation X.” It’s not that I don’t think its users are earnest about their atheism, but I don’t see any meat on those bones that separates the “New Atheists” from the “Old Atheists” like Russell, O’Hair, Darrow, and Goldman.
Monique Davis was a co-sponsor of the amendment to the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act in Illinois, which made the “moment of silence” MANDATORY–not allowed but required. It passed over the governor’s veto. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1463&GAID=9&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=&SessionID=51&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=95
And Mr. Sherman was there to challenge it. He has a 14-year-old daughter and he filed federal suit against this law on her behalf. USA Today story from October: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-10-26-moment-of-silence_N.htm At least according to this story, Sherman is possibly going after the wrong people with this lawsuit…I hope it doesn’t get dismissed on a technicality. Anyone have updates on it?
Anyway, it shows how utterly personal these attacks are on Sherman, as well as how irrational Davis is being.
Mmmm, apologies if this posts twice - I can’t tell if it worked…
Monique Davis was a co-sponsor of the amendment to the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act in Illinois, which made the “moment of silence” in public schoolsl MANDATORY–not allowed, but required. It passed over the governor’s veto. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1463&GAID=9&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=&SessionID=51&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=95
And Mr. Sherman was there to challenge it. He has a 14-year-old daughter and he filed federal suit against this law on her behalf. USA Today story from October: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-10-26-moment-of-silence_N.htm At least according to this story, Sherman is possibly going after the wrong people with this lawsuit…I hope it doesn’t get dismissed on a technicality. Anyone have updates on it?
Anyway, it shows how utterly personal these attacks are on Sherman, as well as how irrational Davis is being.
Well, for one thing, “New Atheists” aren’t dead.
But, yeah, there certainly was no lack for vehemence or vocal and explicit dismissal of Christianity among “Old Atheists,” so it’s hard to see what people are complaining about.
Mostly outside of this story (I live in Chicago, and I’m a big fan of Sherman, he did a lot to help bring down the stupid moment of silence law), the money that was promised to the Church at hand is important.
The Church was an historic landmark (Pilgrim Baptist) and was one of the last remaining structures designed by one of Chicago’s greatest architects, Louis Sullivan.
The funds were, I believe, to be used to restore the church (which burned down) to its former glory.
Louis Sullivan is one of the greatest architects in the history of this country, and preserving his works, even if it means spending some public money on restoring a church, is a valuable enterprise.
The underlying issue is that after the Louis Sullivan designed Pilgrim Baptist burned down, the Governor promised $1 million for the restoration. That money was misappropriated and ended up at a charter school (said school also apparently does not exist, but was only in planning, and is headed up by a convicted felon).
So, there are inquiries to find out what happened, and to get the money to the Church so that the architecture can be restored.
Oh, such a lovely banquet and I come in late for the leftovers…
Well, DUH, MikeEss- you see, if you’ve already been formatted to believe in SOME GOD, then there is hope you can be converted. Like switching from tuity-fruity ice cream to strawberry.
Anna Bobanna, I think you were up past your bedtime and just a WEE bit tired at 12:40. Otherwise, you could have researched a bit and seen what people were speaking out against… believe me, this is not mindless attacks about (as you charmingly put it) “God stuff”.
I agree with your points; I also feel there should be a separation of religious overtones within our government, its agencies, and its representations of our country as a whole including our money. But the reality of that is that we have folks in government who feel it’s not just okay but their RIGHT to commission large statues of a religious nature or “Tablets of the Ten Commandments” and place them either on governmental property or within governmental buildings. And when people complain, the lawsuits to remove such offensive materials become a flame war between those of faith (ie, Christian) and those of either other faiths or not of any faith.
so it’s hard to see what people are complaining about.
duh, because the idea didn’t die out with Russell, Darrow, et al. OMGZ! It’s still there! And science! It hasn’t gone away! And teh wimmens! They’re uppity! And Teh Atheists…they still tell me I’m wrong!
Aaaaaaaaaaah!
Ms. Kate, I don’t particularly like that argument. If for the sake of argument we grant the existence of the supernatural, the world’s religions may not have converged for any number of reasons (those other religions are lies spread by the Devil, the human mind can only comprehend a tiny fraction of the supernatural world, all the different religions/gods/what have you are simply facets of the One True Religion, or even that there really are a LOT of gods, blah blah blah).
You could also argue that the world’s religions are in fact slowly converging on monotheism (since according to Wikipedia a slight majority of the world’s population is either Christian or Muslim [and Wikipedia is never wrong!]). I didn’t say it was a good argument.
I think a better argument is simply to point out that people seem to be wired to need to explain things. It doesn’t seem to matter whether or not the explanations are good, either. I’ve begun to think there’s a link to the way people like to cling to conspiracy theories, but that’s another topic and, uh, I’m off topic anyway…
This thread brought back fond memories of this song by Tom Lehrer. Ahh, the more things change, the more they stay the same ….
National Brotherhood Week
Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks;
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.
But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
Lena Horne** and Sheriff Clark*** are dancing cheek to cheek.
It’s fun to eulogize
The people you despise
As long as you don’t let ‘em in your school.
Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It’s American as apple pie.
But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans ‘cause it’s very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can’t stand,
You can tolerate him if you try!
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.
But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
It’s National Everyone-Smile-At-One-Another-Hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It’s only for a week, so have no fear;
Be grateful that it doesn’t last all year!
So true …
“Atheism is a virtue to be embraced”. That’s quite fine for you, I’m merely trying to encourage that one virtue does not always intrinsically negate what others may see as a different virtue. What works for you may not work for others (I’m not saying you disagree with that, but since my first post was attacked, I felt a need to clarify). I simply don’t think that one should spend so much time labeling all theists or atheists as one thing or another, and to attack and belittle one or the other for one’s personal enjoyment shows a lack of tolerance, and an incapacity for positive debate.
In reply to another post above, a belief in something merely because it’s old would indeed be silly, but that is not what I meant. It’s obviously not the place to discuss all of human philosophy and history, but I was briefly trying to speak as to how creation/symbolic/theistic stories have appeared nearly universally throughout time and the world. An explanation, an idea (and so often these things serve as symbols, so take them at face-value is to mangle and destroy the meaning, so if you’re not willing to take the time to study them, please don’t assume an only-passing familiarity with the ideas can have the last word on the topic) as to the meaning of human life is not the same thing as persecuting women or homosexuals. Like anything, anything at all though, it can be used as a weapon of oppression in the hands of the intolerant.
I didn’t use the phrase “God stuff” originally, it was in one of the earlier posts. That was why I put it in quotes, I was not attempting to be “charming”, so that compliment would go to someone above.
And what I meant by frightening, abodedragon, is that it is troubling for anyone to think they have a monopoly on truth. Atheism could be right, I don’t know, if it is it doesn’t make life any less meaningful to me, though it’s been implied that apparently I’m afraid of that (really, how my words have had all sorts of new meanings read into them!) Intolerance for atheists is as bad as intolerance for anything else, but people of any kind who mock other’s beliefs (and there was a lot of mockery in some of the earlier posts, which is what I just wanted to point out; as if people who do believe something different are intrinsically stupid and uninformed. Some may certainly be, but it’s wrong to generalize about any group. And imagine generalize in sweeping italic letters). It’s okay, it’s good to have a position, but it’s dangerous to say it’s the only one possible. For the record as well, I’m not a Christian at all. It’s foolish to attribute characteristics/beliefs to a person on the basis of a comment or two, and generalizing and willful stereotyping is ridiculous at best. I was simply trying to state that while, yes, this entry is a forum for atheists at the moment, it’s good to try to keep a little perspective and not lump people together. If that was unwelcome, my apologies.
Monique Davis was a co-sponsor of the amendment to the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act in Illinois, which made the “moment of silence” MANDATORY–not allowed but required. It passed over the governor’s veto. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1463&GAID=9&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=&SessionID=51&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=95
And Mr. Sherman was there to challenge it. He has a 14-year-old daughter and he filed federal suit against this law on her behalf. USA Today story from October: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-10-26-moment-of-silence_N.htm At least according to this story, Sherman is possibly going after the wrong people with this lawsuit…I hope it doesn’t get dismissed on a technicality. Anyone have updates on it?
Anyway, it shows how utterly personal these attacks are on Sherman, as well as how irrational Davis is being.
(I’ve tried posting this before and it hasn’t worked. Apologies if it’s up here more than once.)
Tell me one good thing that a theist has done that an atheist could not have done.”
It’s so far not a question of “could not have done” as “has not done.” Atheists (and agnostics, and secularists in general) have not organized for non-profit charitable giving in the kind of proportions or numbers that religions have.
There was a study recently that seemed to indicate that conservatives are more charitable than liberals (in terms of proportion of charitable giving), until you actually added the religious dimension. Then it was obviously “religious people give more to charity than non-religious people.” And I don’t think this is because the non-religious are less open to giving charity, personally; in fact the belief that this life is the only one you get and there is no heavenly reward for suffering in this life tends to make people think we need to treat each other better here. I believe this is because religions have a social group that people physically attend and interact with on a regular basis that is constantly collecting for charity. Unless secularists happen to belong to a group or a cause that needs regular donations — I’m sure posters here, for example, disproportionately donate to Planned Parenthood and women’s shelters — there is no umbrella organization that collects for charity a lot. So, thus far, theists have a better way to apply peer pressure to guilt people into donating to charity frequently than atheists have come up with.
I don’t believe this means atheists will *never* come up with such a system, and some might argue that in fact lefty theists and lefty atheists alike worked together to turn the US government into a center for charitable giving, opposed by righty theists and righty atheists, which is why we haven’t yet done it as well as other countries have. But the truth is that so far, atheists are behind on our charitable giving, because many fewer of us belong to organizations that pretty much demand it.
To be fair, charity given *out* by church organizations is often begrudging, requiring that you listen to their religious bullshit in order to accept the charity, whereas causes that atheists donate to rarely require a religious litmus test or demand that you listen to a spiel you morally disagree with in order to accept the charity. So while we donate less to charity, the charity we do donate to has fewer strings attached and preserves human dignity better.
While I’m not an atheist myself, this is just unbelievable - or at least it would be in a world that made sense.
What Davis fails to grasp is that any spiritual system that can be destroyed by the mere existence of a competing philosophy is clearly not worth practicing.Romney’s speech is entirely built around the old “atheists can’t be ethical!” argument. It’s less surprising since that particular piece of nonsense has been around for ages, but it’s still sad how many people seem to fall for it.
And they’re not unique to theists, either. Most atheists believe in these same principles. They just recognize that ethics don’t need to be backed up by a deity in order to be good ideas.I hope nobody has done this yet, but…
HOW DARE YOU DENY CHARLIE BROWN!? Lucy will have your soul! Denier! Denier! You are the destroyer of words! You throw puppies out in the cold, etc.
Mhorag -
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY
Because why have just the lyrics, when you can have an actual performance video!
jerry 101:
That is what insurance is for. This deal looks dirty from the get go.
Well, that’s an interesting question. I for one don’t consider it a violation of church/state separation for the government to fund historic preservation or artistic performance of religious works as long as there is another historic, cultural, or educational interest being served.
This is important. How do the numbers change when we consider the numbers of nontheists in other countries, who comprise a majority in some places? One should count taxes toward social welfare if the individual voted for the tax-sustaining or -raising politicians. If not, people of certain political philosophies are undercounted.
It would be nice to have at least one well-known “atheist” charitable organization, I guess. But from my acquaintances, I suspect most nontheists prefer secular organizing to “atheist” organizing.
The Red Cross is a secular organization, as is Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, United Way, The Humane Society, Peace Corps, Toys for Tots, The American Cancer Society, Planned Parenthood, probably most major charities.
They’re all pretty much non-coercive, except for a minor guilt trip in their fundraising letters. When people donate to those groups, do nontheists give in close proportion to their population? That’s probably a number that’s not available, but I think it’s important to understanding the situation.
A lot of churches don’t do shit for the public good, but are still non-profit. Are they counting those donations? If so, the numbers are grossly misleading, worse than worthless.
Differences over “Proper Understanding” have lead to more death and destruction during the history of humans on Earth than just about anything else…
Yeah, but those kinds of differences don’t require a belief in God or gods to lead to death and destruction, either. Dogma and rigid organizations are dangerous. Because some organized religions have been around so long, they’ve had a lot of time to rack up negative effects. (Dogmas and organizations based on materialism sure did what they could to even the score in the 20th century, however.)
It’s also true that organization and strong beliefs make it possible to change things for the better. Yeah, agnostics and athiests could do any of the things religious people have done. But, again, with a longer history or organization and established ways to motivate people, it’s often been religious people, for religious reasons, leading the way to vital social change.
I’m not religious, but I’m really not willing to condemn or even just mock or belittle people just for believing supernatural explanations about life and the universe. It really is dangerous when those beliefs become rigid and/or intolerant, and it’s important to call out the many instances when they do–such as this one–but I really don’t like seeing kneejerk contempt for those beliefs. I think it takes a huge amount of arrogance to be confident that human minds will be able to explain everything ever in materialist terms given enough study or to say that people just shouldn’t be concerned with those things that the mind can’t grasp in materialist terms.
It’s great if you aren’t that concerned with deep, seemingly unanswerable questions on the subatomic or intergalactic level. I’m not, either. But it’s fair for other people to try to answer those questions and to do it in a religious/supernatural way. I know some athiests and agnostics maintain that baseline level of respect, and I’d like to see more of them do it, no matter how disrespectful many religious people are.
“I’m not religious, but I’m really not willing to condemn or even just mock or belittle people just for believing supernatural explanations about life and the universe. It really is dangerous when those beliefs become rigid and/or intolerant, and it’s important to call out the many instances when they do–such as this one–but I really don’t like seeing kneejerk contempt for those beliefs.”
If I want to say something about the foolishness of religionists, Pandagon is one of the few places where I could do that and feel unworried about the consequences. I’m sure other atheists/agnostics here feel the same.
IRL, I would never walk into a church and shout to the people there they were crazy or deluded. I wouldn’t walk down the street wearing a sandwich-board proclaiming the lunacy of religionists. I wouldn’t tell people I know that I am disappointed that they are believers in nonsense.
I may think those things. But I know I’m part of a small fraction of humans on this planet who Do Not Believe. This lack of belief places me and those like me in some (usually very small) amount of danger - not necessarily physical danger, but social and economic danger.
I will be made into a social pariah if I am too “out” with my atheism. I risk being discriminated against or fired if my workplace knows too much about my beliefs (or lack thereof). So I have to keep a fairly low profile. I’m sure other atheists (depending on their situations) are often in the same boat…
So what you call “kneejerk contempt” toward other people’s beliefs, I just see as a group people finally being allowed to rant for once…
I’d guess Pandagon commenters are anywhere from 60-40 to 40-60.
Lots of progressive theists seem to value the discussions here too.
I dislike kneejerk contempt for believers. Beliefs? Ffft. They can handle some dislike and disrespect.
Strawman. Educated people have not believed this since the uncertainty principle, the incompleteness theorem, cosmic inflation, etc.
Also a strawman, I would contend. Dan Dennett’s whole book Breaking the Spell is about the importance of trying to understand what the mind is experiencing when it utilizes religion or spirituality. Pascal Boyer too. Sam Harris wants us to study meditation. Many atheists lauded the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer. Susan Blackmore has done many studies of the paranormal.
Atheists and theists alike are interested in evidence of anything that would warrant further study.
I’m interested in those questions. Why do you assume most atheists aren’t? (Maybe just because you aren’t.)
And what exactly do you mean by “fair”? If anyone tries to use one of those arguments, logic demands someone point out that “pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.” Is that disrespectful to people who I should respect?
I’m not religious, but I’m really not willing to condemn or even just mock or belittle people just for believing supernatural explanations about life and the universe…
I am. If there were such a thing as “spirit”, it would be being sold to us by major corporations.
“If there were such a thing as “spirit”, it would be being sold to us by major corporations.”
…and don’t think they’re not trying. Scientology is about the closest yet to a corporate religion. In a lot of ways, the pursuit of money/goods/prestige/etc. in the US is virtually a religion already.
Just imagine a future with “Lutherans, Powered By Microsoft”, or “Only Deseret has Genuine Mormon Inside”, “Tom Cruise Brand™ Scientology offers the finest in engram disposal”, or some other rot…
Who’s doing that?
And what’s wrong with talking smack about “God stuff”? Is God going to get upset?
Mockery is not the opposite of tolerance, it is the price of a free society. Intolerance would be Pete Stark telling a believer that her testimony is not welcome before the House Ways and Means Committee.
Sometimes churches are vandalized (not always by atheists, of course). That is intolerance. Let’s not lose perspective.
I mock conservative beliefs, but I recognize that Francis Fukuyama is a smart person.
Another strawman. Who’s saying this?
Back in the days when I was a kid (I’m old enough to have seen actual hippies) this kind of thing was called “mau-mauing”. Mau-mauing was a “shock doctine” type of technique whereby a mau-mauer involved in a negotiation or an argument would pitch a fit so intense as defuse all opposition in hopes of completely carrying the day. The basic idea was that since civilized discourse depends on civilized behavior, your best bet in the event of having gotten yourself entangled in a civilized passage-at-arms which was starting to go south on you was to act in defiance of the standards of civilized behavior, thus altering the nature of the exchange. Then you would still stand some chance of getting your way. If you can’t prevail in a debate, turn the debate into a shouting match; maybe you can win that. You get the idea.
I think Ms. Davis is probably pretty wily. Most people here seemed to notice what she wanted them to notice, which is that she seems to think her religion is being disrespected by society insofar as society requires her to make nice with (IOW, behave in a civilized manner toward) atheists. And I have no doubt that Ms. Davis really does think this, though I believe she’s using this opinion of hers as a weapon, and possibly as a smokescreen as well. She understands that her views vis-a-vis atheists are loud and volatile enough to shock and distract many people and to get them to ignore whatever it is about the real issue (or issues) she’s embroiled in which she’d just as soon have people not observe. It’s interesting that the original backstory here doesn’t have to do with atheism but with the disposition of money. I don’t know whether the theory that Ms. Davis has some description of stake in whatever game is being played here is true or not, but as an explanation for her tactics it would fit.
I heart atheists with one caveat: please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please don’t ever force me to endure Christopher Hitchens.
People, I’m asking nicely over here.
The belief that men are better than women.
The belief that homosexuals deserve to die.
The belief that slavery is right.
The belief that illness is caused by demons or humors, instead of germs or biological malfunction.
The belief that the world was created a couple thousand years ago.
The belief in the divine right of kings, instead of democracy or freedom.
The belief in curses, witches, and that menstrual blood is contaminating.
These “falsehoods” and “truths” are not all the same sort of thing.
The first is dissolved or confirmed depending on how *precisely* you define “better”. The second, third, and sixth are matters of opinion with no objectively “true” answer. The fourth, fifth and seventh are mostly objectively false.
To equate a belief in democracy with a belief in the germ theory of disease is possibly dangerous. They’re different in kind.
I’m just saying, I’ve known too many people who’ve used religion to fight for justice and to remind themselves to be kind and tolerant, and I’ve known too many people who’ve used athiesm to be smug assholes to say that people are better off or not being religious. And it remains true that any danger that organized religion brings to society and individuals can also be brought by organized athiestic/materialist beliefs.
Simply mocking religious beliefs because you think they’re silly instead of condemning the bad ways religious beliefs play out strikes me as a kind of xenophobia–not so different from mocking culturally-specific foods you think are gross or cultural dress you think is ridiculous. Athiests in the US don’t have the power to make this sort of attitude dangerous, but I’m still never going to want to be around it. I just don’t think it’s a good way for people to think about each other.
Godmonkey,
You won’t hear Hitchens mentioned by me, unless it’s followed by, “Pfft!!”
A Scotch-addled guy who sleeps in his clothes is NOT who you want representing your beliefs. Godmonkey,
You won’t hear Hitchens mentioned by me, unless it’s followed by, “Pfft!!”
A Scotch-addled guy who sleeps in his clothes is NOT who you want representing your beliefs.
Once again, I’m left wondering just what PIATOR’s point is. I mean, the pronouncement that “homosexuals deserve to die” or “slavery is right” aren’t merely neutral expressions of opinion. They’re statements worthy of condemnation in the strongest terms.
It’s absolutely mind-boggling that you’d pass on them, but instead label an imagined (i.e. never claimed by the author) equivalence of germ theory vs. belief in freedom and democracy as possibly dangerous. How perfectly weird.
Once again, I’m left wondering just what PIATOR’s point is. I mean, the pronouncement that “homosexuals deserve to die” or “slavery is right” aren’t merely neutral expressions of opinion. They’re statements worthy of condemnation in the strongest terms.
Amanda expresses a “belief” in democracy. As what? This is an entirely different order of “belief” than a belief in, say, the germ theory. I can construct a pragmatic argument for democracy based on a couple of strong points, but this is a relative argument and suggests that it is not universally applicable. For that matter, slavery itself was in some cases a better situation than the alternative - mass slaughter of the conquered peoples.
It’s absolutely mind-boggling that you’d pass on them, but instead label an imagined (i.e. never claimed by the author) equivalence of germ theory vs. belief in freedom and democracy as possibly dangerous. How perfectly weird.
There are two reasons why it is dangerous not to note the nature of some of these beliefs:
(a) The “progressive” attitudes we have need to be acknowledged as embedded in history and bounded by our own historical understanding. People have considered slavery normal; we no longer do so. People have considered the divine right of kings normal; we no longer do so. We consider democracy normal - why? For how long? Are there better alternatives? What do we mean exactly by democracy? And don’t get me started on “freedom” - does capitalism impede or aid actual freedom? Does socialism?
(b) Once you consider something beyond question, you’re in danger of reifying it, and ignoring what it actually is for itself as a symbol. An example of this is the history of the US in South America which backs up coups and overthrows elected leaders such as Allende in the name of “democracy”. the discussion on sexism vs misogyny offers another example; people who value “Women”, and in pursuit of this oppress actual female human beings.
To illustrate this, consider the idea of believing in gender equality. If you turn it into something that can’t be questioned, you run into real problems dealing with the biological facts - pregnancy affects women more than men; men are generally stronger; women are generally tougher; women and men have different reproductive agendas which hit home in the 30s and 40s.
If you deal with it as a contingent belief, keeping in mind its complexities, then you’re better able to cope with applying it in the real world.
Another illustration - the question “is America a democracy?” (or, for that matter, New Zealand) is an immensely useful thing to ask, something that a belief in “America is a democracy” may prevent.
I hope that makes sense - I’m thinking on the fly here as I type.
Much of what you were “just saying” before was crap, and after it’s pointed out that you were leaning heavily on strawmen, you come back with these anecdotes that are supposed to mean … what, exactly?
Some atheists are assholes? Some theists are courageous and selfless? These are perfectly uncontroversial statements, but you repeat them like we need to be schooled, the implication being that we must disagree with your obvious truths. Come on.
By atheistic dogmas, sure. But by a culture that treasures skepticism and doubt?
I don’t think these examples are similar in the way you imply.
For one thing, foods and dress aren’t truth claims. Mock people for those, and you may be mocking them just for being different. (Though there can be legitimate targets, as when culturally-prescribed dress is part of a system of oppression.)
The belief that Tom Cruise can levitate, though, is a truth claim advanced by a religion. The believer offers this as an objective claim about the world, that others can verify. That’s well within the realm of public discourse, and truth claims are legitimate targets. Is it true that Tom Cruise can levitate? Hell no. Can we point this out whenever necessary? Sure. Can we laugh about it and proclaim our incredulity that anyone could believe something so ludicrous? I certainly hope so, as that’s one of the kindest honest responses that such a claim deserves.
Or, hey, tell us what sort of respect is due to the belief in the flying Tom.
New Atheist: Stop believing in things that you have no evidence for, or I might think you are rather silly and illogical.
Evangelical religious person: Believe this exact thing I can give you no actual evidence for or be shunned for being in league with Satan/burn in hell forever while I laugh/be coerced to pretend you believe or suffer the maximum penalty this society allows, up to and including torture and murder in the right place and time.
Any SANE theist should prefer the New Atheist’s approach. This is rather like the men fear being laughed at by women/women fear being raped by men situation.
I’m thinking on the fly here as I type.
clearly, as you’ve made your argument up out of whole cloth.
Amanda never SAID that a “belief in democracy” was equivalent to a belief in germ theory.
a commenter had said that belief in god can’t be dismissed as ridiculous, because so many people have held it. Amanda merely countered that the AGE of a belief or the size of the population holding it (the belief in question was the belief in A GOD, not in democracy) cannot be the chief determining factor in its viability–else we would have to consider all of the hateful, discriminatory, or medieval notions in her list to be Beliefs In High Standing as well.
thank you for playing, try again…next time with less fly-off-the-handle at things you imagine people saying.
Amanda never SAID that a “belief in democracy” was equivalent to a belief in germ theory.
Uh-huh . She talks specifically about the truth value of the claims (in the context you mention) - “to believe that all these other things must be true because people have been committed to them for a long time“.
My point is that their truth values are of different orders, perhaps even in a way meaningful to her point - the “truth” of the divine right of kings is affected by the history of people believing in it in a way that the “truth” of the germ theory of disease is not.
I know this thread has probably cooled and no one will see it, but I thought there might be some residual interest to which I can appeal.
I drew a cartoon for the occasion.
Sums up how I feel pretty nicely.
PIATOR:
I have a hard time seeing how you can argue with what Amanda said. All she’s done is explained how and why fallacious appeals to popularity are bad, which is something that you learn in the first three weeks of a sophomore-level informal logic class.
If we’re going to believe one thing for the sole reason that people have been committed to it for a long time, there’s no logically defensible reason not to believe anything that people have been committed to for a long time, regardless of how we’d determine its truth-value were we not being artificially limited to only one argumentative strategy.
Any time you have to whip out the old “it’s all just a matter of opinion” chestnut, you’ve already conceded that you have no empirical basis for your belief and that you’re relying solely on an unvarnished appeal to popularity. Which is fine when the belief in question is “I don’t like olives” or “Metallica sucks!” (or if you’re a religious zealot), but when you’re talking about things that actually affect the real world in meaningful ways, it’s just a cop-out. It’s a deliberate refusal to engage the question honestly.
Godmonkey:
Christopher Hitchens’ function in the world is to prove that theism is not a necessary ingredient to produce a misogynist hosebeast.
Cola Johnson, nice work! And it does quite accurately sum up the absurdity of the whole situation…
:)
Some atheists are assholes? Some theists are courageous and selfless? These are perfectly uncontroversial statements,
Some people say that they really believe things will be better when people aren’t harboring religious/supernatural belief. That’s what I’m arguing against. I really don’t see how that’s true when I know that religion has inspired many people to do good and be better to others, and when I know many people who have specifically used their athiesm to be assholes. Religion can be a positive force and athiesm a negative one, as well as vice versa. I think people are going to be people, no matter the prevailing cultural take on supernatural beliefs.
‘And it remains true that any danger that organized religion brings to society and individuals can also be brought by organized athiestic/materialist beliefs.’
By atheistic dogmas, sure. But by a culture that treasures skepticism and doubt?
But athiesm doesn’t have a lock on treasuring skepticism and doubt. There are religious traditions that foster it; there are spiritual/supernatural beliefs that discourage dogma and even belief-based organization. And there really is no reason to believe that widespread athiesm necessarily leads to a culture that treasures skepticism and doubt–people are people, and dogma builds up when they get organized, whether the organization is religious or athiest.
Moreover, as dangerous as dogma can be, there is a lot of value in organizing around something irrational, even if it’s just an irrational optimism that things can be changed for the better in the face of long odds. A willingness to push through on faith is why some kinds of religious organizations have been the movers in a lot of social justice movements. People who aren’t religious can also have that kind of faith in their ability to make things better, sure. But it’s pretty rare that effective vanguard activists can be defined by skepticism and rationality.
Or, hey, tell us what sort of respect is due to the belief in the flying Tom.
Personally, I think respect for others should be the default mode. Everyone harbors some thoughts, ideas, and beliefs that are going to seem ridiculous to others, and not all of them, not even the ones an athiest holds, are ones they’ll be able to defend in scientific terms. (And there are certainly plenty of athiests who defend ideas simply because they’ve been *told* they’re science, not because they’re ever actually going to understand the science themselves.) And I do find it xenophobic how people so often reach for the most outlandish example they can find of supernatural belief to promote the virtues of athiesm–it too often feels like the tactics used to “other” people.
People believe in things that are true for them, that make the world make sense to them, just as they eat food and wear clothes that make sense to them (even if, objectively, the food isn’t as healthy or the clothes aren’t as practical as others think they should be). Even though science provides very good tools for making sense of the world, it’s incapable of making sense or reflecting the emotional truth of all the things many people experience and wonder about. If a supernatural belief lets a person feel more secure in themselves and the world, I really don’t see why it should be anyone’s business until that belief negatively affects others.
Just to follow up,
Rep Davis issued a formal apology.
http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2008/04/10/this-just-in-rep-davis-apologizes-to-atheist/
I have a hard time seeing how you can argue with what Amanda said.
I don’t think I have. I’m just uneasy about lumping the different types of claim in together.
I’m all for seperation of church and state, but I’m no atheist. I believe in God, I pray, I believe everything happens for a reason…but that doesn’t mean I want my beliefs encroaching on everyone else’s lives (particularly since the beliefs aren’t often ‘mine’, but those of other people who say they worship the same God I do but often with a far more intolerant slant). Believers can practice whatever faiths we want in our homes and places of worship. But it doesn’t belong in government. No more asking candidates about religion. Take oaths of office on the Constitution.
Things really are better in those western European countries where atheism is orders of magnitude more common than here in North America. There’s a correlation/causation question there that is way too big for me to tackle, but I will offer this possibility: realizing we cannot hope for a god to fix things leads to acknowledging that we ourselves must be the agents of change. There is a call to social justice in that realization, as many existentialists can tell you.
Correlation or causation, either way, it is certainly true that atheism is no barrier to social and economic justice. The worst that atheist agitators here in the US will do is annoy you from time to time.
If advancing atheism and skepticism does nothing to advance progressivism, we’ll have wasted some time, but that’s hardly a scathing indictment. No need to clutch your pearls.
Stephen Weinberg: “With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion.”
To put that in context, it refers to cases like otherwise progressive Catholics opposing funding for AIDS clinics that distribute condoms.
Very egalitarian of you, but is it true? Can you give an example of atheism making a good person bad, or a bad person worse?
Assuming for a moment that this is true, it’s irrelevant. Non-creedal churches like UU are very small; they and liberal creedal churches are not growing at any significant rate; many are shrinking. Where skepticism is entering the world today, it is coming through in the swiftly-growing ranks of atheists.
Enough assuming. It simply isn’t true that faith-heads can be consistently skeptical. Either you believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or you believe that extraordinary claims can rest upon faith. When faith-heads are skeptical, they are compartmentalizing certain parts of their life, like their jobs. They do not apply skepticism to those things they hold on faith. So in the end, matters of faith are more important to them than skepticism, and it becomes problematic to say that they really value or “treasure” skepticism at all when that skepticism goes right out the window in the presence of faith.
Irrelevant. Skepticism and doubt are the relevant benefits here, the values to be promoted. Atheism is just a side-effect.
However, try arguing a teen or adult toward atheism sometime, and you’ll find it’s nearly impossible to do by any route except by cultivating skepticism. If atheist evangelists lose sight of the prize, and push atheism explicitly instead of skepticism, they won’t succeed except by promoting skepticism anyway.
This is another one of those “common sense” claims that is just supposed to seem evidently true. Yet again, it isn’t. So far as the scientific community can be called “organized” (since there are many interconnected institutions, publications, and agreed-upon standards of evidence), that community does a fantastic job of systematically dismantling dogmas. Indeed, it could not function if it did not. Neither wholly atheist nor wholly religious, that community is nevertheless made up of people, and as such is a counterexample to your claim.
Nope, sorry, that statement is self-contradictory. It is rational to pursue things of value, so if there is value in optimism (say, it helps people find the energy to struggle), then it is not irrational.
Maybe. Take the example of black churches pushing for civil rights. Did they do it because they were religious, because they were churches? Or did they do it because black people were going to push for their civil rights by whatever means necessary, and black churches, weekly meetings of large segments of the black population, happened to have pre-existing organizational infrastructure that could be utilized for the struggle?
I wouldn’t be confident in asserting one or the other, as you have done.
Whatever that means?
hope the middle part is in moderation…
That’s nice, but I asked about respect for beliefs, not respect for people. And I even made that distinction explicit. Since you insist upon ignoring it, I’d like to ignore everything you said after this point. But you keep claiming egregious falsehoods, and I have SIWOTI Syndrome.
Strawman; no such claim was made. Science is not the only tool of the materialist; there is also philosophy. And while I may not be able to defend my so! not! ridiculous! love for Rock Me Amadeus in rigorous terms, such matters of taste are categorically different from political opinions, which can be defended philosophically.
Unless you’re asserting that the scientific community in general cannot be trusted to share actual findings with the public, I don’t see what your point is.
Are you ever going to understand gravity? Probably not; no one today does. Your friend contemplates jumping off a building and flying like a bird; should you not try to defend gravity?
And I find it hypocritical that you call Scientology outlandish.
I picked the flying Tom because it was a likely baseline; I could expect you would share my incredulity and we wouldn’t get caught on an example like Yahweh where you might respond “I don’t find that silly,” which would sidetrack the conversation.
Choosing an easy, noncontroversial example has nothing to do with xenophobia.
Again with the strawmen.
Okay, here’s why.
Cola, thanks! I enjoyed your cartoon. I’ll pass it around a bit (in accordance with the CC license, of course).
You know how this story seemed to have blown over?
It got worse.