…and this is a 
The atheists are coming!
It's nice to see we're getting front page coverage on the Minneapolis Star Tribune, but it's also sending the wrong message. American Atheists are having their big conference in town next week, but we've been here all along and we aren't leaving after Easter. It's a somewhat muddled article, too — the writer seems a bit confused by this whole atheism business.
No one can say for sure how many atheists there are, partly because those within the movement can't agree on the definition of an atheist. Some count humanists, agnostics and practitioners of astrology as atheists, but others draw a tighter circle.
Somebody has to explain to him that practitioners of astrology are regarded as creationists, not atheists. That'll confuse him even more.
Anyway, the article does give some nice plugs for Minnesota Atheists, the Atheists Talk radio show, and Atheists for Human Rights. And I'll be sure to get my horns trimmed and tuck my tail into my underpants so I don't alarm people when I'm walking around downtown Minneapolis this week.
Comments
Posted by: SEF | March 15, 2008 9:18 AM
Erm... depending on how exactly that tail in the underpants thing works, it might be even more alarming to people. Unless they conclude that you're merely pleased to see them.Posted by: Patricia Doukas | March 15, 2008 9:27 AM
Practitioners of astrology?????!!?? Are you kidding me?? What part of A-theist describe a person who follows astrology...Ugh,the ancient Greeks would slap the crap out of that guy!! It sounds like atheist have alot more work to do in trying to educate these people.
Posted by: upyernoz | March 15, 2008 9:35 AM
"can't agree on the definition of an atheist"???? how many other concepts are there in the public sphere as straightforward and easily defined as "not believing in god"?
Posted by: writerdd | March 15, 2008 9:38 AM
Oy, for all the big mouth ranking out of fundamentalists on this blog, you really have no clue about them. Atheists are tools of Satan and so are people who believe in astrology. Since people who read and write horoscopes don't worship Jesus, but are, rather, involved in the occult arts (you know, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."), they are obviously the same as atheists (who are secretly Satan worshippers anyway)..... I know this sounds funny or absurd, but I actually have known a lot of people who have ideas just like this.
Posted by: Kerlyssa | March 15, 2008 9:39 AM
You've got some wiggle room with agnostics and humanism vs atheism. I mean, at least they can all be considered movements that are reactionary to religion even if they do overlap with each other. But ASTROLOGY? That's so inane it must be a typo. Please, please, be a typo.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | March 15, 2008 9:58 AM
I thought I saw an atheist, once, walking down the street.
I checked for horns, I checked for tail, I checked for cloven feet;
Began to tremble frightfully--my heart was in my throat--
Then sighed in happy recognition, for 'twas but a goat.
I thought I saw an atheist, down near a swollen stream
With scaly skin, and blood so cold, I couldn't breathe to scream!
I looked into his bulging eyes, and prayed "God, grant my wish"
Then laughed in my embarrassment--it only was a fish.
I thought I saw an atheist, with fur and pointed claws,
And wicked teeth for chewing up Judeo-Christian laws,
I ran, and tripped, and fell to earth, then hid behind a log--
It caught me, though, and licked my face--of course, it was a dog.
I thought I saw an atheist, though cleverly disguised
Not giant and reptilian, but human, normal sized,
It looked to be engaging in productive, useful labor;
But no, this was no atheist--this person was my neighbor!
I thought I saw an atheist; in fact, I saw a few!
My neighbor, and the grocer, and the cop, and maybe you!
I even found some in the church, right there beneath the steeple;
It turns out, to my great surprise... that atheists are people.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-thought-i-saw-atheist.html
Posted by: DaveL | March 15, 2008 10:05 AM
"Some people count...practitioners of astrology as atheists."
Some people also count Catholics as atheists. That's because these people are completely, without reservation, nutbar crazy.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 15, 2008 10:11 AM
Good article.
So... when is the first Atheist Pride Parade?
Wouldn't that be fun? Think of the signage!
Posted by: Anon | March 15, 2008 10:11 AM
Astrology's fundamental tenet, "as above, so below", does not require a deity. Membership in a church can be a social thing, while belief is a personal thing (Freud, for instance was an atheist and a Jew). I would bet that there are atheist astrologers, atheist Catholics, atheist Lutherans...
Of course, there will be some who say "those are not real Catholics, Lutherans, etc., but of course they don't sugar their porridge, either. These individuals would identify themselves as both Catholic and atheist. And yes, I grant that there would be very few of them.
And yes, I get the point that the article phrases it horribly--if one is an astrologer, that does not at all automatically make one an atheist. The reporter needs work on either fact-gathering or sentence construction... perhaps both.
Posted by: Anon | March 15, 2008 10:13 AM
@#8-- I envision huge crowds of people, all holding blank signs...
Posted by: Nowan | March 15, 2008 10:16 AM
Cuttlefish, you are a genius.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 15, 2008 10:19 AM
Underpants? Everybody knows real atheists go commando.
And damn, cuttlefish, that was good.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | March 15, 2008 10:32 AM
Surely tails go down the pantleg for greater comfort?
Cuttlefish, I love the poem!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 15, 2008 10:47 AM
Atheists in town during Easter
Hunting for eggs - or rabbits?
Posted by: ben | March 15, 2008 10:56 AM
@#9 - I was a catholic atheist for a while...then I realized I didn't give a crap about having a snuggly hand-holding community to have bake sales with.
I don't know about youall, but this atheist is totally hosting a Toga Party this Good Friday. Because, really, can you think of a *better* time to celebrate the glory of Rome than that?
Posted by: George | March 15, 2008 10:57 AM
Seems that there is trouble counting atheists since they are not members of a sect. You can count Catholics, Baptists, and so on. But how would you count atheists? Perhaps we take the total world population and substract the registered members of a religious sect. The left over should be an approximate count of the atheists.
Posted by: pablo | March 15, 2008 10:59 AM
I thought believers in astrology were regarded as new age kooks.
Posted by: MH | March 15, 2008 11:00 AM
I'm beginning to think that Cuttlefish is plural. No one person could consistently produce so much excellent poetry, could they?
Taking time to read Pharyngula is a highlight of my day, and Cuttlefish's poems have become a highlight of Pharyngula.
Thank you all.
Posted by: Ric | March 15, 2008 11:07 AM
The logic that allows fundamentalists to call astrologers atheists should allow atheists to call all religious people Christians. I bet the Fundies would like that, huh: Muslims are Xtians, Jews are Xtians, etc.
Posted by: DanioPhD | March 15, 2008 11:12 AM
@8; 10, How about:
We're out
We doubt
Get used to it
Posted by: Graculus | March 15, 2008 11:19 AM
Won't the tail stuffing be painful after yesterday's fall?
Posted by: Alexandra | March 15, 2008 11:21 AM
You'd be missing out on all the atheists still in the church closet.Posted by: PixelFish | March 15, 2008 11:25 AM
Is Easter this week?
I've been seeing the chocolate bunnies in the store for weeks now, but I have no idea. I better hurry up and stock up on the peanut butter eggs from Reese's.
...
I would love to march in an atheist pride parade. Eet would be excellent. (I've already disturbed my Mormon ancestors by marching in the Dyke March in San Francisco as the Guardian Angel of Menstruating Women. So whee!)
Posted by: C. L. Hanson | March 15, 2008 11:33 AM
At the Marriott City Center Hotel? Too funny.
You've gotta love those Marriotts -- Mormon as they are, they'll accept anyone's money... ;)
Posted by: Bob L | March 15, 2008 11:35 AM
#2 "Practitioners of astrology?????!!?? Are you kidding me?? What part of A-theist describe a person who follows astrology..."
You'd be surprised the number of New Agers who call themselves atheist. When you point out the obvious absurdity about it they call you an atheist-fundamentalist. Apparently being an atheist is fashionable these days.
Posted by: Mike | March 15, 2008 11:43 AM
What does atheism add to agnosticism besides arrogance?
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 15, 2008 11:44 AM
Oh, look, atheists tried in 2004 to get a float into a parade in Denver. Not sure what happened (haven't managed to find complete article).
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 15, 2008 11:48 AM
Clarity, honesty, accuracy, and disambiguation.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 15, 2008 11:49 AM
A 2006 "Pastafarian-themed float with a big Spaghetti Monster on top, boat and water on bottom, and various pirates driving it and running around it." Sounds cool!
Posted by: Bacopa | March 15, 2008 12:05 PM
Well, isn't it true that atheists aren't quite sure what an athiest is? Is mere lack of theistic belief all that is required such that ponies, infants, and the brain dead are athiests? Or does one have to know of some kinds of theistic hypotheses and in some fashion reject believing them? Are agnostics atheists? I'd say they are, but some agnostics reject this. So you see, there is at least some deep disagreement about who exactly is an atheist.
And surely the concept of an atheist astrologer is not incoherent.
Posted by: Jefrir | March 15, 2008 12:07 PM
In Russia, 40% of atheists also consider themselves Russian Orthodox. The number of Christians is higher than the number who believe in some sort of God, and nearly twice the number of those who believe in a personal God.
Posted by: Jefrir | March 15, 2008 12:12 PM
I suppose that the idea of an atheist astrologer is no more ridiculous than the idea of astrology in general...
Posted by: zer0 | March 15, 2008 12:16 PM
The last verse of Cuttlefish's post really strikes home with me. I often do things with some of my friends at their church, and generally the people there are very nice. The pastor is always inviting me to church and yada yada, but I just politely decline and go about my business. Now, nice people don't make the case for God/Christ so it does no good in swaying me to their way of thinking, but I don't feel the need to go kicking in their doors and destroying said belief system because I think its foolish either. I'm content to leave them alone with their toys.
Posted by: Ace_of_Sevens | March 15, 2008 12:16 PM
The familiar atheist community is mainly rationialists such as yourself and your readers, but there are many people who are not rationialists and reject the existance of a deity for differet reasons. Many New Agers fall into this category. They are religious in a fashion, btu their religion doesn't involve a deity as it pretty much involves rejection of authority. For that matter, if communists have an essentially faith-based lifestyle but are by-and-large atheist becuase of a general rejection of authority as well.
Posted by: Fletch | March 15, 2008 12:31 PM
Obviously, those heathen Scandinavians are taking over that part of the country!
Posted by: SteadyEddy | March 15, 2008 12:32 PM
I'll be there on Good Friday. I told my devout Catholic boss that I needed the day off to attend the Atheist conference on Good Friday... heh heh... timing is everything when coming out. :)
Posted by: Sastra | March 15, 2008 12:35 PM
Anon #9 is right -- the reporter phrased his point poorly, but is correct. I think he was trying to say what Ace of Sevens in #34 just said. "Atheism" is a very broad, loosely-defined category. Technically, you can believe in all the supernatural and paranormal phenomena you want, and still be an atheist as long as you don't believe in "God." You can be an astrologer and and atheist. The two are not related, but they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, either. The way the sentence is written, however, it sounds as if the reporter is suggesting there's a connection.
Secular humanists don't believe in God for the same reason they don't believe in astrology: they are using scientific rationalism, and under that criteria the evidence fails to support either. The connection here between atheism and astrology is a negative one because of the method. And not all atheists are concerned with method (though I think they should be.)
Posted by: Nowan | March 15, 2008 12:48 PM
@Bob L. (#25)
Why is this absurd? An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god(s). Unfortunately that doesn't mean they can't believe in other kinds of woo.
I have met many atheists who believe incredibly stupid things, ranging from moon landing conspiracies over homeopathy and healing crystals to Freudian psychoanalysis.
It seems that losing one's belief in god(s) is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for being smart...
Posted by: JJR | March 15, 2008 12:56 PM
I really like the first part of the movie Zeitgeist, where they show the intimate connection between Astrological ideas and the crafting of the New Testament stories. The movie explains the NT by reference to the astrological system, and its early attempts at astronomy, i.e. observation of the sky and its motions, even if they didn't necessarily understand materially what they were observing. So much of NT phraseology is flowery, poetic language referring to concrete natural phenomenon in the motion of the stars and planets with the passage of time.
There was also a program on the History Channel recently that was really fascinating, talking about how the ancient Greeks reacted to finding bones and fossils of long extinct animals, and sometimes misinterpreting the evidence and attempting to understand what they were looking at by reference to myth, or even founding new myths out of wild eyed speculation. Using computer animation they showed how ancient Greeks might have misunderstood a wooly mammoth skull's nasal opening (for the snout) as a single huge eye socket--and believing that the creature stood erect instead of walking on all fours...hence, CYCLOPS. TOTALLY COOL! I love programs like that, that explore the suspected naturalistic basis for human myths and legends...
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | March 15, 2008 1:01 PM
Cuttlefish - you rock.
Posted by: noncarborundum | March 15, 2008 1:24 PM
November, 2002. Be there or be square.
Posted by: Jazmin | March 15, 2008 1:30 PM
I love causing my very Catholic mother's eyebrow to arch. Thanks, Cuttlefish, for allowing me to share that with her. She reacted more to that than when I told her that my sister and I will be in Atlantic City next weekend for some long overdue debauchery. I think she is beginning to suspect that we might be a wee bit, well, heathen-like.
Posted by: noncarborundum | March 15, 2008 1:48 PM
It's not at all apparent to me that the reporter was trying to make the same point as Anon #9. Here's what the reporter wrote:
This doesn't mean "some astrology practitioners are atheists", (which is doubtless true); it means "some people regard the category 'astrology practitioner' as a subset of the category 'atheist'" -- which is ridiculous, unless the "some people" referred to are a subset of the category "the totally clueless".
Speaking of which, I wish Bart Ehrman would buy a clue:
Sheesh. Hasn't he read Dawkins?
Posted by: DavidONE | March 15, 2008 1:59 PM
"... tuck my tail into my underpants so I don't alarm people ..."
lol. Are you an atheist, or just pleased to see me?
Posted by: QrazyQat | March 15, 2008 2:04 PM
"Atheism" is a very broad, loosely-defined category.
No it isn't. Atheists don't believe in gods. That's it. Not loose, not long and difficult to figure out or write. Not especially broad, except that it covers a lot of people with different interests because it's not the exclusive club that religions are. That's what confuses writers on the subject; they think it's a category of religion, when it's completely outside it. By definition.
Posted by: noncarborundum | March 15, 2008 2:16 PM
You may be amused to know that word penis in Latin originally meant "tail".
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 15, 2008 2:19 PM
November, 2002. Be there or be square.
Awesome! Now where's my time capsule?
Posted by: Dan S. | March 15, 2008 2:22 PM
"Is mere lack of theistic belief all that is required such that ponies. . . are athiests? "
If so, now we have the world's most perfect recruiting tool when it comes to a specific subset of young women . . . Ponies are atheists, everybody! And horses, too!
Posted by: Sastra | March 15, 2008 2:58 PM
QrazyQat #45:
I'd say atheism was "broad and loosely-defined" in the same sense that theism is "broad and loosely-defined" -- the breadth and "looseness" is not so much in the definitions themselves (which are, as you point out, narrow and specific), as in the kinds of people you find in each category. They run the gamut on both sides. The categories are too general to make many specific generalizations about what the people in them "are like."
I've met (and argued with) atheists who believe in pseudoscientific crap like astrology -- and I've also met atheists who when they hear this go "No way! An atheist? That's not possible; they can't be atheist. Believing we are being guided by the stars is just like believing in God, so they're not an atheist." I suspect the reporter sat in on one of more of those kinds of discussions -- which seem to crop up sooner or later whenever atheists gather. Like now.
Posted by: Ced | March 15, 2008 2:58 PM
#48
OMG!!! PONIES!!!11!!
Posted by: The Kenosha Kid | March 15, 2008 3:07 PM
Shouldn't that headline read "Atheists in town during co-opted fertility festival"?
Posted by: johnhuey | March 15, 2008 3:12 PM
"...by this whole atheism business."
It's a business??! You mean you can make money from it?
Posted by: pedlar | March 15, 2008 3:18 PM
#30
No.Yes.
No.
Yes.
No, there's not. It's utterly, totally, completely, unmistakeably simple.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 15, 2008 3:24 PM
HAAAhahahhaa Digital Cuttlefish, that was lovely. Thank you.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 15, 2008 3:27 PM
pedlar, there is such a thing as an agnostic theist. So not all agnostics are theists. But to follow your intent: there's no ambiguity about which agnostics are theists and which are atheists.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 15, 2008 3:28 PM
Or, "So not all agnostics are atheists."
But that was probably clear from context...
Posted by: zilch | March 15, 2008 3:30 PM
I'd like to add my Huzzah! to the others for Cuttlefish.
Y'all might also be amused to know that the German for tail, Schwanz, is also slang for penis.
George Santayana was a Catholic atheist. One wag described his belief thus: "There is no God, and Mary is His Mother".
Posted by: Caveat | March 15, 2008 3:34 PM
Atheism is a movement? Wow. I thought it just referred to a state of living without religion and without believing in gods.
Like we've done for hundreds of years.
Posted by: johnhuey | March 15, 2008 3:36 PM
"Atheism" is a very broad, loosely-defined category.
I think that some of the ambiguity of the term stems from the fact that atheism is a conclusion that can be reached from several different philosophical perspectives. There is a tendency to assume that since you arrived at the atheistic conclusion from a particular perspective that other atheists share that same perspective. For me, I always thought of atheism as a consequence of a naturalistic/scientific point of view. However, considering these 'New Age atheists', it is clear that lack of a belief in a god does not automatically translate into a belief in a naturalistic world (all 'Brights' are atheists, not all atheists are 'Brights').
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 15, 2008 3:36 PM
I'll bet you would have enjoyed it even more if there were an ounce of truth or honest research behind Zeitgeist. I believe Rook from the RRS did a takedown of Zeitgeist at one point; it'd be worth looking into if it's still available.
Posted by: eigenvector | March 15, 2008 3:38 PM
Question concerning the definition of an atheist. What is the term for someone who has managed to completely rid himself of even thinking about any religious crap, besides "happy?"
Posted by: Sideways | March 15, 2008 3:51 PM
eigenvector, #61:
That would be 'rational'--given the relationship between faith and reason.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 15, 2008 3:54 PM
Jefrir, those are interesting numbers. Do you have cites on hand?
Posted by: pedlar | March 15, 2008 3:57 PM
Grammar RWA at #56 writes:
"So not all agnostics are atheists."
I'm not trying to get into a pointless argument here but there's really no point in being complicated about it.
An agnostic thinks certain knowledge (of Gods's existence/non-existence) is not possible. Therefore s/he is not certain God exists. If you believe in God you are certain God exists. Therefore agnostics do not believe in God.
Agnostics are atheists. It's in the definition. It's that simple.
Posted by: PipeUp | March 15, 2008 4:02 PM
Late to the praise-party for Cuttlefish's latest effort, I know... That's what I get for living on the antipodean side of the globe and reading this post when you "Northies" are all tucked up in bed. ;-)
But anyway, Cuttlefish: not only do I love the meter and style of your poems, you have wonderful economy of words when making your point! As others have already said: you rock!
Posted by: Sastra | March 15, 2008 4:15 PM
pedlar #53 wrote:
Well, isn't it true that atheists aren't quite sure what an athiest is?
Is mere lack of theistic belief all that is required such that ponies, infants, and the brain dead are athiests?
So you see, there is at least some deep disagreement about who exactly is an atheist.
I disagree with all your responses -- especially that last. Which means that there is disagreement, and it is not "utterly" simple.
I might agree, however, that the disagreement is not particularly "deep" -- meaning it isn't really that critically important whether a baby is an "atheist," a "non-theist," or outside the issue and unclassifiable.
What almost all atheists do agree on is that all things do not have a special divine sense inside them which magically "knows" that God exists. That's usually the real issue in debating whether something like a baby or a pony or a rock should be called an atheist. What matters is they're not theists.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 15, 2008 4:26 PM
This is false. Belief does not equal certainty. I believe that I am wearing pants right now. But, per Descartes, I cannot be certain that I am wearing pants right now.
It is quite possible to say "I cannot be sure that God exists, but I nevertheless believe that he probably does." I know some agnostic theists who say just that.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | March 15, 2008 4:48 PM
If any proof was needed, the above discussion provides one that the reporter was entirely correct in saying atheists can't agree exactly what "atheist" means.
Posted by: Bob L | March 15, 2008 4:49 PM
Hey, I found the poster for the American Atheist conference!
http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs28/f/2008/075/e/d/The_Festival_by_Pickmans_Model.jpg
I can't imagine why the locals are put off.
Posted by: King of all Jews | March 15, 2008 4:51 PM
You have horns and tail? That must mean only one thing.
You are of the devil your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and is the father of lies. But take heart. The devil is not so bad.
Posted by: Eric | March 15, 2008 5:15 PM
In quickly trolling through the comments section it seems that there is a rather large controversy about whether or not someone is an "atheist." Yes, I agree that the definition is simple. If you actively believe god does not exist you are an atheist. That does not mean that agnostics, humanists, atheists, etc. should not work together to help people see their own misconceptions. (And quit making laws that won't allow me to buy alcohol tomorrow when I want to watch Simpsons and have a beer).
Posted by: noncarborundum | March 15, 2008 5:27 PM
This is certainly true. Do you think this exhausts the possibilities? Many of those who call themselves atheists would disagree with you. Are they wrong?
Posted by: pedlar | March 15, 2008 5:31 PM
Sastra at #66 :
Fair enough. I'm not looking for an argument. Seems the problem is in fact simply one of definition - not of 'atheist', that's trivial - but of 'belief'. I define belief as certainty. But that's just me. All definitions are in the end personal; that's too often overlooked as we rush to assert ourselves. And Grammar RWA: if you're really not sure you're wearing pants, please stay indoors. You'll frighten the children.
Posted by: Keanus | March 15, 2008 6:23 PM
I'm with Caveat's questioning calling atheism a "movement." I thought movements were about advancing some kind of unthinking doctrine. Both unthinking and doctrine are the very antithesis of atheism, so I think Gray is a few neurons short of understanding the simple definition of atheism.
Posted by: Laser Potato | March 15, 2008 7:28 PM
"You have horns and tail? That must mean only one thing.
You are of the devil your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and is the father of lies. But take heart. The devil is not so bad."
Or you're infected with a papillomavirus.
http://www.sideshowworld.com/TYJackalop-4.html
Posted by: Caveat | March 15, 2008 7:31 PM
I suspect that using the term 'atheist movement' is an attempt to again equate atheism with religion, which make as much sense as saying 'misanthropic philanthropy'.
A movement is about advancing a doctrine through gaining popular support for it but I don't think it's necessarily an unthinking one. The civil rights movement is a good example of a thinking doctrine. The abolition of slavery is another.
Atheism is not a movement, is not a doctrine and is not a religion. It's an areligious, adogmatic rational state.
It's incredible that a lot of people have trouble getting their heads around that simple fact. It's downright scary that they can't imagine people living their lives without believing in the unbelievable and unproven.
Posted by: Hematite | March 15, 2008 9:36 PM
Caveat (76): Atheism is not a movement, is not a doctrine and is not a religion. It's an areligious, adogmatic rational state.
This is one of the reasons I'm wary of groups which identify as 'atheist' (or the label, if not the group itself). The atheism we all know and love is adogmatic and rational, but it's entirely possible to be atheistic without being rational, and you can have whatever dogma you like as long as it isn't a dogma about god.
Rationality and adogmatism (is that a word? Is now!) leads to atheism, but irrationality and dogmatism can lead there too unless you redefine atheism as being more than just a lack of belief in god.
Posted by: Freehand | March 16, 2008 12:22 AM
Pedlar #64:
"Atheism" is a statement of belief: lacking belief in gods. "Agnosticism" is a statement about epistemology: God is not the kind of thing that can be known with a high degree of confidence. There certainly are theistic agnostics; but they know that they have no good reason to believe in gods, or if they think they do, they are personal, and recounting them would not persuade others. These folks tend not to be pesky, nor proselytizers.
Agnosticism is, after all, merely a subset of the scientist's understanding of reality - things are known only to varying degrees of confidence, contingent on continued support by the evidence. Therefore I am an agnostic, but never call myself that; it is a trivial extension of the obvious (at least to anyone who thinks scientifically). I *will say, however, that I am an atheist, if asked.
Posted by: Bacopa | March 16, 2008 1:16 AM
BTW, I stole the whole "ponies are athiests" bit from the sig of a regular poster at Unscrewing the Inscrutible.
Posted by: Jefrir | March 16, 2008 7:55 AM
@ #63
The figures come from a study by the University of Helsinki between 1991 and 1999. They did a large survey, asking people about their religious affiliations, along with wealth, health, etc...and about specific religious beliefs.
In one of the years, when asked which religion they belonged to 82% said Russian Orthodox, including 40% of those who identified as atheist in another question. Only 10% went to church at least once a month. Basically, there's a whole load of cultural and historical stuff going on, in addition to actual beliefs.
The results are published in "Starye Tzerkvi, Novye Veruyushie", ed. K. Kaarainen and D. Furman. (All in Russian, I'm afraid)
I'm actually writing an extended essay about this at the moment...as in, I've written about a third of it and it's due in Tuesday.
Posted by: Nemo | March 16, 2008 10:44 AM
WTF? The word "movement" certainly carries no such connotation. Civil rights movement... women's suffrage movement... etc., etc.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 16, 2008 1:24 PM
@8; 10, How about:
We're out
We doubt
Get used to it
"Jesus is dead. Get over it.
So is Muhammed, the Buddha, and Grandma."
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 16, 2008 1:30 PM
I'm with Caveat's questioning calling atheism a "movement." I thought movements were about advancing some kind of unthinking doctrine.
This isn't that hard. There is a population identified as atheists, and there's an atheist social movement. They overlap but not all atheists are part of a movement.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 16, 2008 1:32 PM
I thought movements were about advancing some kind of unthinking doctrine.
I guess that whole, "Black folks are equal citizens and deserve equal right--especially voting rights" was certainly unthinking. As was the movement that said, "Women are equal citizens." As was the movement that says "Gays are equal citizens."
Buy a clue.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 16, 2008 5:27 PM
Thanks, Jefrir.
Posted by: Michelle | March 17, 2008 8:39 AM
Happy Chocolate day!
I love saying that. There's nothin' that pisses a theist more than calling their Easter "Chocolate Day".
I always get a few blastings when I do it!
Posted by: Alethea | March 19, 2008 8:14 AM
JJR: I would quibble with that program you saw. Tooting my own horn:
http://humans.scienceboard.net/?p=103
Also, I understood that fossilized bones may have long served as the template for dragons. If I get to post more than one link, here's another one:
http://dml.cmnh.org/1998Feb/msg00583.html
PZ: In appreciation of your offhand remark "we will only accomplish improvements in the human condition if we strive for them". How did you get to be so darned prolific? I can't keep up. You must do this full-time and then some.