Atheism's own fundamentalists lead 'religion' of 'Not'

[Buzz Clik]

Damn. Just damn. Somebody has been reading my stuff and not giving me credit:

Atheism's own fundamentalists lead 'religion' of 'Not'

That's not exactly the way Rice University humanities professor Anthony Pinn, posting for Religion Dispatches, describes the monotone of mockery at the Atheist Alliance International convention, but it gets you to Pinn's key points pretty quickly.

The convention, starring the atheist band's Mick Jagger, Richard Dawkins, promoting his book on evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth, and some backup singers like TV host Bill Maher, was held in Burbank, Calif., earlier this month.

Pinn found the main idea at the event, is that religion is

... the single most dangerous human creation.

The welfare of humanity, it was argued, depends on the dismantling of religion and all of its delusions. The possibility of collaboration, of compromise, of any shared ethical commitments between theists and non-theists, was not on the table.

Pinn, who calls himself a humanist, zeroes in on the common trait that atheists share with fundamentalists of any religion -- "their inability for critical self-reflection and critique."


They have formed, in effect, the religion of "not," defined by what they refuse and rebuke.

Consider Christopher Hitchens, the Keith Richards of the band (OK, enough Stones), who is on the road right now promoting his new documentary, Collision, in which he debates Rev. Douglas Wilson. Hitchens, who has no new intellectual songs to sing here but he does have nice manners, sort of. He writes in Slate

I have discovered that the so-called Christian right is much less monolithic, and very much more polite and hospitable, than I would once have thought, or than most liberals believe.

Pinn, however, is more focused on substance. He proposes atheists and humanists construct

... (A) system of ethics meant to enhance quality of life, both through scientific advancement and rigorous struggle against irrational modes of destruction such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. What is necessary is the application of practices that speak clearly to atheism's concern for life within the context of a fragile environment.

After all, Pinn observes, while religious rituals doctrines shift with time and culture, religion is never going away. It offers it's own set of answers for core questions:

... Theism, at its core, is about the making of meaning and the establishment of stories and practices related to how and why we occupy time and space.

Pinn would like to see atheists, humanists and believers, retaining their distinctions, focus on shared ethical commitments. What are the chances?

USA Today

Well said!

[PassingFair]

1. It's TURTLES....all the way down.

Mods: Please move to R/T!

[iris27]

99. +1

:thumbsup:

[immoderate]

2. Straw man.

Atheists can do other things while they are participating in their one common activity -- that of not worshiping a deity.

Many atheists are active in civil rights, human rights, reproductive rights. Many of these problems are exacerbated by theists. You think that's a coincidence?

--imm

[sakabatou]

3. I agree: it's a straw man

[Buzz Clik]

27. Finding common ground is one thing. Proselytizing and recruiting is quite another matter.

Denying that Dawkins and others of similar mind have not made a religion out of atheism is a simple matter of denying the very obvious.

[MineralMan]

63. Yeah. I sure wish the Christians would cut that shit out.

It's really annoying.

[darkstar3]

72. +1

[Deep13]

88. +1

[MineralMan]

4. Seems to me that fighting the fundamentalist religionists is

a worthwhile expenditure of time. They seem dedicated to removing human rights from the equation. That's worth a fight.

[Buzz Clik]

28. xx

this space intentionally left blank. You, my friend epitomize my disdain for a lot of atheists around here.

[MineralMan]

37. Name for me, please, three fundamentalist Christian leaders

who support equal right for GLBT folks, the right of women to choose their reproductive actions, and equal treatment with themselves for believers in pagan religions.

If you can do that, I will gladly retract my general disgust with fundamentalist Christians.

[Buzz Clik]

42. dumbest post ever.

The pastor of my ex-wife's church. My father, and my step father.

What a ridiculous demand.

I'll await your retraction -- it will come when hell freezes over. Oh, that's right: you don't believe.

[MineralMan]

45. How are the three you mentioned 'leaders?'

Would I know them if you named them? I know Hitchens. I know Dawkins. Would I know your ex-wife's pastor? Your father and step-father?

I don't even know if they are fundamentalists. Are they Bible literalists?

[Buzz Clik]

46. That's what made your demand so incredibly stupid.

I'm done with you. Take your hate elsewhere.

[MineralMan]

49. I will not go elsewhere. I will stay right here in this public

thread. I called for fundamentalist Christian leaders who supported humanism. That's not hate. That's a simple request. If you can point some of those out to me, I will stop thinking that all fundamentalist Christians are anti-humanism.

Such persons must be recognizable as fundamentalists, by the standard definition of fundamental Christianity. They must be leaders, meaning they attempt to speak for fundamental Christianity.

It is a challenge for you. Can you name them?

Do not take discussion and questioning of your position for hatred. That is a logical error.

[rd_kent]

56. This is a valid argument. Why are you running away?

The LEADERS of christianity DO NOT support the issues mentioned above. You were asked to provide a list of christian LEADERS that did and you listed personal acquaintances. How is asking for anyone in a leadership position of the christian faith stupid and hate filled?

[MineralMan]

59. It's OK. I think the poster has confused me with someone

else or something. When I ask, he/she calls it a demand, even if I use the word "please." I'll keep asking, though.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

64. Because he got his ass handed to him?

:shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

66. I'm not running away -- just not one of his fans. Anyway...

There are plenty of Christian leaders who support gay rights, abortion, etc. They are not revered by the insane right and don't make any headlines.

If you're calling for names of Christian leaders with their own coast-to-coast religious television shows who support all the progressive concepts, then I doubt that I can give you them. (It would be a trivial task to find the names of three such Christian leaders who have had homosexual affairs, have paid for abortions, etc., but they would never openly support them. That's a different problem.)

However, considering recent developments in various denominations, I will be able to find national religious leaders who support gay marriage etc, they just are not famous.

[MineralMan]

76. I qualified my request with the word 'fundamentalist'

You brought up fundamentalism, not I. The request is for a list of fundamentalist Christian leaders who support the humanistic ideals I mentioned. You may not change the terms without failing to answer the question.

[anonymous171]

5. Radical atheism is just as reactionary as fundamentalist christianity

Once a majority of christian organizations and institutions begin to accept gays and stop being so socially backwards, atheism will go back to its previous minority status.

[BurtWorm]

11. Atheism has never left minority status.

Maybe you mean it will go back to being ignored or demonized?

[stopbush]

91. That's true in the USA, but most Europeans now self-identify as non-believers.

In Sweden, it's around 65%, which is hardly a minority opinion.

And, the number continues to grow. Even in the USA it's up to around 15%, which is double what it was 15 years ago.

[immoderate]

12. And rational thought with it?

Funny that you can categorize logic and reason as reactionary. :shrug:

--imm

[comrade snarky]

13. Oh yeah, that's why I see no reason to believe in a god

I'm just waiting for mainstream churches to accept gays before I go totally religious.

:eyes:

[stopbush]

26. Atheism is a belief the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism is on the rise in the world. The USA is just coming late to the party. Just as 99% of the species that once lived on Earth have gone extinct, so too will our silly religions du jour eventually join the thousands of religions that have been consigned to history's trash bin, for the simple reason that religion is not a reality based enterprise.

People will only accept the BS to a certain point, and religion's BS is finally, finally being called out for what it is, not only by the "radical atheists," but by most civilized societies, at least in the Western world.

BTW - attaching the adjective "radical" to the word "atheism" doesn't add to the religionist's argument, nor does it change the playing field for said argument. It's just a desperate Hail Mary for an argument that's run out of steam (ie: religion).

[Buzz Clik]

31. That kind of simple minded approach to understanding the religious is why the OP was written.

Many atheists don't understand the religious, and I wonder if they understand themselves.

[stopbush]

40. What's to understand? That Jesus was more real than Zeus?

Actually, it is quite simple: reality is biased in the atheist's favor.

[Buzz Clik]

44. Your narrowness and intolerance speak volumes.

It's like trying to argue with a fundamentalist that Jesus wasn't actually the son of God or that the Bible might not have been written by God. It's a waste of time.

God damn, I dislike DU evangelical atheists.

[MineralMan]

50. If you dislike atheists on DU, why do you bait them with

OPs like this one? 'Tis a puzzlement.

[stopbush]

53. You have no answers, just a bunch of names to call people and negative words

that you don't even understand.

Can you give the world a single factual reason to believe that Jesus was not a mythical figure, just like Zeus? No, you can't. Yet you expect rational beings to tolerate your unfounded belief and to treat it as if there's a shred of truth to it. Why would I do that? Do you demand that people believe that Anubis really exists? If not, why not?

[Buzz Clik]

65. Why do you think I'm a Christian? What makes you think I'm not an atheist?

Is it beyond your comprehension that an atheist finds the hateful behavior of some DU atheists reprehensible? Is it impossible for a person of faith to be critical of both atheists and Christians?

This is your problem, and I stated it before: You came into this discussion making tons of assumptions and complete with a narrow perspective. I don't have to prove the validity of any religion to find this bullshit disgusting.

[stopbush]

78. Oh, I think you're a religionist posing as a "militant agnostic" as a ploy

to make an unfounded point about non-believers making assumptions and having a narrow perspective.

The proof is in the pudding of your non-answers to questions posed to you by the atheists in this thread. You seemed fine when the thread was a drive-by posting, not so happy when your simplistic and fantastic positions were challenged by the rationalists.

BTW - if there's any disgusting bullshit involved in this thread, it's the tenets of religion, not of reason. And, hate to tell you, but religion has no validity as validity is another one of those fact-based concepts to which religion has no warrant.

[rd_kent]

61. Well, help us understand the religious then. Explain it please.

[Buzz Clik]

77. I have this sneaking suspicion you know exactly what I mean without any explanation.

Some DU atheists take great pleasure in painting every religious person with the brush -- massive intolerance of the first order. It's the most remarkable behavior from people who also claim to be victims.

[stopbush]

83. You're confused. It's not the religious people who are painted with the same brush,

it's the religious beliefs.

It's the beliefs that are loony, not the people, whether it's a literal fundamentalist who believes in a flat Earth that was created in 7 days, or a secularly informed religionist who believes that Jesus probably rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, but who finds the idea of the virgin birth to be laughable. At their core, all such beliefs are laughable if viewed through the reality based prism.

Hope I cleared that up for you.

[Amaya]

89. Very well said

...

[Buzz Clik]

29. One can certainly hope so.

[rd_kent]

57. Can you define "radical atheism" please?

[IDFbunny]

92. I'll try

A radical Atheist loathes religion and proselytizes Atheism, coercively if need be.

[cynatnite]

98. I honestly do not believe one exists. n/t

[SeekerBlue]

6. Please.

Give me a fucking break.

Please read all of this before espousing such ignorant opinions.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1783,Atheism-is-a-religion-and-youre-as-bad-as-the-fundamentalists,RichardDawkinsnet

[Buzz Clik]

32. No breaks today, and don't assume that I haven't read Dawkins.

Bad assumption.

[stopbush]

55. There's reading Dawkins, then, there's understanding Dawkins.

They are two different things.

[Buzz Clik]

67. Yep. That's true of any printed word or spoken word.

[YOY]

7. Being a "militant agnostic" I am not too sure what to make of this.

Mind you, I'm not too sure how militant an agnostic anyone can be.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. hell yes, we fight wars to prevent the teaching of religion.

not.

[YOY]

15. Actually we would promote the doubting of religion through violent means.

Not the denial...just the doubt.

[Soylent Brice]

18. ^ sums it all up.

nuff said.

[PassingFair]

54. Quit squealing!

You'll give our location away!

[immoderate]

9. On a scale of one to ten...

About a five.

--imm

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. I guess it means you should reach for your gun

when anyone reaches for a conclusion? :shrug:

[YOY]

24. Only if they do so without the use of demonstrative fact.

n.t.

[HawkerHurricane]

22. Militant Agnostic:

"I don't know.
You don't know either."

(Personal Definition, ymmv, etc)

[YOY]

25. That's pretty much it.

Kind of hard to be militant about it is the joke.

[Buzz Clik]

33. I, too, am a militant agnostic.

I'm armed and confused.

[rd_kent]

62. What are you "confused" about?

[YOY]

84. Really? I'm not confused at all.

I just doubt everything.

[B3Nut]

101. Well, I did see a "Militant Agnostic" bumper sticker once...

...it said "Militant Agnostic: I don't know and you don't either!" Cute epistemological joke, perhaps? ;)

[MineralMan]

10. Bottom line: Atheists don't give a crap what you believe.

We only care how you act. If you act in ways contrary to humanistic principles, then we're opposed to those actions.

Believe whatever the heck you want. That affects nobody. Act as though every other person is your equal and deserves equal treatment and believe whatever you wish. Act otherwise and do it in the name of some "religion," and we'll oppose both you and the "religion."

It's that simple.

[Canuckistanian]

17. +1

That sums it up for me.

[Buzz Clik]

34. xx

xx

[MineralMan]

38. Too late. I already read your post.

[IDFbunny]

93. How did Humanism get codified into Atheism?

Atheists have the same potential for bigotry than anybody else.

[MineralMan]

14. C'mon back, OP, and discuss the issue with us.

Or did you intend to just drop a turd in the punchbowl then leave the dance? If that's the case, then your OP is just flamebait. I know you can do better than that.

[sui generis]

16. I'm an atheist but I can't stand de facto "angry" atheists

With regard to religion, there are literalists and there are philosophers, and for the most part they both look alike.

I think you should be able to believe whatever you want, including bigotry, homophobia, or IPU's. You just shouldn't be able to take action on those beliefs if taking action thusly intrudes on the civil or human rights of any other person.

Crossing that line is where I become an angry atheist, for the duration of that situation.

Our willingness to judge everyone who disagrees with our thinking and conclusions is universal to the human condition.

Splitting the hair is silly too. I certainly can acknowledge a sense of connectedness to what I perceive as a "spiritual" feeling, at the same time I don't believe in "afterlife" or mystical gods and spirits or any other form of anthropomorphic animism. I can be an atheist, and spiritual and a humanist and a part time buddhist (or whatever), philosophically speaking and it can a celebration of sentience, not a declaration of some unyielding reality.

I suppose I like a little flexibility and duality, without labels.

[MineralMan]

19. Well, this is now in the Religion forum,

which is probably where it should have been in the first place. The OP has still not returned to his vomit, though.

[Buzz Clik]

35. My vomit?

Piss off. All other attempts to discuss with you are retracted. I'll be deleting my respones and will discuss with you no further.

[MineralMan]

41. Yes. Your vomit.

Reread your OP.

[MineralMan]

43. I will not piss off. I can do no other.

[TZ]

20. So how many broad brushes in insults can one pack into an OP

Cause I think this one is trying to set a record! I loves bigots and people who stereotype! NOT!

[MineralMan]

23. It appears that the OP was just flamebait.

The poster has not returned to defend his/her argument. And so it goes.

[Buzz Clik]

36. Broad brush? Hardly. This OP was very, very specific.

[TZ]

97. Yeah cause calling atheism a religion of not

with fundamentalists leading it is soooo not a broad brush characteristic.
You've never ever met an atheist in real life have you? If so you would understand its NOT a group with one solid set of "beliefs" as you and many of your deist friends seem to think.

[dmallind]

30. In a small way he is right; in a large way he is not.

Neither atheists nor their attackers can have it both ways.

One of the frequent attacks, either implicit or explicit, against atheists is that they are all strong atheists, a logically untenable position that is actually stated by very few of us. Strong atheists claim that there are no gods. That's a claim based as much on faith as is Christianity or Islam. There is no positive evidence at all for either, and gods are not logically impossible just because we have no evidence at all for any of the multitude claimed to date. Ask yourselves - could a god worthy of the name disguise their presence? Surely they could.

Really most atheists are weak atheists (nothing to do with their intellect or resolve or defensibility of their position) who simply lack belief in gods, until evidence is presented. The idea that agnosticism, an answer to an entirely separate question of whether and how we can know the truth, has exclusive claim to this stance is a modern fabrication.

As such atheism is indeed entirely negative. Not in the pejorative or harmful sense but in the logical sense. Atheism is concerned only with what it does NOT accept. There is no unifying creed or concern for atheism that is anything we all believe IN. Humanists like the article writer DO have their manifesto, and doubtless that is what he is recommending for atheists - that we choose some positive cause to push. However why we should do this is beyond me. Humanism already exists. Its manifesto is quite well considered and is generally good sense. Atheists to the right politically may not be too keen on where it steps into socioeconomics perhaps, but that's for each of them to decide. We don't NEED to unify behind a positive cause, and certainly should not try to find one, because we are a group whose sole identifying trait is entirely based on a negative. Our efforts are RIGHTLY directed towards a "NOT". We do not want religion forced on us, or on others against their will, or politically established. We do and should fight only against.

Now yes indeed much of the atheist set, notwithstanding some Libertarianism amongst a minority, will generally line up along pretty progressive lines. We tend to march in gay pride marches and pro-choice events and so on (although for the reasons above I wish we would not do this AS atheists, much as I agree completely with both causes). This however is a typical byproduct, not a definition, of atheism.

But if our detractors now gleefully pounce on us that we are only interested in NOT (true) they must also accept the corollary. You cannot be a fundamentalist about an absence of something, and lacking a unifying cause or positive claim to unite behind, we can no longer be accused en masse of illogical strong atheism.

We cannot be fundamentalists because we have no cause other than resistance. Some people can care more about resistance than others of course, but the mildest mannered DU-Christian ideal of an atheist who simply does not believe but does not care at all beyond that about the question possesses EXACTLY the same level of belief (none at all) as I do, or Dawkins or Harris does. Resistance will come from those atheists who care about the issue enough to provide it in exact proportion to the attempts to enforce or establish religion and its dogma. Without religion atheism would indeed go away - there is no cause for us to fight for once the religionists stop trying to force their beliefs upon us. You'll see much more active atheism in the US than in the UK for that reason alone. I never even gave organized atheism a second thought when I lived there, and became passionate about it shortly after moving here. My opinions and beliefs did not change one whit. I became no more of a fundamentalist than I was - I simply saw a greater danger and thus a greater need to resist it.

So anti-atheists should pick a side here and not claim both like this author does. Either we are fundamentalists or we stand for nothing but resistance. It cannot be both.

[Buzz Clik]

39. "Really most atheists are weak atheists ." I agree.

However, I will say that a large number of atheists at DU -- and a few have weighed in on this thread -- are strong to the point of overbearing. They view the world in black and white just as blindly as the worst of the worst fundies.

Those people -- not the rational -- are my targets.

I also don't believe that the author of the article is trying to take both sides. He's simply calling for rational discussion.

[MineralMan]

47. I am a strong atheist, as you may have surmised.

I never try to convince anyone that they should be atheists, however. I'm not evangelical. I do, however, object to anyone who acts in non-humanistic ways. If that is confused with militant atheism, I'm afraid I can't do much about that.

[Buzz Clik]

48. Humanistic?

:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[MineralMan]

52. Do you have a problem with humanism?

I've never found it particularly amusing.

[rd_kent]

80. You seem to be laughing at your own ignorance.

I see no other explanation.

[Buzz Clik]

90. Of course you don't. And that is what this thread is all about.

[stopbush]

51. How does one have a "rational" discussion with a religionist?

Rational means, "having reason or understanding, relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason."

"Reason" is "a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense, something that explains a fact."

"Fact" is "the quality of being actual, something that has actual existence, a piece of information presented as having objective reality."

No belief in the supernatural can meet the required objective threshold of fact that is the basis of reason that is the basis of reality. To aver otherwise is to demand special pleading for religion that doesn't apply to any other aspect of existence. Ergo, one cannot - by definition - have a rational discussion about religion.

Philosophical, yes. Rational, no.

[rd_kent]

79. Some parts of the argument ARE black and white.

for example: there either IS or there IS NOT evidence of the existence of god. In my 41 years, I HAVE NOT seen ANY evidence of that god. Have you? Has ANYONE? That is black and white.

[dmallind]

95. Weak vs. Strong atheism has nothing to do with behavior or personality

It's simply a different opinion on whether gods are possible. You can be a very overbearing weak atheist and a very meek and inoffensive strong atheist.

[Nihil]

96. I know I'm late to this thread but just thought I'd thank you ...

... for a very well-written post that helped me (even if no-one else).

> One of the frequent attacks, either implicit or explicit, against atheists
> is that they are all strong atheists, a logically untenable position that
> is actually stated by very few of us.

The broad-brush approach definitely applies both ways - sometimes being
done deliberately, sometimes not. The use of the extreme cases to justify
attacking the centre is far too common (from both sides) and usually only
"achieves" a raising of the snark level of the thread from that point on.


> Strong atheists claim that there are no gods. That's a claim based as much
> on faith as is Christianity or Islam. There is no positive evidence at all
> for either, and gods are not logically impossible just because we have no
> evidence at all for any of the multitude claimed to date.

You have summed up in three sentences what I have failed to do in entire
posts in the past ... similarly with:

> Really most atheists are weak atheists ... who simply lack belief in gods,
> until evidence is presented. ...
> As such atheism is indeed entirely negative. Not in the pejorative or
> harmful sense but in the logical sense. Atheism is concerned only with
> what it does NOT accept.

There have been few posts that I've be so in agreement with as with this one.


> Without religion atheism would indeed go away - there is no cause for
> us to fight for once the religionists stop trying to force their beliefs
> upon us. You'll see much more active atheism in the US than in the UK
> for that reason alone.

That, again, is something I tend to forget when tiring of certain atheist
posters on DU: I am used to the UK and forget that the religious (and their
effects) over in the US *are* in people's faces far more than would be
generally tolerated (by anyone, religious or not) in the UK. I will try
to remember this in the future.

I hope that people will, in turn, bear it in mind if my attitude appears
to trivialize a situation due to my ignorance or lack of concern about
the large cultural difference.

Thanks again.
:toast:

[darkstar3]

58. Talk about par for the course

Strawman: check
flamebait: check
Mockery and baiting of those who disagree with you: check
Butchering of the English language: check

Now THAT's the way to meet expectations. :eyes:

ETA: Oh yes, I forgot to add that I find it funny that you take credit for the writing of the OP, since it is an article from USA Today, and even so it is clearly above your usual standards of stringing together personal insults.

[MineralMan]

60. MineralMan is not mocked!

:bounce:

[Buzz Clik]

68. Interesting shift from third person to second.

At least you're not totally into passive aggressive discussions -- you can go straight to the in-your-face insults with the best of them. :applause:

Are you interested in why I made the tongue-in-cheek claim that he ripped me off, or was this simply an exercise for you?

[darkstar3]

69. Coming from you, Buzzy, that's high praise

'you can go straight to the in-your-face insults with the best of them.'
:rofl:

Frankly, I don't think you know what tongue-in-cheek means, and I'm not interested in any claims you have to make. I've heard everything I need to hear from you on this subject, since you are so adept at making your simple point crystal clear. Unless and until you come up with some new material, I plan to laugh at you in the same way I laugh at Carlos Mencia: with pity.

[Buzz Clik]

70. So be it.

And I like Carlos. Something else we don't share. :cry:

[darkstar3]

71. Two peas in a pod,

both easily referred to as 'Chief Runs-with-premise.'

[Buzz Clik]

73. Fascinating. First, Carlos Mencia. Then, "Chief Runs-with-premise." What's next -- Amos and Andy?

Gotta love DU progressives.

[darkstar3]

74. Of which you are CLEARLY not a member

and since this is a progressive board, I often wonder at your motives.

[Buzz Clik]

75. LOL! Keep in mind, I'm not the one with undying hatred for an entire group of people.

I'm the one condemning intolerance, and you're the one promoting it.

Wouldn't it be great irony for you to start burning crosses on the lawns of fundamentalist Christians?

[stopbush]

82. Who hates people?

When it comes to religion - or any other delusional fantasy, for that matter, I love the believer, hate the beliefs.

As an American, I respect your right to hold whatever belief you will. That does not mean in any sense whatsoever that said respect must extend to the beliefs themselves. I can respect a person being a republican. Does that mean I must treat their republican beliefs as if they have truth behind them? I can respect a person's right to believe the world is flat. Does that mean I must treat the belief in the flat earth as being a fact- and truth-based view of the world? Am I to engage in a "rational" discussion about how the Earth is flat?

I don't think so.

So, why should religion get a special carve out in this respect? At one point, 90% of the American people believed the lie that Saddam was behind 9/11. Did those of us who didn't believe the lie "hate a whole group of people" known as 90% of the American people, or did we hate the lie they were swallowing? Was that lie deserving of a special dispensation from the normal rules of a reality based world simply because many people believed it in spite of the evidence? Don't think so.

What's intolerant about applying the same perspective to religious belief?

Intolerant? Don't think so.

[darkstar3]

85. What have you been smoking?

You posted an OP that was clearly a strawman argument against atheism designed as flamebait. How is that tolerance?
You found an article on the internet that was atheist-bashing and full of mockery, and then gleefully brought it here. How is that tolerance?
You are a self-identified non-progressive, and you mock progressives on this board during your self-identification. How is that tolerance?

In what way have you condemned intolerance, rather than fomenting it?

In what way have I promoted intolerance? Keep in mind that simply defending atheism from your baseless bullshit doesn't count.

Who here on this board is even remotely promoting the idea of burning crosses on Christian lawns? Oh, that's right, you suggested it without prompting, which is just like Fox News suggesting without prompting that it is unconstitutional for the Obama administration to 'shut them down.' You're setting up an easy target that you can take down to make it look like you're winning. Another strawman.

I don't know what you're on, but it must be some good shit, and I think it's time to share.

[MineralMan]

86. Burning crosses? When did any atheist suggest such a thing.

That's a Christian deal, not an atheist deal. We don't even use the cross as a symbol.

The KKK calls itself a Christian organization. Can you not discuss things without strawmen?

[trotsky]

87. Actually, it's pretty clear you ARE the one "with undying hatred for an entire group of people."

As witnessed by your flamebait posting, your taunting, your name-calling, and your pitbull-like insistence on bashing and labeling any atheists you personally don't like as "fundamentalists."

Face and conquer your own hatred first.

[rd_kent]

81. I don't think he took credit for this.

[Silent3]

94. Florists need to spend more time talking about highway safety.

Why do they think we give a damn about which flowers best suit a 25th wedding anniversary when THERE ARE PEOPLE DYING OUT THERE!?!?

[RagAss]

100. Neti Neti

[Meshuga]

102. I think Pinn has a point about collaboration and finding common ground but...

...what Pinn proposes is lost because of the name calling in the article.

I mean, you also seem to be preocupied with using your own name calling as opposed to proposing anything of value. I wonder if you realize that name calling only adds noise.

[uberllama42]

103. Why is a movement automatically a religion?

Is the gay rights movement a religion? Is the Democratic Party a religion?

How is it that anyone who agrees with Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al., is suddenly an acolyte in a cult? They can have a conference and lay out an agenda, and I can agree or disagree with what they want to do. If I support them and decide to go out and try to achieve what they want to achieve, now I suddenly worship them?

Maybe we should apply for a tax exemption.

[darkstar3]

104. Because,

if they can somehow paint us as religious followers, then they can play "I'm rubber and you're glue", which makes defending their indefensible positions so much easier.

[uberllama42]

105. I suspect that that is what's going on

But I hope the OP would be willing to explain why that's not the case.

[ralph m]

106. It may not be a cult yet, but the Four Horsemen are headed in that direction

Until the atheist bestsellers started appearing on bookshelves, the prevailing wisdom was that atheism represents non-belief in supernatural phenomena, not a principle to form a movement around. How many atheists bothered to join American Atheists for example? Madeline Murray O hare and Ellen Johnson were generally ignored by everyone except for fundamentalist preachers looking for a boogeyman.

Most atheists in between the extremes of Marxism and Objectivism would have contended that a movement has to be built around a set of positive principles, which was the whole point to Secular Humanism -- a set of principles that a majority of atheist nonbelievers could organize around. I spent a little time on Atheist Nexus, and left after four months convinced that atheism in itself cannot be an organizing principle. A|N tries to gather together all atheists regardless of their political and social views, and they pay a price every time discussions over contentious social issues get out of hand. The reality is that many A|N atheists work withing their own little sub-groups and never venture on to the main discussion pages. What kind of movement is that? The only way to create an organization around atheism as the first principle is to develop cult-like reverence for leaders and their words of wisdom. It seems to be happening with the fans of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and PZ Myers.