The Intellectual Snobbery of Conspicuous Atheism

[rug]

Beyond the argument that faith in God is irrational—and therefore illegitimate

Mar 14 2014, 7:45 AM ET
Emma Green
Emma Green is an associate editor at The Atlantic.

Atheism is intellectually fashionable. In the past month, The New York Times has run several stories about lack of faith in its series on religion. The New Yorker ran an article on the history of non-belief in reaction to two new books on the subject that were released within a week of each other in February. The veteran writer, Adam Gopnik, concludes this:

What the noes, whatever their numbers, really have now … is a monopoly on legitimate forms of knowledge about the natural world. They have this monopoly for the same reason that computer manufacturers have an edge over crystal-ball makers: The advantages of having an actual explanation of things and processes are self-evident.[/div

This is a perfect summary of the intellectual claim of those who set out to prove that God is dead and religion is false: Atheists have legitimate knowledge, and those who believe do not. This is the epistemological assumption looming in the so-called “culture war” between the caricatures of godless liberals and Bible-thumping conservatives in America: One group wields rational argumentation and intellectual history as an indictment of God, while the other looks to tradition and text as defenses against modernity’s encroachment on religious life.

The problem is, the “culture war” is a false construct created by politicians and public intellectuals, left and right. The state of faith in the world is much grayer, much humbler, and much less divided than atheist academics and preaching politicians claim. Especially in the U.S., social conservatives are often called out in the media for reifying and inflaming this cultural divide: The rhetoric of once and future White House hopefuls like Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal reinforces an “us” and “them” distinction between those with faith and those without. Knowing God helps them live and legislate in the “right” way, they say.

But vocal atheists reinforce this binary of Godly vs. godless, too—the argument is just not as obvious. Theirs is a subtle assertion: Believers aren’t educated or thoughtful enough to debunk God, and if they only knew more, rational evidence would surely offset faith.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-intellectual-snobbery-of-conspicuous-atheism/284406/

[Brettongarcia]

1. Reassure us that the title wasn't intended to be a deliberate insult to atheists.

And insult their feelings?

Such things are hurtful, of course.

But since when did anyone care about atheists' feelings?

[hrmjustin]

2. I think people on this site care what atheists think and their feelings.

[rug]

3. Deliberate insult? In here?

Let me look if there are any others in this room. I wouldn't want to post anything outside the norm.

Meanwhile, did you read past The Atlantic's headline?

[pinto]

4. It's The Atlantic's title for the piece.

[cbayer]

5. I agree that the title was poorly chosen.

His analysis of this is good and he makes some very important and valid points.

But he does exactly what he accuses others of when he resorts to the term "intellectual snobbery", and that is unfortunate.

Perhaps he did not choose the title, but he may have lost his audience if he did.

[pinto]

6. Pet peeve of mine - how often an editor chooses a headline, not the author, if that's the case here.

Happens in newspapers all the time.

[cbayer]

7. I know and I wonder if the editors did indeed do that.

The title is much more provocative than the article itself, imo.

[goldent]

10. The title used the term "Conspicuous Atheism"

I suspect few atheists at DU would themselves "Conspicuous Atheists" and those who do are here for the fight and being insulted is a necessary part of the game.

[cbayer]

12. That's an interesting take.

I don't really see conspicuous as the pejorative here and I think that when a group is working towards a position of more recognition and acceptance, conspicuous is exactly what they need to be.

It's too wide a net to throw if he is only addressing his remarks to the anti-theists, which is what he appears to be doing.

[JoeyT]

35. So you don't mind minorities as long as they know their place.

And if they start getting a little too uppity, they need to be reminded of that place.

[goldent]

47. I was referring to "conspicuous" atheists who hang out in the religion forum

not people or minorities in general.

[EvilAL]

36. How many different

denominations of atheists are people going to make up? It's ridiculous.

[cbayer]

41. I think we may in the end have several denominations.

For those involved in organized atheism, there are some clear schisms going on. The most reason is the attention being given to the conservative atheist.

We shall see.

[EvilAL]

149. yeah, but

to me it's fairly simple, I don't believe. I'm not trying to stop people from believing. I make fun of religion and stuff from time to time on message boards and facebook and shit. Child abuse pisses me off and shit like that. Not every action requires a label. Everyone focuses on the differences between atheists and that's the problem. There are activists and other things like that, but calling them different types of atheists is weird to me. That's just the way I see it.

[cbayer]

150. That's you and you will have our own denomination.

But there are others who are hugely invested in organized atheism and many of them are very focused on the differences they find in their midst.

[EvilAL]

152. Those involved in organized atheism

as I see it are activists. It mostly boils down to 'church and state' issues, you do get the extreme people who are anti-church/religion, but that doesn't even require atheism. Atheists that try to label other atheists just doesn't make sense to me. Nothing I can do about it, but someday someone is going to call me a _____ atheist and I'll be a little set back by it..

[cbayer]

156. I hope the only thing someone calls you is a

wonderful atheist!.

Activists are about church/state issues, but also about "normalizing" atheism in order to decrease prejudice and increasing understanding and acceptance.

But there are some political differences, as one would expect, and that's ok.

As the numbers grow, and I expect that they will as more people feel comfortable expressing this as a part of their identity, I think there will be room for different ways of identifying with certain subgroups.

I don't think that will be a bad thing at all.

[EvilAL]

178. I like that. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

63. I'm ok with that.

If I wasn't, I wouldn't bother posting in this subforum anyway.

[longship]

8. Let's start with this straw man.

Last edited Sat Mar 15, 2014, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Theirs is a subtle assertion: Believers aren’t educated or thoughtful enough to debunk God, and if they only knew more, rational evidence would surely offset faith.

I don't know anybody who credibly asserts that. For one, many fervent believers are very educated and thoughtful.

Anybody who has looked at these things with anything remotely resembling rational thought understands that religion has its base in culture. And anybody understanding human psychology likewise understands the concept of cognitive dissonance. Humans effectively partition their knowledge so as to reduce the apparent, if not real, conflicts. Religion as a whole follows cultural tracks.

Will comment more after I've read the whole article.

Okay. Here's the deal with this article.

First, Watson's book looks interesting. But I'm not that inclined to read a book that delves into the history of the philosophy of non-belief. I find many philosophical writings to be eye glazing and mind twisting. So I will likely not read it. It's just not my bag.

Second, Emma Green's argument against Watson's claim reduces to the argumentum ad populum. So many people the world over believe in gods, the vast majority!

Other than the fact that the surveys she cites likely undercount non-believers, possibly greatly, the argument itself is irrelevant to what non-believers really claim, that there is no evidence for gods and that belief in religion has a very serious hind side. But to address the surveys. Is it any wonder that in societies where belief in religion is high -- often a single religion, sometimes enforced by law -- that non-believers would be reluctant to state their non-belief? Even in the USA, which supposedly cherishes religious freedom, that freedom has apparently not been substantially extended to non-believers. Just listen to the squawkers of this being a Christian country. Even George HW Bush made the claim that non-believers could not be patriotic or citizens, adding "We're one nation, under God." Other surveys further undercut Ms. green's argumentum ad populum. Non-believers and atheists poll consistently at the bottom of the heap under trustworthiness and other positive attributes, below even rapists and paedophiles.

What non-believers are battling are these impediments to their freedoms to not believe in deities. We want to be represented as being an equal part of the world's citizenry without bias and with all equal rights to proclaim our lack of belief without fear of persecution or prosecution.

I have no doubt that Emma Green has good intentions here. But her argument merely underlines what a rather large part of the problem is. That undermines her stated position.

[cbayer]

9. You've not seen that stated right here?

I look forward on your take on the article.

[longship]

11. I did qualify the assertion with "credibly".

[cbayer]

13. You are indeed the devil!

[AtheistCrusader]

64. I used to think that.

Susan Clancy put out a great book on why some people come to believe they have been abducted by aliens.

Her research on memory and belief was very informative and has a lot of overlap into other realms of 'belief' without evidence. I always assumed 'abduction' 'survivors' were mentally deficient in some way, or stupid, or high, or whatever. Turns out they are pretty normal people, and just as likely to be above, below, or average intellect as any other group.

They just happen to, or have somehow come to believe this one unusual thing, and our minds lend themselves to such unfounded belief.


It went a long way toward helping me dispel the myth of the 'idiot believer'.

As DeGrasse Tyson so eloquently pointed out, the number of people in the National Academy of Sciences, the 'cream of the crop' of scientific intellectuals, if you will, who believe in god is not 0. It's about 7%. That's 7% more than I would expect if sheer intellectualism led to atheism.

Meaning, there's still a conversation we need to have about why people truly believe, and some understanding that is not yet reached.

[longship]

65. That's the way I understand it as well. nt

[cbayer]

66. I think it's important to note that this NAS survey used a specific definition of god when

they asked the question:

It asked about the respondent's belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind"

It should also be noted that in response to this specific question, 20.7% of the respondents said they had doubt or were agnostic.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I bring this up because the "93% don't' believe" statistic is often erroneously brought up in debate and it is clearly a distortion of the data.

It is striking data nonetheless, but it's hard to draw any chicken/egg hard conclusions from it.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Doubt or agnostic is acceptable to me.

The 7% number is often cited as a personal god, which is a strong distinction from agnostic/doubt. Agnostic, properly used, just means unknowable, really.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/08/25/science-academy-godless

[cbayer]

68. My only point was that they used a fairly tight definition of "god"

and the results should be read in that context.

You didn't do it, but I have seen this survey misused by others who say "93% of NAS members are atheists". I think that's a distortion, but the 7% number you used clearly is not.

I would love to see them repeat this survey and strive for a larger response rate and more options in responses.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. I think the nuanced data is more important.

I'm pretty confident, but when the rubber meets the road, I MUST acknowledge that if there exists an all-powerful supernatural being that does not wish to be perceived by us, it must needs be unknowable to us. By definition.

So by that manner, I myself might be called an Agnostic as well. I'm an atheist, but I have to acknowledge that possibility.

[gtar100]

14. Is it that some atheists assert that there is no God with the same absolute certainty that religious

practitioners assert that there is? These often entertaining discussions tend to be based on the assumption that both parties hold the same ideas of what they mean by "God". That's sometimes hard to pin down between any two people and seems to remain viscous even within organizations dedicated to knowing God or "God".

[longship]

15. I don't think that's true.

I don't know very many atheists who would assert "absolute certainty" that there are no gods. In fact I cannot think of one who would make that claim.

Yes, I am sure people can take quotes out of context to demonstrate this, but when the same atheists are questioned on this very issue, including all of the prominent atheists, they answer that they cannot be sure, but that there is no evidence that there is. That is a huge difference from absolute certainty.

This is another one of those things which atheists get tired of hearing because it's patently false.

[cbayer]

16. This is a discussion I have had previously and would value your take on it.

If Ms. A says "There is a god"

And Ms. B says "You are wrong. I am certain of that"

Is not Ms. B making an affirmative assertion that there is no god?

[longship]

17. Well, if one augers down on that response, I would think Ms B might tone it down.

I know that Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, Stenger, etc. have all said explicitly that they cannot be sure. But one could undoubtedly pick quotes from all of them that seem to say the opposite. The reason is that, like me, they live their lives as if there were no gods. It's not hard to interpret that as a sort of default mode.

I too get asked, "How can you be sure?" My response is that I am not sure, but the evidence seems to be stacked against gods. I may even add that I would be willing to change my opinion if there was strong enough evidence. Then, I would ask Ms A, "What would change your mind?" I might ask that question of Ms B as well.

As a methodological naturalist, I cannot respond any other way. That's the source of my atheism, too.

[cbayer]

18. I don't imagine that you would say what Ms. B says.

I think your response would be more measured, as it is in this response.

But I do see people say "I am certain that you are wrong" when someone says there is a god. I think there claim is equally baseless as the claim that "I am certain there is a god".

Since neither argument has any evidence to support it, they are both false, imo.

Hence my position that belief or non-belief are equivalent positions and should be regarded as such.

[longship]

21. I do not think that they are equivalent.

My view:

The equation is not balanced. There is no evidence that gods exist so it is highly unlikely that they do exist, which is why I am an atheist in the first place.

I won't say I am certain because there are gods which still may be possible -- the deist god, for example -- but none of them seem to be like the gods people worship. The gods people worship seem to interact with humans all the time. There is no evidence for that. I cannot falsify those putative interactions, but without evidence what position can one take except for the null hypothesis, that those gods don't exist.

I am fairly comfortable with my position and have no qualms about others who might disagree with it. But I certainly do not think that the existence of gods is a 50/50 chance. That would likely drive a person crazy. Let's see. On Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, I'll believe in a god. On Monday, Wednesday, Friday, I'll believe no god exists. On Saturday I'll sleep through the day and believe nothing at all. Nope. Does not seem to be a 50/50 deal.

That's why I am an atheist.

[cbayer]

23. Yes, you are an atheist because you see the preponderance of "evidence" (or lack of it)

to be heavier on one side or the other. Others are believers because they see it the other way around.

But from a more objective viewpoint, both positions are equally true and equally false and have equal standing. It is a 50/50 deal, imo, when it comes to standing.

The problem I have is when someone is convinced that they have it right and others are wrong. That to me is neither rational nor logical. And it's an endless and useless argument. The only reason to have it is to somehow prove that one is superior to others. Lame, imo.

Hope things are warming up up there.

[longship]

24. Argh! Below zero again this past week.

Still freaking cold. Snow not melting. Maybe a break this week, but apparently not much.

I am so cabin fevered.

[cbayer]

26. I'm not going to tell you about the weather here, but you emoticon looks like me mid-afternoon

[longship]

27. ROFL!!!!

Humor always warms things up. Thanks, my good friend. Even puts a smile on my face.


Gotta go. A big plate of spaghetti to devour. Yummy. That puts a smile on my face, too.

[phil89]

155. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god or gods exist

It is not a positive claim. There is no evidence to support the existence of a god or gods, but no could rule that out entirely (or prove it's not true)...in exactly the same way no one could rule out the existence of leprechauns. I can be convinced of the existence of a god or gods with enough evidence. So far there just isn't any. Atheism doesn't have denominations or dogma or anything like that, despite what people who cannot think outside of a religious framework claim.

[cbayer]

158. That may be true for you, but for others it is different.

Leprechaun analogies are meant to belittle and mock, imo, and have no place in a civil debate about this. It is not, imo, "exactly the same".

The fact that others believe in a god based on faith and not evidence is a fact. Those people have no more or less legitimacy than those that don't believe.

You have your position and others have theirs.

And some subgroups of atheism have lots of dogma. You can see it repeated here over and over and over again.

So, in the end, it's much more complex and nuanced than just a lack of belief, at least for some people

[rhett o rick]

19. I dont think one can prove there is no god any more than someone proving there is a god. nm

[cbayer]

20. I agree. That is why I think that both position are equally valid

or invalid. Neither person can be proved right and neither can be proved wrong.

And there is not more evidence supporting either position, except in the eyes of an individual.

[rhett o rick]

22. I dont agree. I said neither position can be proven but there is no

real argument for the existence of god. Therefore the balance weighs heavier for there being no god, same as there being no unicorn.

[cbayer]

25. Oh, then we don't agree. I misunderstood you.

The unicorn reference is only an attempt to belittle those that believe, in my opinion and experience, and does not represent anything close to a valid argument.

Believers are going to think the scales tip in their direction and non-believers that it tips in theirs.

It's a pointless argument and I wonder why people can't just agree that there is no answer and "i'm ok, you're ok".

[rhett o rick]

28. It is not my intent to belittle anyone. I was trying to use another example of something

that has no evidence of existence. It appears we will have to disagree.

[cbayer]

29. Sorry, I have a particular sensitivity to the unicorn, sky daddy, easter bunny,

santa claus, etc. analogies.

There are lots of things that there is no evidence for. I prefer the intelligent life on other planets analogy. We have no evidence, but I believe the probability of there being such a thing is quite high.

Anyway, as long as well disagree agreeably, we will be just fine!

[rhett o rick]

31. I will drink to that.

[eomer]

38. The analogy that's apt, actually, is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not unicorns or intelligent life.

Assuming we don't mean *magic* unicorns then the possibility that unicorns have existed is in a completely different category than gods because the existence of unicorns would be just a variation that we know is possible and only a question of chance as to whether there ever was a horse or pony with a single horn coming out of the forehead. If there were ever such a thing it would be only slightly interesting and not any kind of significant groundbreaking scientifically.

Intelligent life on another planet would also not require any new scientific theories or major changes to scientific explanations. And we do have evidence because the proper construct of the question is whether there is evidence that intelligent life can develop on *a* planet. Once we've shown scientifically that that can occur on one planet then there's nothing scientifically significant (in and of itself) about the exact number of planets on which it's happened. It might be one (seemingly unlikely), two, many - who knows? To make this point a different way, if we do find intelligent life on a second planet will you then say there's no evidence of intelligent life on three planets? What if we find it on three - no evidence for intelligent life on four? Let me hasten to add that obviously finding intelligent life on one or more other planets would trigger lots of additional science but it wouldn't be the mere fact that it developed on another planet that would be significant - we already have plenty of science to say that is possible - it would be studying the details of that life that would trigger lots of new science.

So the existence of god(s) is completely different than either unicorns or life on another planet. There's evidence for both being completely within our understanding of science. But there's no evidence that would point to the *possibility* of god(s) existing. They are, as far was we can tell, completely from our imagination.

As you've probably heard me say, I think even the concept of god(s) is just the result of carelessness about definitions. If there is ever any evidence for something godlike it still won't be evidence for god(s).

[cbayer]

40. Sure, it's apt if you really want to mock and belittle believers.

These arguments are purely academic. They get no one closer to the "truth" and no one every wins. If that's someone's thing, go for it.

But I still reject the mocking and belting as a part of it. It's simply not necessary.

I have long thought that there is the possibility that what people perceive as god may be as simple as something that is just much more highly evolved than we can even imagine, thus my "intelligent life" comparison. You leap to the conclusion that the concept comes purely from imagination because you have seen no evidence. I don't find that a convincing argument.

The definition aspect is problematic, as humans have anthropomorphized something that, if it did exist, is probably in no way like us.

[eomer]

60. The FSM analogy isn't necessarily meant to mock.

The good reason for arguing the FSM is to make the point that an absurdity is just as valid a conclusion as that other conclusion that's famously and widely accepted. The same point can be made, maybe even more effectively, by showing that ancient gods that were once widely accepted are now seen as absurd. So the reason for comparing "God" to something absurd is not to mock but rather to make the point that something absurd is just as plausible as "God" is.

This is the same reason that I sometimes speak of "magic". Most people find absurd the idea that magic really can happen. I don't mean this point to mock anyone, I mean to show another thing that is absurd but just as plausible as God. I don't know how to make this point about absurdities without employing absurdities.

On your other point, something that is just much more highly evolved than we can even imagine, some other form of "intelligent life", wouldn't be God, would it? Or if it is then let's agree on the definition of God we're discussing and start over because that's a completely different discussion. What I was discussing was the concept of God as a supernatural being - that concept is not only entirely from our imagination, it's also nothing more than carelessness in definitions.

Let me state more fully what I mean about definitions. My definition of "nature" is: everything that exists. And my definition of "the laws of nature" is: how all the things that exist behave in all the ways they do. So if there is some being that can somehow do stuff then that being is "natural" and "the laws of nature" must somehow explain how that being can do what it does. I don't think that anyone can come up with a plausible reason for a definition of "nature" that doesn't include something that exists - how would you justify putting some things (or one thing) outside the definition - on what basis?

"Magic" is also something purely from our imagination and, if anyone seriously contemplates its plausibility, just a case of carelessness with definitions in the same way that "God" is. If a magician is able to do some stuff somehow, then however she does it is within the laws of nature because the laws of nature, by definition, encompass all the stuff that anything or anyone can do.

[cbayer]

62. It is meant to mock. It is possible to make your arguments using terminology

that does not mock. Calling something "absurd" without any evidence that it is indeed false is also only belittling and dismissing.

I have absolutely no interest in debating with you about whether there is a god or not. I don't know. You don't know. It's a fruitless, circular argument. I also have no interest in debating whether the atheists side of the scales has greater weight than the theists. Neither has any weight, imo.

You have defined the god you dismiss as some kind of supernatural being and then assume that everyone else's definition must be the same as yours. In doing so, you limit yourself and your argument to things that you can understand.

I would propose that there is much you don't and can't understand and that your "laws of nature" are limited to the meager understanding we have of this infinite place we find ourselves in.

I do not, and probably will never, argue for or against the existence of a god or gods. What I argue for is for liberal/progressive people to recognize that the believers and non-believers among us share much more in common than they do differences. Neither "side" is ever going to be victorious in this academic exercise and time would be better spent trying to find some ways of working together.

It matters not whether you believe in a god or not. It does matter how you treat those that see things differently.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. The FSM idea is mean to illustrate precisely how logically absurd religions are.

And it does its job well. If pointing out absurdity seems like mockery, fine, but it's entirely warranted.

The FSM claims are precisely as un-provable, as anything you'll find in the bible, for instance. For the same reason.

[cbayer]

71. Exactly. When one has the position that all religions are logically

absurd and only fools would embrace them, the FSM works perfectly. It lets you be as dismissive and mocking as you want while granting you a position of superiority, for you are, of course, not a fool and not one to be taken in by the absurd.

Congratulations. You win, I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. You ascribe malice.

Its not just to be mean to people. It's to free us all.


"Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution--these can lift at a colossal humbug--push it a little--weaken it a little, century by century, but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." -Samuel Clemens.


In this case, the 'humbug' being religious faith.

[cbayer]

75. To free us all? Wow, that has a really evangelistic feel to it, doesn't it?

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Freedom is catching.

You bet I evangelize for freedom.

[cbayer]

78. Your freedom may be another's prison, as their freedom might be a prison for you.

It is beyond arrogant to assume that you have the keys to freedom and is exactly what religious proselytizers do.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. You realize that 'Freedom' has a definition, right?

[cbayer]

81. Why no! I had no idea!!

You always end up here, don't you?

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Quibbling over the meaning of words? Only when you abuse them.

[cbayer]

86. No, making sarcastic statements that convey that you think

the person you are talking to is an idiot.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Not an idiot.

Dishonest. You are ascribing intent that is not there. In fact, you're doing it RIGHT NOW. This is little better than your continued assertion that I want to 'extinguish people' or that I think 'people are bad' because X belief.

[eomer]

90. What I'm calling absurd is the idea that the FSM, ancient gods like Thor, and magic are real.

Maybe I should have also said (but didn't because it seems to go without saying) that practically everyone thinks those things are absurd.

And then I'm pointing out that there's no basis for saying that "God" is any different, any more plausible, than those things that we all agree are absurd. It's essentially an appeal for people to widen their perspective, to try to escape their programming, and see that they believe one thing and not the other things only because they've been taught to, without there being any real difference between the thing they believe to be true and the other things they believe to be absurd. It's an appeal for people to think about it from a more detached point of view, if they can. It's not mocking, it is an appeal to reason that cannot be done without the comparison to absurdities.

Regarding this:

You have defined the god you dismiss as some kind of supernatural being and then assume that everyone else's definition must be the same as yours. In doing so, you limit yourself and your argument to things that you can understand.

No, I'm responding to people who define God that way. For other people who define God differently my response would be different. That's what I said to you already - to have an intelligent conversation we need to first agree on what definition is being used by the person stating a belief or claim and then proceed from there.

Finally, you may (or may not) be right that people's time would be better spent discussing something else. But even if you are, this thread (and this group) are the place where people come who want to discuss these things. In my opinion it's bad form (though not against the rules) to go into discussions in DU that people are engaging in because they want to and tell them their time would be better spent discussing something else.

[cbayer]

93. But the vast majority of people don't think that their religion or their gods are equivalent

to the FSM, etc, and don't think they are absurd. You do, but that doesn't make it so and using those arguments is highly unlikely to convince them otherwise.

If you mean for your argument to only be framed for people that share the definition of god you proposed, that's fair. But you can't assume that that is the case and should consider asking others for their definition before you proceed.

I'm not telling you how to spend your time. I'm telling you how I prefer to spend mine when in this group.

In light of the stated goals of this board, I am looking to engage with people who want to form coalitions and look beyond differences that don't really separate them when it comes to electing democrats and pursuing the democratic agenda.

Those that wish to pursue the fight over which is superior or right or the real truth can do so, but it does nothing to achieve the goals of the site, imo.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. That is precisely what the FSM example is designed to show.

"But the vast majority of people don't think that their religion or their gods are equivalent to the FSM, etc, and don't think they are absurd."

It is simply a 'fleshed out' version of Russell's Teapot. It doesn't matter that the target audience doesn't think it's belief is absurd, or doesn't think they are equivalent. They are.

[cbayer]

101. No, they are not. Only to you.

You will never get people to listen to you if your approach is to mock them and tell them that their beliefs are absurd. You lose them the minute you make the analogy and the only thing that happens is that you get to feel superior.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. Not true.

People who argue against it, immediately run afoul of the logical fallacy therein. They find it cannot be supported.

It places their faith in perspective, as a case of special pleading.

I've seen it. I've seen that blank glaze as they look deep within and see it for the first time. It does work. I've had that moment myself, but in a different way. To share something positive:

I was heading out on a fishing boat, into the pacific one morning. Oh-dark-thirty, about 5 am. Jupiter, Venus, and Mars were high in the sky, and the sun was just revealing where it would break the horizon. For a few minutes, it was clear, looking at the planets, that you could see the plane of the disc of the solar system. It forced the distance between the planets, and their positions into perspective. It was a wonderful moment of clarity and perception. I wish the whole world could have shared it with me.

That's the sort of insight one gets by examining one's own beliefs. When arguing a position, such as faith or non-faith, when logic clarifies a position.

I don't actually need believers to stop believing. I just need them to keep it in perspective.

[eomer]

107. That's exactly what I said - they don't think their own God is absurd.

But they do think (most of them do) that all the other gods are absurd. That's the reason for making the point in the first place. The people who believed in the ancient gods didn't think their gods were absurd and yet this modern religious person we're talking about does think the ancient gods are absurd. Many (most?) of them think that the other modern gods are absurd. They think all the gods except their own God are absurd. The point of the comparison between all the gods they do think are absurd and their one God they don't think is absurd is to hope they will realize that there really isn't any difference between the gods other than that they've arbitrarily latched on to one of them and arbitrarily reject the others.

And of course the OP is obviously about a debate and so I've framed my comments as something of a challenge, as is appropriate in a debate. If someone thinks I'm wrong and there is some way in which this modern God is not equivalent to the absurd ancient ones (or even to the absurd FSM if they wish) then they are invited to make a case for how and why. If other people find debates about the existence or non-existence of God to be undesirable or unpleasant then they may not be in the right thread.

[cbayer]

108. I'm not convinced that "absurd" is the right word here.

I think people recognize that there have been religious concepts in the past that have undergone substantial change and modification over time, often because scientific evidence found them faulty.

Those same people may also recognize that their own concepts may undergone significant change and modification over time, perhaps due to scientific evidence and perhaps because they have not ruled out that evidence for the existence of a god or gods may present itself in the future.

You make some broad assumptions that may be applicable to some, but certainly not to all.

I recently used the blind men and the elephant analogy. I think that many believe that they may be touching only one part of a very complex thing and don't reject the idea that other people may be touching an entirely different part.

At any rate, when people use mocking language and call religious beliefs in general absurd, what have they accomplished? The only thing I can think of is that they further alienate those with whom they disagree.

And that's not always in their best interest.

[eomer]

113. I don't think scientific evidence is mainly the reason ancient gods are different from modern ones.

There may be some minor ways in which that's true - for example it may be that the understanding of certain physical phenomena is the reason that modern gods aren't credited with causing them. Zeus was the god of weather, thunder, and lightning for example. Poseidon, on the other hand, was the god of floods, droughts, earthquakes, and the creator of horses. Maybe we don't have a god of those things now because we have scientific explanations for them. But that doesn't seem totally right to me. Many modern people still do believe that things like weather and earthquakes are controlled by God. For those people, what is the scientific reason that they lump all those phenomena into one God while thinking that Zeus and Poseidon are absurd? How do we know that there's just the one God (in three parts for Trinitarians) rather than multiple gods that are each in charge of specific things? What would be the science that "corrected" that error on the part of ancient believers? What science informs us that a long list of gods with a hierarchy of authority is wrong while one God (one in three sometimes) is right? Clearly science can't answer for most of these differences - it is obviously the case that two different societies each wanted or needed more explanation than they could find any real reason for and so they made it up. Since there was nothing to go on, the stuff they made up was different - arbitrarily different rather than different for any good reason.

Edit to add: consider this long list of ancient gods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_mythological_figures
Why should the list of gods be short as in modern beliefs rather than long like the ancient gods? Or doesn't that show that both are just made up?

[cbayer]

116. Yes, there are people who believe that certain physical phenomenon

are controlled by god, but I guarantee you that the bulk of highly religious people in New Orleans were glued to the weather channel as Katrina approached. If they prayed as well, so be it.

We don't know anything really and we certainly don't know enough to take a position of certainty when it comes to the existence or non-existence of a god.

The concept of god(s) has changed over time and across cultures, but it has persisted in one form or another. God has been used to understand or explain things across cultures and millennia. The fact that some of those concepts had to be changed or modified over time doesn't prove anything about whether a god exists or not.

And some people reject the notion completely.

There in lies the bottom line. Each person is entitled to their own take on this and each persons take deserves protection unless it is being used to harm others.

I just don't get those who feel the need to win this debate when there is no possibility of ever doing so.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. False equivalency again.

There is no equivalency between the positive claim a god exists and the negative ascertainment that that claim is supported.

[cbayer]

121. Yes there is, actually.

Neither has a leg to stand on and are based solely on one's personal beliefs and perspectives.

I would even go so far as to propose that you have "faith" that there is no god.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. I am devoid of faith in the concept of a god.

I don't rate the possibility as likely, or required.

It is not the same as having a positive belief that no god exists. (Such people do exist. But they are actually pretty rare.)

As I have acknowledged, directly, to you in other threads, I do not rule out the possibility a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that does not wish to be directly perceived CAN NOT by definition be perceived and therefore could exist.

That is why I evaluate religious claims, polytheistic, monotheistic, non-theistic one by one, alike, on the merits of the claim that X exists.

[cbayer]

129. I think that's a very reasonable position to take.

It makes sense to you and I hope you continue to evaluate religious ideas as they are presented to you.

[eomer]

122. Depends on what you mean by "each person's take deserves protection".

If you mean protection from being disputed then, no, each person doesn't deserve that.

If you mean protection from being characterized as absurd then, no, not that either. My opinion that something is absurd is just as worthy of consideration as someone else's opinion that it's not.

[cbayer]

123. I'm a strong supporter of the 1st amendment.

I support both parts of it. What I mean is that everyone has the right to adopt and practice whatever religion (or non-religion) they choose and that that right should be protected.

You can mock and belittle all you want. That is your right. I think it's an ugly tack to take, but it's certainly yours if you want it.

[eomer]

141. And, again, it's not mocking or belittling. It is making a point that can't be made any other way.

This point - that belief in the modern God cannot be shown to be any more plausible than many absurdities - can't be made without referring to absurdities and comparing them to modern beliefs.

I learned in high school math class the concept that if some approach can be used to prove a falsity then there is something wrong in the approach. In this case the concept is adapted because we can't exactly call Zeus a falsity - who knows, maybe Zeus is chuckling at us right now and getting ready to strike us down with lightning - but we can call Zeus an absurdity-to-most-people.

Perhaps a student might have hurt feelings if the math teacher showed that their method of proof could be used to prove a falsity. That would be unfortunate but the student hopefully would see it was undeniable that their proof was flawed and try to figure out how to fix it.

[cbayer]

146. If it can't be made any other way, perhaps it's not a good argument to have.

I mean really. If I can't challenge your position without comparing it to something completely ridiculous, then maybe there is really no reason to challenge your position.

Who cares whether a belief in god is plausible? It's an individuals right to believe or not. I tend to think that it may not even be a choice but a fundamental part of who one is.

Why would you want to tell someone that who they are is absurd?

I don't think Zeus is "absurd". I think that the people of the time truly believed in him and had reasons for doing so.

Bottom line to me is this - being judgmental of others when they present no harm to you or others is wrong. You are no more right nor wrong than they are. If your only goal is to win the academic argument, then I guess you win.

If your goal is to improve understanding and acceptance of those who may be different, then I would say you fail.

[eomer]

154. Or maybe the opposite.

If the other proposition is indistinguishable from something ridiculous then maybe anyone holding that position should reconsider it and perhaps it's really important to point that out. That's how it seems to me and it's *my posts* that we're talking about.

That's what a debate can work through. If you or anyone else doesn't want to participate in a debate on the question then that's fine with everyone as far as I know. But it's also fine for those of us who want to to have a vigorous debate.

[cbayer]

157. But it's fully distinguishable for those that wish to see the distinctions.

Those holding a religious position don't need to reconsider it any more than an atheist needs to reconsider their position.

If they do wish to reconsider, that's entirely their right, but no one really want to be preached to about how their position on religion is not the right one.

I doubt that you have deconverted many people, but perhaps you have. The "debate" here has never resulted in anything close to that, imo.

Please don't get me wrong. You can talk about and debate anything you want. And so can I. I am only describing what I am and am not interested in and why.

[AtheistCrusader]

165. "It's an individuals right to believe or not."

And it's our right to question it, where conversation arises.


Most people do consider Zeus 'silly' and 'mythology'. There is more alike between that god and modern gods than most people realize at first blush. That's why the FSM is a useful philosophical tool.

"being judgmental of others when they present no harm to you or others is wrong."
There's an enormous amount of harm out there, but ignoring that fallacy, flipping the prospects of mainstream modern religions around into a hypothetical, role-reversal caricature isn't being judgmental at all. That's an abuse of the word Judgment.

"If your only goal is to win the academic argument, then I guess you win."
That's exactly what some of us are trying to do, because it encourages thought and reason.

"If your goal is to improve understanding and acceptance of those who may be different, then I would say you fail."
The FSM is ALSO a useful foil for helping believers understand how we can possibly be atheists in a world that, to them, is full of evidence they interpret as favorable to their own faith. When they can't actually assail the tenets of a CLEARLY fictional 'faith', it becomes clear, how we see the world, and the multitude of non-overlapping and mutually exclusive faiths that exist within it.

I have been much more successful with reaching understanding, than you might imagine, by those means.

[mike_c]

30. show me the data....

This argument is intellectually empty. Chiding atheism for laying claim to "legitimate" understanding of nature implies that relegation of religious faith to illegitimacy is capricious or otherwise arbitrary. In fact, it's not. Show me a supernatural being. Just one. That's all it will take to reclaim religious "legitimacy." Show me some data. All the faith on Earth has zero mass, but one actual deity standing in the room will settle the question forever. One real data point that with significant confidence can only exist by supernatural means will utterly resolve the issue.

Religious thinking is relegated to illegitimacy precisely because it cannot produce any such data. That's not arbitrary, and it's not "intellectual snobbery." It's a natural reaction to fantastical and inconsistent claims advanced for thousands of years but never substantiated. Show me some data.

[cbayer]

32. You are doing exactly what the author is talking about.

Religion is not about data, it is about faith.

You don't believe. That's cool and no one should tell you that you have to or should.

Others believe. That's cool, too, and no one should call their beliefs illegitimate, fantastical or demand they provide "proof".

They don't have any, probably never will.

But they have equal standing in this endless, circular debate. To deny them that is to claim a superior position which you do not, in fact, hold.

[rug]

34. Show me the parameter of an experiment to test the hypothesis of a god.

There is none.

Besides, that's not what the article is about. It's about this:

The problem with Watson’s argument is not that it lacks evidence—there’s a lot of history crammed into his book. Rather, it’s that Watson assembles anecdotes into a scatterplot that undeniably points toward the impossibility of God in the modern world, or so he claims. And this is where the intellectual snobbery comes in: Watson assumes that because a group of smart, respected, insightful people thought and felt their way out of believing in God, everyone else should, too. Because intellectual history trends toward non-belief, human history must, too.

This is problematic for several reasons. For one thing, it suggests that believers are inherently less thoughtful than non-believers. Watson tells stories of famous thinkers and artists who have struggled to reconcile themselves to a godless world. And these are helpful, in that they offer insight into how dynamic, creative people have tried to live. But that doesn't mean the average believer's search for meaning and understanding is any less rigorous or valuable—it just ends with a different conclusion: that God exists. Watson implies that full engagement with the project of being human in the modern world leads to atheism, and that's just not true.

[DonCoquixote]

33. what happens to anything once it gets popular

Be it Thai cuisine, LGBT culture, or San Francisco, it that wealthy people and those who think they are middle class get together and try to define what it is, often right over the dead bodies of those who started the trend. The ones that do not fit into things get thrown out, because people will be afraid that these smelly, strange people will be the ones that ruin their chance to become mainstream. Oddly enough, the conservative faction shows up, as if to say "I like everything the mainstream does, as long as they do NOT do it to me."

[Jim Lane]

37. If you don't like "conspicuous" then take God off the money.

I can't so much as buy a slice of pizza without handing out advertising for a belief system I reject.

And now one of the adherents of that belief is dumping on atheists for being too "conspicuous"? Give me a break.

[rug]

43. If you're offended, throw away anything that has "In God We Trust" on it.

I'll even come and pick it up.

[Jim Lane]

44. Thanks for the offer, but no need.

There are a couple buildings in my neighborhood that CONSPICUOUSLY display their religious messages. They'd probably be happy to stand in for you.

[rug]

48. Yeah but I'll use it for weed.

[okasha]

58. I just wish

they'd take the slave owners and war criminals off it.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. You might be mocking but... I have.

The digital ones and zeroes in my bank don't have that stamped on them, and neither does my Visa.

[Jim Lane]

85. That's why I specified a SLICE.

My pizza place has a $10 minimum for credit cards.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. Fair enough. I'd do business elsewhere.

But that's me.

Also, I need to not be eating pizza...

[AtheistCrusader]

73. You can if you use pre-1957 dollars. :D

[LeftishBrit]

39. People who have strong views tend to think they're right.

This can make them intellectually snobbish.

It is no more true of vocal atheists than of vocal religious types, however- or of vocal debaters about anything.

'Theirs is a subtle assertion: Believers aren’t educated or thoughtful enough to debunk God, and if they only knew more, rational evidence would surely offset faith.'

Some atheists no doubt think this, just as fans of certain types of music or health regimes also think that if others only knew more, they would agree with them. But religious debaters often also think that atheists, or members of other religions, are ignorant, and, if they only knew more, faith would surely offset atheism/other religion. That is, after all, the whole point of attempting to convert others. 'The heathen, in his blindness, bows down to wood and stone'; but would become a Christian if given the right information.

'The state of faith in the world is much grayer, much humbler, and much less divided than atheist academics and preaching politicians claim.'

Actually, I would agree with this; as, I think, would most Brits, and probably most Western Europaeans. Or rather, the state of faith is more internally divided, and less of a sharp distinction between 'believers' and 'atheists', than many would claim.

The real point, however, is that the politicians and pundits of the religious right are very dangerous, not because of what they believe, but because of what they do. They use religion in order to oppress others. I suspect that only a minority of them are seeking to oppress others because they think their religion tells them to; a majority are using religion to oppress others. If they didn't have religion as a tool, they would use some other tool; but religion, when cleverly used, is a fairly effective one. There are other effective tools, such as nationalism, personality cults of leaders, and especially nowadays, the Holy Free Market.

What someone considers to be the origin and nature of the universe is an interesting topic, but not something that will make me afraid or angry, so long as they don't use their beliefs as an excuse for starting a war, planting bombs on public transport, attempting to destroy the welfare state (yes I do mean YOU, Iain Duncan Smith!), discriminating against or, at the extreme, executing people for their sexual orientation, or denying rights to women. Or any other vicious right-wing activity!

[cbayer]

42. Really enjoyed reading this.

You make some excellent points here.

[Jim Lane]

45. Very good post. The difference in behavior, though, is related to the beliefs' origins.

If you're an atheist or agnostic, and someone disagrees with you, well, we disagree. People can become argumentative, even overly so, but, as you say, that can happen with any belief.

To some of the religious believers, however, those who disagree with them aren't merely wrong -- they're committing a sin. They're evil, and an omnipotent being has commanded His acolytes to go forth and smite evil. Another aspect is that anyone who dies unconverted will suffer eternal torment. Therefore, someone who criticizes The One True Religion isn't merely expressing an opinion; he or she is posing a grave danger to innocent victims who might be misled, with catastrophic results.

I'll admit that, as an agnostic, I'm biased. Nevertheless, I can't help but conclude that the kind of extreme behavior you criticize comes more naturally to religious believers than to atheists or agnostics.

[cbayer]

46. I think there are extremists at both ends.

It sometimes easier to identify those at the extreme pole furthers from where you sit.

There are certainly religionists who take the position you describe, but many more who are not.

And there are non-believers that peg believers as stupid, deluded, unable to think for themselves, etc.

I'm not sure which kind of damnation is worse actually.

[arely staircase]

49. I have often thought it interesting that both fundies and certain atheist share

the insistence that the Bible be interpreted literally.

The former to promote it and the latter to denigrate it.

[cbayer]

50. Literalism, while confined only to the extremes, is used as a weapon all the time.

There is even a poster here who insists that if one does not take it literally and accept every bit of it, they are not really christian and are a dishonest liar.

It's rather startling and disturbing, as literalism is not only a really bad idea but completely impossible.

[arely staircase]

51. I am sure there is

those are the folks that keep me away from DU "religion"

[cbayer]

52. It's possible to selectively engage here and it makes

a big difference.

I wish more people would do that, because there is so much depth in the DU population when it comes to religion.

And religion is such an important component of both national and international politics at this time.

However, I fully understand why people don't come to this group.

[arely staircase]

53. oh I engage here very selectively

I am maintaining all DU radio silence Monday through Saturday for Lent. I will try to engage more after Easter. I love your input here. I really do.

[cbayer]

55. Thanks. The feeling is mutual.

Understand your decision to stay away for lent.

I think I mentioned this before, but rug did this last year and many people became quite concerned about his disappearance. I honestly think he thought no one would notice, lol.

Would love to see you come around more, though. There are so many interesting topic to discuss.

Have a great week and see you next Sunday!

[unblock]

54. that's funny, especially considering the historical disrespect believers have had for "heathens"

oh, those poor ignorant natives, they just haven't heard the word or seen the light, they just need to read the good book.

but no, it's those minority atheists who are doing all the disrespecting of the majority establishment believers.

[cbayer]

56. Turn around is rarely a great idea though.

I don't think that the finger points only one way, though. It's possible and desirable for believers and non-believers to have mutual respect.

The world is full of religious intolerance. Some religionists hate other religionists. Some religionists hate atheists. Some atheists hate religionists.

It's a shame, really.

[Lordquinton]

59. I know we've talked about false equivalencies

and this is one of them. The vast majority of of religious intolerance is from other religions/ non theistic spiritual beliefs.

You're complaining about the atheist garden hose while standing in front of the dam overflow of theistic hate flowing all around you.

[cbayer]

61. Although there may be differences in degree, it's not a false equivalence.

Hate and intolerance are hate and intolerance. A leaky garden hose can end up flooding the basement if not taken care of.

As I said, turn around is rarely a good idea and should never be an excuse to replicate the behavior that you legitimately complain about.

I see nothing wrong with confronting this wherever it might appear.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Role reversal is an effective teaching tool.

It leads the target audience to question their assumptions.

That's why the Inteman Gap Theatre used it as a foil to examine homophobia, at my high school. They did a role reversal of the 'prom' being exclusionary of heterosexual couples.

Flipping it doesn't change anything on it's face, and may or may not show that something is logically invalid, necessarily, but it can induce the audience to start questioning and evaluating their assumptions.

[cbayer]

88. This is not about role reversal.

It's about "he hit me first and he hit me harder!!".

I fully agree that role reversal can be a very effective teaching tool, but it doesn't really work as a tool for revenge.

And it generally requires that the participants are willing to try and understand each other better and will work together towards achieving that.

That's not what the people described in this article are after at all. Nor is it what religionists who do the same thing are after.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. The Flying Sphagetti Monster is 100% pure strain role reversal and nothing more.

[Lordquinton]

160. A leaky garden hose may flood a basement

but a burst dam will wipe out a town. I see so many posts about mean old Atheists occasionally doing things that Theists (and non theistic spiritualists) have been doing for millenia, and this one really takes the cake. "conspicuous Atheism" literally means "Atheism where it can be seen" it is literally telling Atheists that they should not be seen as atheists, while ignoring the fact that even the smallest Theistic group goes door to door shoving their god in our faces, and we become the bad guys for telling them to please don't do that, it offends us.

I believe there is a quote in the Abrahamic collection that goes something like "Worry about the plank in your own eye before complaining about the speck in another's"

[cbayer]

161. I don't think being a conspicuous atheist is a bad thing at all.

I think seeing more and more obvious signs of atheism will lead to normalization and that is a very good thing, imo.

But, it a population wants to understand why a study showed them to be some of the least trusted people in the US, then it behooves them to look seriously at articles like this.. Atheists are not above criticism and, honestly, some of the criticism contained in this article is valid, imo.

At any rate, the title is unfortunate, does not really reflect the tone of the article and is likely to turn off a lot of people before they get to the actual article.

[Lordquinton]

167. I think it has more to do with religious privlage

and milenia of hate and oppression. It's good Atheists are now just "Least trusted" and not "Burned at the stake" but that title is absolutely one of the most offensive things I've seen here, and I've seen a lot.

Atheists are way underrepresented in prison, like, under 5% and still seen as "untrustworthy" care to explain that?

Theists are not above criticism, but they sure act like it. Maybe if theists didn't flood the airwaves with articles like this, and "How to be an atheist and not be a dick" and other similar pieces of drek that passes as journalism these days things would improve.

And please, stop promoting false equivalencies, it really lowers the discussion around here.

[cbayer]

172. I agree that the title is offensive and think she really lost

her intended audience by using it.

The whole prison thing is really much more complicated and one can not draw the conclusion that atheists commit less crimes proportionately than theists. Demographics for atheists put them in several categories that is also "underrepresented" and unless one takes those variable into account, that piece of data is meaningless.

The study that looked at trust is also interesting. It was not an overt question, but one in which people were asked about specific scenarios. The results, I think, have to do with the data seen in the survey recently posted here about having ethics without god.

At any rate, hostility towards theists doesn't really solve that problem. This article is one of many posted here, many of which applaud atheists and atheists groups. It is also aimed at a very specific, and very real, sub-group. This particular article is much better than the title.

And please, don't tell me what I can and can not express here. It really lowers the discussion.

[Lordquinton]

184. Ok, continue to post false equalvancies

and we'll continue to call them out.

Yes, you enjoy pointing out a "very specific, and very real, sub-group." and ignore their opposite number in the Theistic crowd which comprises almost 50% of theists in America (technically a minority, I suppose). I read more of the article, and wasn't impressed, more of the same "If only Atheists were nicer" that is constantly posted here. There are a few nice posts about Atheists, but most are not.

The prison thing is more complex than just "vastly underrepresented" (like, less than .5%) that is true, but that really doesn't change the fact that it's true.

And finally, the tone police argument, once again, if only Atheists were nicer...

[cbayer]

186. Who is "we" that is going to continue to call me out?

You can label what I say anything you want. Frankly, I think doing so is a way to avoid actually dealing directly with the issue at hand.

If I want to talk about a sub-group of atheists, why must I also make a point of noting that there is also a sub-group of theists? I criticize and take to task that sub-group frequently. Must I do it every single time I criticize another group.

I don't read this as saying "If only atheists were nicer….", but if that's your take away and you reject it, that's fine.

Most atheists I've me are really nice, but having a big huge chip on your shoulder tends to make one quite unpleasant after a while.

[Lordquinton]

192. Reading comprehension will tell you who "we" is

Yes, false equivalencies are a way of avoiding the issues at hand. The sub group of atheists are a very small minority, and made up of mostly straw men. The "sub-group" of theists compromise almost half the country. That's the problem that you keep ignoring, you know, the whole leaky garden hose VS the broken dam, to you the hose seems far more important to point out over and over again, and you look away when one of your friends is turning the spigot.

I didn't read this thread as "If only atheists were nicer" I read it as much worse, and no theists seem to care.

[cbayer]

193. Reading comprehension will tell me who the "we" is?

So it don't know what "we" you represent and the problem is with my reading comprehension? Ok, then.

Pegging people's POV's with a dismissive label from a logical fallacy list is also a way of avoiding the issue at hand. Things can be similar but not equivalent. And one can address both groups.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. I can co-exist with believers.

I have a great deal of respect for Ken Miller. His faith as a Roman Catholic does not inform his vote, his work as a biologist, or his teaching.

That's the kind of religionist I can get along with. If he wants, I'll even discuss his faith with him. But only outside the realm of those three areas I described.

[cbayer]

80. What three areas are you speaking of?

Why would he want to discuss his faith with you? You are on a crusade to free people from their beliefs.

I don't care who is doing that kind of thing. I don't like proselytizing.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Well, that rules out the entire advertising industry then, right?

Well, on that point we probably agree.

The three areas I just specified; Vote, Science, Teaching.

I'm with the Supreme Court, law must neither advance nor inhibit religion, nor unnecessarily entangle religion. So keeping faith out of a vote is a great thing, I think, and I encourage others to do so. (Call that proselytizing if you will)

On Science, investigation leads him wherever the evidence leads, without regard to his religious preconceptions. Fantastic. I encourage this as well, even if you call it proselytizing.

Teaching? Well, given that public schools are an extension of the government, I will not tolerate any institutionalized religion in schools, outside of a comparative religion class. And I don't care what you call that.

'Freeing' people from religious belief is just one way to go about it. I don't see any need to 'free' Miller, because he's already free, insofar as I can see by his actions and expression of work, vote, teach, etc. Where it matters, he is no threat to me. So, in return, I am not only no threat to him, I extend my hand in friendship.

[cbayer]

87. So, what you are really talking about is freeing people of their political beliefs.

Some of those beliefs may be religiously derived, but, if I understand you correctly, that's ok as long as it doesn't effect their political positions.

Well, I think we fully agree with that and I think it's a fight worth having with people who hold political beliefs that I disagree with.

So as long as you are not talking generally about "freeing" people from their religious beliefs, we are probably on the same page.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. I have repeatedly expressed

that the moment people stop legislating, etc, based on their religious beliefs, is the moment people stop hearing that I am an atheist.

I think religious belief should be pretty much private, or expressions thereof should be entered into upon mutual agreement, and under no other conditions.

People need never hear from me again if only they can keep their religion separate from the sorts of realms I just described.

[cbayer]

94. Why would you want to stop telling people you are an atheist?

I think it's a very good thing to do. When atheism is "normalized", everyone will benefit.

But that won't happen by attacking religionists. No one has achieved civil liberties by saying that their status is somehow superior to those of the "in" group. They have achieved it by fighting for equality.

If you think religious belief should be private, why have you chosen such a provocative user name on a board where people are not using their religion to legislate or restrict the rights of others? Where is the mutual agreement in that?

You have a lot to say and you are both articulate and passionate. Who here wants you to shut up? Not I. I just want you to consider a more tolerant and less antagonistic approach to religionists who share your values.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Because it's really no one's business.

I've been drawn into this because I have a strong self-interest in self defense. I'm 'out' to normalize it for precisely the reason you specified. But it doesn't need to be a topic of conversation at all.

"But that won't happen by attacking religionists. No one has achieved civil liberties by saying that their status is somehow superior to those of the "in" group."

I'm not attacking THEM, I'm attacking what they DO. Distinction is important.


"If you think religious belief should be private, why have you chosen such a provocative user name on a board where people are not using their religion to legislate or restrict the rights of others?"

It's a political issue. And yes, there are people here who hold differing views. Regardless, my username isn't restricted to view only by members of this board. It is indexed by google, and this is a public forum. The views you and I express here go beyond this venue.

I have been politically shit upon for decades. That's why I chose my username. I own my identity and, for the purposes of today, it is part of my public persona, because it needs to be. I'll be happy to re-name or retire this account someday if possible.

"You have a lot to say and you are both articulate and passionate. Who here wants you to shut up? Not I. I just want you to consider a more tolerant and less antagonistic approach to religionists who share your values."

The things I and others say, here, about religion or it's intersection with the public arena (politics) is not necessarily targeted at a person here on this site. I'm not sure you see that...

[cbayer]

96. We've all been politically shit upon by the religious right.

While there have been some discriminatory practices when it comes to atheists, the greatest harms done by the religious right has been done to both believers and non-believers.

And apparently, the head of the biggest atheist organization in the US is pursuing a conservative agenda. So by no means are the harms inflicted solely the responsibility of religious people.

I don't see that some of the things said are not targeted at people here on the site because they often are targeted that way and because some people make no distinctions when they shoot their arrows.

And, as you say, distinction is important.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Agreed!

That's why you'll find me politically active in non-religion related forums on this site.

You questioning my point in posting HERE on this would similarly call into question umpteen usernames across multiple political disciplines in other folders on this site. It makes no sense.

"So by no means are the harms inflicted solely the responsibility of religious people."

That he IS a conservative is uninteresting. Is he trying to legislate upon it? Enshrine atheism in public laws? When he advocates for the equivalent of stamping 'in god we trust' on our money, from an atheistic viewpoint, your point will be something other than handwaving/distraction pretending some moral equivalence that does not exist in the wild.


"I don't see that some of the things said are not targeted at people here on the site because they often are targeted that way and because some people make no distinctions when they shoot their arrows. "

Depends. When someone steps up and defends the bible, when someone points out there is institutionalized bigotry in the bible/torah/quran, then perhaps the arrows are on-target after all.

[cbayer]

98. One correction.

No one here, to my knowledge, has denied that there is bigotry contained in the major religious texts.

The statement was made that one had to be a bigot to ascribe to any of those religions. That's bullshit and that is what should be targeted.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. That statement was made, yes, but it was a fork.

Much of the rest of the conversation went down a different path.

I would have rephrased the claim:

One has to ignore bigotry or work to rewrite it, to ascribe to any of those religions. Because it is intrinsic to the source material. A distinction made repeatedly.

[cbayer]

102. No, one only has to recognize that the bible is full of contradictions

and culturally relevant information and must be read critically, thoughtfully and discerningly.

Love, charity, social justice, and many other good things are also contained there and is also intrinsic to the source material. To see only the negative also represents the inability to make a distinction.

[AtheistCrusader]

104. Why?

"must be read critically, thoughtfully and discerningly"

Why? What for? Must? To hell with that. It states its position quite clearly, in simple terms.

[cbayer]

105. Er, because parts of it are wrong?

It has contradictory positions. Are you a literalist? Do you demand that one must accept everything in those books if one accepts anything?

That's so rigid.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Prove parts of it are wrong.

If you prove enough parts of it wrong, what point is there in believing any of it?

At what point do we just turn our backs on a delusion?

[cbayer]

109. So you are an all or none biblicist.

Well, guess what? Not everyone is. Many are able to take what they value from the bible and set other parts aside.

There are platforms within the democratic party that I disagree with. Must I reject the whole party then?

I have been a member of many organizations and even in leadership positions even though I disagreed adamantly with some of the things they stood for or said. So what?

Delusion again? Really?

At what point do we just turn our backs on the delusion that believers have to believe everything in the bible if they are to believe any of it?

[AtheistCrusader]

110. Then do what Jefferson did.

Re-write it to reflect your beliefs. Don't tell me you're a Christian, point at your new testament, which is built upon the old testament, and leave me to guess which parts you personally believe in.

Yes, 'delusion again'. Please try and keep in mind the context/meaning which I use that phrase in, this time.

"At what point do we just turn our backs on the delusion that believers have to believe everything in the bible if they are to believe any of it?"

When they stop calling themselves things they don't actually mean, would be a start.

How many of these mythical unicorn-people are there, that believe in the NT, and the divinity of jesus, totally divorced from the material of the OT upon which it is sourced? I've been inside countless churches of countless denominations. Not ONE have I not been able to walk into, pick up a bible off the table, and go straight to pages filled with the worst kind of filth known to man. Not ONE.

Edit: I know you're not a Christian, that was rhetorical

[cbayer]

111. That's exactly what people do all the time. They edit the book so they can use it.

Sometimes people pick out the ugly and sometimes they pick out the beautiful.

If you honestly want to know what parts someone personally believes in, it would behoove you to ask them.

Calling oneself a christian does not mean one believes everything in the bible. That appears to be your definition, but you don't get to define what that means to each individual who uses it.

They mean it, you just reject their own personal definition. Why would you think you have more of a right to say what it means than they do?

Mythical unicorn people? What does that mean?

If you see only filth then you are doing much more cherry picking than your average christian, because it's a complex and contradictory book that really runs the gamut. And there are some truly wonderful parts about love, peace, what it means to be human, taking care of the poor and what is or should be important in life.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. Where are all these christians that edit the bible?

I always see the bible in it's entire complete form, with some slight variation on the number of books in the OT between the major sects. ALL of them that I have examined have the whole book there on the pew including the murder, the genocide, the bigotry, all of it.

I don't just see filth in the bible, but an enormous amount of it is horrific filth. You bet. In fact, I don't hold the core premise of Christianity in high regard either; Sharing in the profit from the torture and murder of the only 'perfect' person ever to have lived, let alone share in the proceeds of ANYONE's murder.

Yes there are some nice bits, but again, I reference you to the horrific, bloody, frightening foundation upon which it rests.

Do the 'good' parts stand on their own or not? If they do, why isn't there a version of the bible in wide circulation among Christians that Only contains that material?

[cbayer]

114. They don't edit it for you, they edit it for themselves.

Jefferson edited for himself. The only reason you know about it is because he was, well, Jefferson.

Have you never seen a bible that is full of yellow stickies, underlinings and bookmarks? You aren't going to see this in a pew. You are going to see it in a home or in an individual's possession.

Your assumption that all bibles are read the same way is just wrong. Your wish for their to be a revision that will be widely adopted not reasonable.

That's the whole point.

It's ok that you find little or nothing of value in there. I feel assured there are books that you love and I find profound that I can find nothing useful in at all.

You are perfectly within your rights to reject it in it's entirety, but completely out of bounds in ever insisting that others ought to do the same or that a version be developed that only contain the parts you like.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. That wasn't what I asked.

Why don't the religious sects, being hierarchical organizations, edit and issue the bibles without the filth?

Without the bigotry.
Without the genocide.


It seems you've been missing my premise all along.

[cbayer]

117. There is no need.

They focus on the parts that they want to promote and ignore the parts that they don't.

Yes, I've missed your premise all along. Any sign that we are seeing this differently must certainly be due to my inability to comprehend what you are saying.

[AtheistCrusader]

118. I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.

How the hell is anyone supposed to naturally come to a mindset that excludes the bigotry, genocide, etc?

I gave you the Jefferson example not because he was famous, but because he ACTUALLY DID IT. He edited all sorts of shit out and then published it. I'm not talking about his personal annotated copy. A publication he created.


Given your subjective interpretation of how the bible works as a source material that is edited on the fly in the mind of the reader, it makes one wonder what the functional difference between the various sects of Christianity is, and whether ANY hierarchy is necessary at all.

[cbayer]

120. Where do you get off insisting that christians edit their bible for you?

Edit it for yourself. If you want to know how others have personally edited theirs, ask them.

If you can't read a book that has objectionable parts without rejecting those parts, that's your problem. Others can do that.

You really are a crusader. Despite saying that you think religion should be a private thing, you reject the notion that each individual experiences and uses religion in a unique way and are insisting that they somehow conform to your ideas about what they should do.

You really have no idea how closely you emulate the tactics and approach of fundamentalists. Perhaps it was ingrained into you in a way you can't escape, but your ideas about what the religious should do are pretty alarming.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. If one wants to pretend that it isn't founded on bigotry and genocide, when one has the power to do

so, one might want to go ahead and remove the bigotry and genocide, if one desires to not associate with that material.

This is not difficult.


I don't have the right to demand they do so. But they don't have the right to puff up, hurf, blurf, and get all offended when I point out it is part of the current textual foundation of their faith. It's right there for anyone to see.

Well, they have the right to do so, if they want, but they don't have the right to be taken seriously.

[cbayer]

131. You are right. It is not that difficult.

You are defining a foundation that is not true for others. You don't get to do that.

The religion I was raised in was founded on exactly the opposite of bigotry and genocide. You can't decide what the foundational beliefs are for others.

Your definition of what constitutes the foundation of faith is not only wrong, it is something that you really have no right to take any position on . You are not a believer. You have no concept of a god. How in the world do you think it's within your right to define the foundations of faith for anyone ever?

You don't have to take anyone seriously at all. I don't think it makes a whit of difference to them.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. It's in their book.

The one in their hand. On the shelf. Lining their pews.

It is intrinsic to the half of the bible that supposedly prophesizes and establishes the other half as true. That's what I mean when I say foundation. Even if they don't accept it, it's built in there.


If they didn't source their faith to the bible, then yeah, fine. But they do. It's in there. I've read it. They could remove it. They don't. Almost universally they don't.

[cbayer]

135. So what??

It's an ancient text. It's not going to be edited, but it is going to be interpreted and used in different ways.

What the hell is this insistence that it be only one thing? Why are you so hung up on a book that you don't even believe any of?

Who is "they"? I swear to god, you seem to think of religious people as one huge homogenous block. I guess if you really had to look at that more critically it would be hard to maintain the rather dogmatic ideas you have about religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

136. Because I am constantly beset by christians that want me to read what 'they believe'.

That think I'll find salvation in that book.

I could ask 10 different people right now, here at my work, and get 10 copies of that book provided to me, free, tomorrow, with exhortations to read it.

It will come with no caveats about the horrendous shit in it.

[cbayer]

138. I'm curious. Where are you constantly beset by these people.

You live in a neighborhood that had nationally reported protests when a gay principal was fired. It's in one of the most progressive parts of the country. You have your kid in a school without religious affiliation.

What? Do you work in a fundamentalist church or something? 10/10 people who you asked would give you a bible and tell you that you will find salvation in it? Really?

I think you might exaggerate a bit in order to make your point. That's hyperbole and it really weakens the argument.

[AtheistCrusader]

140. I work at a company that has nothing to do with religion.

But if you want, I can perform this test, and take a picture of the stack of bibles, if you doubt me.

When I drive home, I pass by no less than 8 mega-churches. Forget trying to eat out on sunday morning, around here. Just sayin'.


I pay the property taxes for their churches, and I let them know I don't appreciate it. They come to my door allt he time, ignoring the 'no soliciting' sign, because they 'aren't selling anything' (guffaw).

Fucking beset by it.

A lot of it is casual, but it's ever-present.


(To be clear, I didn't mean I could ask 10 random people, I meant I know 10 people sitting near me that I could ask, of which we have all had hearty discussions and debates 'round the watercooler you might say.)

[cbayer]

143. Well, if you are engaging with them, I guess you are going to hear it.

You can't buy hard liquor or go out to eat on sunday mornings!?!?! I will pray for you, lol.

[AtheistCrusader]

145. Laugh it up.

These sorts of 'little things' are an effective anvil against which I can hammer.

Humanity is better than this. The universe is much bigger, grander, and more interesting than anything in that dusty old book.

[AtheistCrusader]

126. I mean, do you have any idea how many people have offered me a bible in my life?

If I had accepted them all, and kept them, I could burn them in the winter as an alternative fuel source.

Every single one of them wanted me to read the word of god.

NOT ONE OF THEM told me, 'god doesn't actually think homosexuality is a sin'. 'God sees men and women as equals'. 'God had a good reason or murdering all those little babies that doesn't apply today'. Etc.

Not a one.

Pretty shitty spiritual guides, don't you think?

[cbayer]

132. So what? Take the bible and use it as fuel or don't take it.

They are proselytizers. It's really annoying when someone thinks they have the answer and wants so save you and set you free, isn't it?

Maybe you should ask them directly about their views on homosexuality, women's equality, etc. instead of assuming that they believe everything written in that bible.

You are really hung up on the bible. In fact, you are more hung up on it than pretty much any christian I know.

[AtheistCrusader]

134. I HAVE.

As I said many posts ago, the best I could get out of any of them is 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. This venue is the only place I've ever met people who explicitly reject the classification of homosexuality as a sin, in the Christian faith. First time.

I have met THOUSANDS of them, all classified it, at best, as a sin they don't have the power to judge.



I haven't formed these opinions in a vacuum you know.

[cbayer]

137. No need to yell. It's just a book.

You've apparently been exposed to only one kind of christian, and that appears to be the proselytizing fundamentalist type.

Pretty annoying, isn't it.

You might want to check out some of the more liberal/progressive religious groups in Seattle. The place is teeming with them. I would start with a UU congregation. You may not have been in a vacuum, but you clearly have avoided or just missed the experience to talk to people of faith with a completely different perspective.

And what about all those catholics that protested against the firing of the school principle. That was right there in your neighborhood, right? But you say you have talked to thousands of fundamentalists? Really?

The survey statistics on this would completely devastate what you describe as your personal experience. I don't know what is going on with your sample, but it really deviates from what all the surveys show.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. I have talked to UU members.

These are not fundamentalists I am talking about.

The consistent meme is; I don't have the power/authority to judge. That's it.
Outside this venue I have yet to meet a Christian of any sect that will stand up and say, clearly, 'Homosexuality is not a sin'. Not the act, not the status, not the attraction, none of it.

I talk to catholics all the time in this area. Yes. They view it as a sin, but not something they should get involved in or judge.


Bring on the survey statistics. Ones that show Christians that utterly reject the notion that homosexuality is a sin. In 2010, the number was 44% believed it a sin. Atheists don't really register on that question, so that 44% of americans that believe so, is mostly out of the ~70% of americans that are Christian.

The number dropped 7 points last year. Which is great.

A drop that didn't come about by NOT challenging them on their beliefs, I can assure you.

[cbayer]

142. OH, you are just talking about fundamentalists then?

Well, it's important to make that distinction because your posts read as much more general than that.

So, what do you expect from fundamentalists?

Now, reading further, it's seems you are talking about "christians of any sect". Christians on this site strongly support GLBT civil rights and equality and I've never seen a one that has said homosexuality is a sin.

There are catholics on this site who strongly support LGBT rights and organizations within the church itself who are fighting for this.

I am at a loss to understand how your sample has been so narrow.

Please provide me with the link for the 44% of all christians saying homosexuality is a sin. If you are going to post actual data, you really need to link it.

I think we may be done here. You are so deeply enmeshed in your own beliefs that I don't think you are anywhere near ready to really incorporate new information.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. Too hard to google.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/americans-homosexuality-sin-lifeway-research-poll-_n_2456326.html

That's where I got the 44% number in 2012.
The drop is precipitous and encouraging. But it's there.


I said they are NOT fundamentalists.

I'm encouraged that the number of people who consider homosexuality is a sin is on the move, in the right direction. Cool beans. The starting point, and the overlap with religion was, however, not a coincidence.


I'm fully open to data, but you're not going to convince me that black is white and white is black. It's in their fucking book. Plain as day. It's a core issue that is cited as the reason for millennials LEAVING organized religion entirely, in droves. Remember 2 days ago? The 1:5 adults, 1:3 millenials number? Do I need to cite the source for that again too?

I find the issue is tactically advantageous to get religious people to re-consider faith, because their faith, the things they hold personally true, does not jive with the doctrinal faith their churches hold true. (See the catholic principle issue again, locally here in Sammamish.)

Again, just getting them to drop the lobbying and such, is sufficient for me. Then we can co-exist without friction.

[cbayer]

147. Hah. Lifeway. No agenda there.

I don't believe their statistics. It was an on-line survey and includes a very questionable statistical analysis.

But am glad to see that even they saw a dramatic change positive change over a short period of time.

[AtheistCrusader]

159. In a small way, I lament the loss of a wedge issue, BUT

totally worth it to improve social acceptance for a mistreated minority.

[cbayer]

162. You lament that loss of a wedge issue?

Why would that be?

[AtheistCrusader]

163. It means deeper engagement/discussion to find the things that

a person's values don't match up with their organized, proselytizing, lobbying Religion(TM).

In my experience most people of faith aren't homophobes, even though an inordinate number of them go to a church (I mostly know catholics) that holds homosexuality as a sin.

This issue is a great litmus test, and a wedge, in most cases, to get them considering if they are really in the right place, as far as churches go. There are other faith-based, even Christian organizations that won't force that sort of moral quandary by a member that doesn't agree that it is a sin.

This is a top-level, easily accessed issue to discuss. It's going away. Soon it won't be a widespread issue, if trends hold. That means I have to work a little harder. That's ok. Worth it.

[cbayer]

164. Lol!! YOu mean they are taking away one of your clubs?

Oh dear.

Why don't we see the glass as half full and look at it as a positive step?

But no, you see it as making you work harder to find issues to go after them on.

You, my friend, are just short of unbelievable.

[AtheistCrusader]

166. Please.

We live in a country where my lack of faith is a disqualification for holding public office in multiple states.

In a country where atheists are less trusted than rapists, as a group.
(http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1)


Clutch your pearls at someone else. My skin is too thick to notice.

[AlbertCat]

57. Atheism is intellectually fashionable.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's funny.

Only to those who think they are put upon.

[djean111]

127. Religion isn't conspicuous?

Good grief! Religion complains loudly when it is not allowed to be conspicuous.

[AtheistCrusader]

128. Thread winner right here.

[cbayer]

148. Where in the article or anywhere in this thread does it say that religion isn't conspicuous?

[djean111]

151. The implication is that atheism is conspicuous and that is not a good thing.

Apologies if the implication is that atheism is just as conspicuous as religion. Maybe just a misleading title.
In the nicest possible way, as an atheist, I wish both sides, or all sides, would just be a lot more quiet. Belief, or non-belief, is a personal thing to me. True belief cannot be expounded away, and non-belief cannot be changed by lecturing. NO one knows anything for sure.

[cbayer]

153. Actually, I think atheism needs to become even more conspicuous.

I agree that the headline is misleading and unnecessarily offensive, though.

It's unfortunate, because the article itself is worth the read.

I wish those on all sides would be more accepting and affirming of each other. I fully agree with you that NO one knows anything, and that's why I think everyone is entitled to a wide berth when it comes to religious beliefs or non-beliefs.

[uriel1972]

168. Atheism sucks, believe me...

As an atheist I don't have the luxury of Intellectual Snobbery. I live a dark life, with the raw horror that is existence.. the raw horror that is knowing, as far as I can tell, that I am a small fallible organism in a vast, uncaring universe. No, not uncaring, it is lacking in any apparatus that is able to care or not.

I will die and there will be no afterlife, just as there was no pre-life existence, no soul, no world-mind, no God or Goddess. Just non-existence.
I am a brief pattern of matter and energy, born, here and gone in less than a flash of deep time.

Snob, no. Arrogant, no. Pissed off, yes.

[rug]

170. Geez, that's a grim take on things.

[uriel1972]

173. Yeah...

I believe religion exists mainly to shield people from that realisation. YMMV.

[rug]

174. It may.

Ether way I always take comfort in Marcus Aurelius.

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

[JNelson6563]

169. Emoting.

Disappointing but not surprising.

Julie

[Vashta Nerada]

171. That article reads like it was written by a third grader.

[cbayer]

175. Really? You must know some extraordinary 3rd graders.

I've never met one with this vocabulary, historical knowledge and ability to synthesize material from multiple sources.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you have never met a third grader who is an associate editor at a place like The Atlantic.

Or is that just a silly dismissal based on your disagreement with the article? Do you have any substantive opinion on the article itself?

[Vashta Nerada]

180. What?

That religious people are butthurt because science provides answers while the buybull provides nothing but questions and contradictions?

[cbayer]

181. Religious peopel (sic) are butthurt because science provides answers

while the buybull provides nothing but questions and contradictions?

I don't think that's true and have to wonder on what basis you formed that particular conclusion. What about religious scientists? They must really be in a quagmire.

BTW, words like "butthurt" and "buybull" are pretty much what I would expect to find coming from a 3rd grader. Perhaps your initial statement was a compliment!

[Vashta Nerada]

182. Yes.

Can I hear the story again how a magic man in the sky created the world in six days? Ooooooh, how about the one where a guy took an ark less than the size of a football field and fit every animal in it before god flooded the earth and killed everyone on it? Oh, how about the one where Adam and Eve had two sons and somehow the world became populated after that? Oh, how about the one about the all-forgiving god who condemns people to hell?

Now, what sounds like third grade intellect?

[cbayer]

183. Sure, you can hear those stories anytime you want.

But none of them are in this article, so I guess you would have to look elsewhere.

They even have children's versions with pictures and everything.

Enjoy!

[AtheistCrusader]

185. Flesch-Kincaid reading level of 12.9, surprisingly.

I didn't feel it warranted it, but the algorithm is actually pretty solid.

Somehow the author managed to make it precisely 2000 words in length as well. vOv


Edit: Probably the high number of passive sentences that makes it so shitty.

[mr blur]

176. Nothing new to see here. Just rug rallying the bigots again.

Not worth alerting on. A DU jury will always try to avoid upsetting believers.

[rug]

177. I see you're here.

[cbayer]

179. What do you see as bigoted about this article or the replies?

I would put good money on there being absolutely no jury bias towards believers or against atheists. None.

That's a fairy tale perpetuated by the terminally "oppressed".

Unless you have any evidence at all to support that claim, you might reconsider throwing that particularly rotten tomato

No jury would remove this because it it no way whatsoever violates any of the terms of this site.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

187. Why all the articles basically saying "Atheists and agnostics, keep your mouths shut!"?

Looks like bias to me. If an atheist expresses an opinion, then they are being "pushy" or "vocal".

Rational evidence (facts based on science) and faith are two different things, and I think this author is conflating them to be confusing & make atheists look bad.

You want to have faith in something, fine. But know that it is belief, not a fact verifiable by science.

I don't believe the sun comes up every morning.

I KNOW the sun comes up every morning (apparent motion because the earth is turning) and it's a FACT. Same with the moonrise and the phases. The motions of the sun, moon and planets can be calculated and predicted, and have been for thousands of years.

Astronomy was the first science because the farmers had to know the seasons and when to plant crops. Omar Khayyam of Naishapur, Persia, (now Iran) who lived around 1000 CE, invented the calendar that the Muslim world uses today, and it's more accurate than the Gregorian calendar we use. He was a mathematician, astronomer, and poet (The Rubaiyat-verses of four lines) and not terribly religious. He was nagged into making the pilgrimage to Mecca by his peers who thought he was not sufficiently religious.

And there are scientists who are also religious. Whatever.

[rug]

188. Do you have a link to one that says that?

[cbayer]

189. That's really not what it says at all, not even close.

While the title is provocative, the article itself is not. If people want to be heard, it doesn't hurt to take into consideration how they are expressing themselves.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

190. But then why do they say atheists are pushy if they are expressing an opinion?

So a good atheist is one who says nothing, and that people who rely on scientific facts which are testable, are "snobs"???

[cbayer]

191. It doesn't say that at all.

It talks about a certain attitude among a certain subgroup.

At no point does the article generalize to "atheists" nor does the author call all atheists or scientific believers snobs.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

194. It's thinly veiled anti-intellectualism.

Calling the use of facts in atheists' lives "intellectual snobbery" is awfully close to saying "You think you're better than I am because you went to college."