…and this is a 
See, this is the problem with the godless liberal media: they can sometimes treat the rise of atheism as something newsworthy, and in a good way, instead of simply slapping us down. The NYT actually has a reassuring story, More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops, that talks about the sudden surge of assertive atheism all over the country, from rural and traditionally conservative regions of the country to college campuses.
This is the kind of article that should cause the religious to worry. It's not their common hysteria about the vicious atheists coming to eat their puppies…it's about the reality of atheism, which is that it is made up of mostly good people who want to live their lives well.
Comments
Posted by: Milo Johnson | April 27, 2009 9:15 AM
...mmmmm, puppies!
Posted by: Seokso | April 27, 2009 9:22 AM
So much for all that garbage in the media about people turning to religion in a recession. I wonder how much of the increase is actual change and how much is just people feeling more free to voice their lack of belief.
Posted by: Clemens | April 27, 2009 9:22 AM
Wait a second. We are not aiming for world domination? Screw this, I'm gonna go for the RCC.
Posted by: David Wiener
|
April 27, 2009 9:22 AM
Damn, I was going to say "mmmmm... puppies"; instead I'll just have to say that its is about time that the mainstream media start to treat us with, if not respect, at least not derision. I live in the South, and I've been surprised that I've had no bad reactions when I say that I'm an atheist (of course, I work at a Uni, and we know what those people are like).
However, in my state it is still against the law for atheists to hold office. An atheist neighbor of mine has suggested that we run for office and challenge the law. Then we'll see what the hoi palloi really think of atheists.
Posted by: Zeno
|
April 27, 2009 9:28 AM
Puppies? I'm more of a cat person myself.
Posted by: BobbyEarle
|
April 27, 2009 9:29 AM
"BUUURRRRPPPP"
Pardon me!
Posted by: Doubting Foo
|
April 27, 2009 9:30 AM
It's all your fault, PZ.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure
|
April 27, 2009 9:33 AM
Heretic! :-)
Posted by: Lost Left Coaster | April 27, 2009 9:37 AM
That was a great article. The article itself illustrated the very point that it was making just through its tone and how it was written -- the fact that a NYT reporter would write such a positive article without feeling the need for "balance" by quoting one or two theologians shows that open atheism truly is getting more mainstream by the day.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | April 27, 2009 9:39 AM
Puppies? cats? Pah! Human babies! That's the stuff. Best if they are christian babies, too.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 27, 2009 9:39 AM
I suspect that so far it's mostly the latter, but I also think that's very important, and represents kind of a domino effect that will ultimately result in a reduced level of religiosity in the US that's more in line with the rest of the developed world. There are a lot of closet unbelievers who think they're much more isolated than they really are, and a lot of waverers whose last shreds of belief are maintained largely by perceived social pressure. Once the dam breaks, the stranglehold of organized religion can be radically weakened in just a generation or two,and I'm cautiously optimistic that this process is already well underway.
Posted by: BowserTheCat | April 27, 2009 9:40 AM
It's amazing how we can have a positive view of our lives when we realize this life is all we have.
As I told my wife when I asked (begged) for her OK to get a motorcycle; I'll be careful, since I don't believe in an afterlife I don't want to truncate this life prematurely...
Posted by: Newfie
|
April 27, 2009 9:41 AM
Good story.
Now, how about a primetime show about why we don't believe, and why belief is not necessary.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 27, 2009 9:44 AM
P.S. One thing I particularly liked about the NYT article is that the reporter used the example of gay rights to make the point that recognition of rights is obtained only when people stop hiding anddemand their rights. This is exactly the point so many of us have been trying to make for years to (using Larry Moran's wonderful term) the "Benedict Arnold atheists".
Posted by: FatherNature
|
April 27, 2009 9:46 AM
David Wiener -
"However, in my state it is still against the law for atheists to hold office."
I don't know why I was surprised by that but a quick search revealed several states, and not all in the bible belt, that discriminate against the godless.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm
This is an outrage.
Posted by: HenryFord | April 27, 2009 9:48 AM
"Free hugs from your friendly neighbourhood atheist."
Brilliant!
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
April 27, 2009 9:48 AM
How much of this is down to the 'new atheists', you know, the aggressive atheists, such as those of the mild-mannered Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Myers cabal? (Hitchens excluded, for obvious reasons.)
Keep up the good work, guys!
Posted by: Newfie
|
April 27, 2009 9:52 AM
Damn, I can't run for office, or be a Free Mason.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
April 27, 2009 9:55 AM
Oh great, after all my hard work at being a grumpy iconoclast, I now find I'm part of a movement. I ain’t holding hands with anybody!
Posted by: SAWells
|
April 27, 2009 9:58 AM
Grrr! It's not "the hoi polloi", it's just "hoi polloi", the "hoi" part means "the" already.
I would put a (/pedant) tag but sadly there is no such tag.
Posted by: bobxxxx | April 27, 2009 9:58 AM
They are connecting on the Internet, holding meet-ups in bars, advertising on billboards and buses, volunteering at food pantries and picking up roadside trash, earning atheist groups recognition on adopt-a-highway signs.
Trash that was probably thrown from the cars of Christian slobs.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 27, 2009 9:58 AM
Oh, boy. This makes up for all the positive things the paper said about Bush.
All is forgiven!
Posted by: Robert | April 27, 2009 10:00 AM
Shouldn't the public be getting its tax-dollars' worth from you, PZ? It's 9:55AM, and you're posting on the blog (i.e., not grading tests or looking at your silly zebrafish embryos). You work at a public university and are paid by the public to research/teach, not blog. And believe me, posting on this blog is by no means "teaching."
So get to work! (By the way, it's only 6:55AM where I am.)
Posted by: C. M. Baxter
|
April 27, 2009 10:03 AM
Now that's hilarious!
Posted by: Tulse
|
April 27, 2009 10:04 AM
No, no, no, this can't be right -- the New Atheist Noise Machine is turning people off! Nisbet says so!
Posted by: Jackal
|
April 27, 2009 10:08 AM
What a coincidence. I just finishes submitting tht article to rd.net. It was nice to see us portrayed as real people instead of unholy monsters. Though I have misgivings about this:
Too bad Habitat for Humanity wouldn't let the non-theist volunteer while wearing the "Non Prophet Organization" T-shirts. I'd volunteer for one of those.Posted by: slang | April 27, 2009 10:08 AM
I acknowledge the existence of myself, and consider that Supreme enough. But I can't sing, nor dance.
Posted by: tim wirtz | April 27, 2009 10:10 AM
For those of religious dogma: I will hug your puppies, care for and encourage your children, help you when you are in need, meet you as a wonderful and unique human being. But I will not let you control my life and great country with some old dusty text written more for gaining political power than reaching true connection with our earth and people.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 27, 2009 10:11 AM
Dozens and dozens of articles on Pope Benedict vs. a few scattered articles on atheism.
At this rate, parity in coverage will be achieve... when?
Posted by: Josh
|
April 27, 2009 10:12 AM
Oh? And who exactly was it that made you the fucking arbiter of education?
Posted by: Newfie
|
April 27, 2009 10:14 AM
Robert at #23
Shouldn't you be doing something better than being an insufferable asshole? Isn't there a fundie site out there where people agree with you? Or do they all think that you are a complete prick as well?
Posted by: Evolving Squid
|
April 27, 2009 10:15 AM
Now, I've never (knowingly) eaten a puppy... but since they are made of meat, I see no special reason not to eat one if it was prepared well. Perhaps in a curry over rice?
When you get right down to it, there's no substantive difference between eating a puppy and eating, say, veal or lamb.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 27, 2009 10:16 AM
Robert,
One of the superpowers you get upon joining the Uppity Atheist Cabal is the ability to write blog posts in advance and schedule them for automatic publication at a later time.
Posted by: Ian Harvey | April 27, 2009 10:18 AM
Newfie mentioned
>>religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence
>>of a Supreme Being."
>Damn, I can't run for office, or be a Free Mason.
Actually I gather we can, but only in a lodge that follows the Scottish tradition. (Presumably the True Scottish tradition)
Ian
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
April 27, 2009 10:19 AM
CalGeorge,
If you've tracked the coverage of the RCC over the past decade, you might conclude that they would prefer only one mild-mannered article over that time to the coverage they actually got. Sure, Benny Hex hasn't been slammed too much by the press, but his American organization is still taking a lot of bad press.
Posted by: heddle | April 27, 2009 10:20 AM
Why? What's there to worry about? You think far too highly of yourselves. Christians behaving badly--that's on our radar. Persecution of Christians in Islamic countries--that's on our radar. American atheists? Not even a blip.
Posted by: Seokso | April 27, 2009 10:20 AM
@ Robert
Not all jobs are 9 to 5. Don't be a dick.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
April 27, 2009 10:22 AM
Robert the ignorant troll. As a college professor, the only time PZ is required even to be on campus is when he teaches classes or has committee meetings. The rest of the time is his to organize as he sees fit as long as the work gets done, like any salaried exempt. Most professors put in 50-60 hour weeks. And if they went into the "real" workforce, the first thing that usually happens is that their pay goes up and their hours go down. The taxpayers get their monies worth from academics. Now apologize for your stupidity.
Posted by: Newfie
|
April 27, 2009 10:22 AM
I'd have to let my bits dangle under a kilt? No Thanks. :P
Posted by: varlo | April 27, 2009 10:23 AM
Evidently (and unsurprisingly) Robert is unaware of one more thing: PZ posts at his convenience (and on his own time) but sets release times for later.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 27, 2009 10:23 AM
Josh said to Robert:
Please. It's pronounced "the praying arbiter of education".
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 27, 2009 10:25 AM
We like it that way. You won't even realize what's happening until it's too late and this country is irreversibly on course to resembling Western Europe in its level of religious observance and influence. So you just go right on whistling past the graveyard as polls continue to show that every new age cohort is less religious than the last.
Posted by: varlo | April 27, 2009 10:27 AM
Hmmmmmm. I thought I responded fairly fast to idiot Robert, but I'm not facing any of you in any quick-draw competition.
Posted by: tigerlily55 | April 27, 2009 10:28 AM
Much longer article in the March 2009 National Journal-
Rise of the Godless.
You can get a PDF of the article here:
http://www.secular.org/media/Rise_of_the_Godless_National_Journal_March2009.html
Don't know for sure if this has been mentioned here before.
Posted by: Anon | April 27, 2009 10:28 AM
I posted it on a previous thread, but the Boston Globe, yesterday, had an article on the increased interest in studying the psychology of the secular, after decades of studying the psychology of the religious.
I especially like the little graphic at the top.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/04/26/beyond_belief/
Posted by: Loc | April 27, 2009 10:29 AM
Great!
Next up - we need to take on the unfair tax system of private religious-affiliated schools (Catholics) in contrast with non-affiliated private schools.
Why should someone who tithes (or 8%) to the affiliated church get to send their kids, regardless of number, to the private school and there contribution is tax-deductible. While another family who chooses not to use public schools, but sends there kid to a private school that is not affiliated with a specific church, still pays taxes on their "tuition" payments.
Personally, I think both should be taxed - but again, somehow the religious group is favored.
Can someone explain this to me?
Posted by: Robert | April 27, 2009 10:30 AM
Y'all's inconsistent answers are pushing my tiny, religious brain! I'm being told, variously, that Ass.Prof. Myers is salaried, so can blog all day if he wants (which he clearly does); that he works non-traditional hours; that he writes all of these posts on his own time and then puts them on auto-posts (which I'm amazed to know that you all can state he does with certainty); or that it's OK for him to blog during the work day. So which is it?
It appears to me that all of you have a lot of blind faith in Ass.Prof. Myers.
Posted by: David Wiener
|
April 27, 2009 10:32 AM
FatherNature@15
Oh yeah. It is official. We are 2nd class citizens. At least our vote counts for more than 3/5s.
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | April 27, 2009 10:32 AM
I only eat puppies if they're wrapped in bacon.
Posted by: heddle | April 27, 2009 10:32 AM
Steve LaBonne,
Yeah? So what? Sorry, you meant to sound ominous, but it's just not scary. Remember it's a good thing if "cultural Christians" have reason to stop pretending.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 27, 2009 10:34 AM
Not my problem, asshole. Nobody cares about your tiny brain, or any other tiny organs you might have. Now go crawl back under your bridge.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 27, 2009 10:35 AM
Nerd of Redhead, OM, #38: As a college professor, the only time PZ is required even to be on campus is when he teaches classes or has committee meetings. The rest of the time is his to organize as he sees fit as long as the work gets done, like any salaried exempt. Most professors put in 50-60 hour weeks.
Not only that, but most faculty jobs, especially if tenure track, require some amount of community service or some sort of public outreach.
Posted by: MrFire
|
April 27, 2009 10:35 AM
#47:
It's all of the above, just like the trinity.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 27, 2009 10:38 AM
Posted by: David Wiener
|
April 27, 2009 10:38 AM
#20 - sorry, my Greek is rusty.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 27, 2009 10:39 AM
Robert, #47: It appears to me that all of you have a lot of blind faith in Ass.Prof. Myers.
Actually, we have reasonable faith in Dr. Myers' employer. You think they wouldn't notice if classes were not being taught, papers not being graded, research not being done, committee assignments missed? Especially with the complaints that they have received about Dr. Myers' from disgruntled jihad-enviers?
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | April 27, 2009 10:40 AM
Robert @ #47:
All of the above.
Posted by: Porco Dio
|
April 27, 2009 10:40 AM
now, i ask you..., if all these people are switching over to our side..., i wonder where all the money is going to that would previously have gone to churches...
i wanna piece of the action!
Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2009 10:43 AM
@ BowserTheCat # 12:
Or, in other words, a day out at Trentham Gardens is a lot less enjoyable if you know that you're going to Alton Towers next week.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
April 27, 2009 10:43 AM
As if you don't have blind faith in your own ignorance? We see large evidence of that. Some of us have been or are still in academia, or know of people in it. So we are well aware of the facts. We look at the evidence, and the evidence says PZ is a hard worker who deserves recognition. We look at your attitude and see an ignorant troll. By the way Robert, can you show us some physical evidence for your imaginary god? Something like an eternally burning bush that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin? Our beliefs are all about the evidence. Yours is all about your delusions.Posted by: heddle | April 27, 2009 10:44 AM
Steve LaBonne
I feel exactly the same way.
Posted by: Watchman | April 27, 2009 10:46 AM
Robert:
Oh, come on now, Robert. To second Benjamin (#57), the answer is "All of the above." Try disconnecting your emotions from the facts, Robert, and you'll figure this out in no time flat. (Seven Genesis days or less, or your money back.)
Posted by: Lilly de Lure
|
April 27, 2009 10:46 AM
Heddle said:
Heddle, forgive me if this sounds a little rude, but you do seem to spend an awful lot of time around here posting for someone who thinks we're not even worth a blip on your radar!
Posted by: SAWells
|
April 27, 2009 10:48 AM
@55: ...as the actress said to the bishop...
(sorry)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 27, 2009 10:49 AM
And, again sincerely and without a hint of snark, that's what a liberal democracy is all about. Kudos.
So then, you don't think religious institutions should maintain their special tax privileges, their ability to officiate at marriages (in Europe people can have all the church weddings they want but still have to register their marriages with the CIVIL authorities), and all the other kinds of favorable treatment they enjoy at the expense of unbelievers. Right?
Posted by: Josh
|
April 27, 2009 10:50 AM
He's an Associate Professor, fuckdick, not an Assistant Professor. It's a small detail to be sure. Nevertheless, I offer up your lack of knowing it as evidence that you probably shouldn't be making authoritative pronouncements about education. But by all means, don't let facts distract you from your little rant.
Posted by: heddle | April 27, 2009 10:50 AM
Lilly de Lure,
I also post on NASCAR blogs, and yet we don't worry about NASCAR fans either. Enjoying discussion and the occasional substantive debate doesn't mean I am worried about you.
Posted by: impiri | April 27, 2009 10:54 AM
I'm so proud to see this happening in my home state of South Carolina. I only wish that there had been a vocal group like the Pastafarians at USC when I was a student.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 27, 2009 10:55 AM
Someone get that child a pacifier or his bah-bah. The temper tantrums are getting annoying.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 27, 2009 10:56 AM
Robert, you never addressed my concern that you are still beating your wife. If you expect PZ to answer you baseless charges, I expect you to address my equally baseless charges.
Also, as a productive member of society; shouldn't you either be on your way to work or working? Instead of asking annoying questions that point out exactly what a mugwump you are?
Posted by: Victor
|
April 27, 2009 10:57 AM
Robert, #47
Some posts are live, some are scheduled for auto posting throughout the day. I know this not through blind faith, but because I asked him once. Unlike some gods, PZ replies when people speak to him.
Posted by: Tulse
|
April 27, 2009 11:01 AM
Oh, please -- why then did so many of the faithful get their panties in a twist over the atheist "Christmas" display, or about the "War on Christmas" in general, or about Dawkins speaking at a university, etc. etc. etc.
On the contrary, I'd argue that the Christians in the US (especially those of a more conservative bent) are far more concerned about atheism than its current political power warrants. Atheism is always the convenient bogyman for Christians.
Posted by: heddle | April 27, 2009 11:08 AM
Steve LaBonne,
I don't think there should be any special tax laws for religious institutions. To whatever extent, after proper accounting, they operate as charitable institutions--that portion of their revenue should be taxed like any other charitable institution--no more, no less.
As for marriages, it is fine with me that the state not recognize any marriage other than those that are simply registered with the Clerk of Courts. The religious can, of course, simply continue their own ceremonies and marry those whom they see fit to marry and exclude those whom they see fit to exclude--but it would have nothing to do with the state's legal status of marriage.
Yep, I'm OK with that,
But what are all those other special privileges that you alluded to that I enjoy at your expense? Let me see,
State mandated special treatment in housing? No, I have a mortgage just like you, at the same rate you can get.
State mandated special treatment in employment? No, even though I am an extreme minority in my chosen profession, there are no set asides or affirmative action for believers.
State mandated privileged access to scientific research funds? No, I apply for grants the same way anyone else does.
State mandated help with education costs? No--my son's tuition is the same as everyone else's...
What are these special privileges that you are funding that we are about to lose, so that I can take advantage of them while they last?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
April 27, 2009 11:10 AM
Nothing about our rigid control of the schools, the courts, and the media?
I guess not, because NYT is part of our control apparatus.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 27, 2009 11:16 AM
Well, to start with you have all those state constitutional provisions referred to above. You have "defense of marriage" laws that discriminate against gay people out of blatantly religious motives. You have the disturbing institutionalization of conservative evangelical Christianity in the military, and especially the Air Force. And beyond that you have all the cultural biases that support such institutional inequities.
But I actually don't want to argue with you, because I'm genuinely impressed with your responses. I just wish you had a lot more company among your co-religionists.
Posted by: flaq | April 27, 2009 11:19 AM
Supreme beings? Oh, sure -- I believe in those.
It really is supremely idiotic that this is something people demand from their politicians.
"Let's see... natural-born citizen, check. Meets the age requirement, check. Oh wait. This one says he doesn't believe in an imaginary being that lives in the sky. Forget it. Can't have people like that running for office."
Posted by: Steve_C | April 27, 2009 11:20 AM
Ignore Robert. He's a dipshit.
Posted by: Kausik Datta
|
April 27, 2009 11:24 AM
Newfie at #18:
Wait! Does FSM or Cthulhu qualify as a Supreme Being? Or the Great A'Tuin? How about Lord Voldemort?From the Texas constitution:
Posted by: Playstations | April 27, 2009 11:30 AM
Yeah, it's very good ;)
Posted by: heddle | April 27, 2009 11:32 AM
Tulse,
Oh please yourself--there are ~10^8 Christians. A few thousand can make a big noise about anything and it's still a negligible fraction.
It's no different than you guys on here, to use your expression, getting your panties in a twist over this or that perceived slight--such as Ken Miller mentioning his faith.
Do not confuse obnoxious loudmouth zealots with the majority--on either side.
Posted by: Trish | April 27, 2009 11:34 AM
I love it.
All around me in this economic mess who do I see reaching out to the needy? The churches. They offer help with food, child care, funding for medication and so on. They have a hand outstretched that is first in line to reach people in dire situations.
And they do help!
As an atheist, it saddens me to sit here struggling to find a local secular group to participate in. It saddens me to see some of us getting up on our reasonable high horse and verbally slap the silly believers when they are the ones actually getting something done. And I'm not talking the Vatican and it's reign of terror ... I'm just talking little town churches who just want to help people.
We need more of this.
Posted by: Tulse
|
April 27, 2009 11:36 AM
Heddle, you said that atheists were "not a blip" on Christians' radars. I think the examples I gave, and the multitude of other stories in the press about Christian concerns around secularism and atheism, certainly constitute a "blip". I'm not saying that Christians as a whole feel hugely threatened by atheism, but that they certainly have registered the increased prominence that atheism has culturally.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 27, 2009 11:38 AM
Get off YOUR ass and do something instead of whining, Trish.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
April 27, 2009 11:42 AM
So what are you doing to start a secular group? Those churches didn't spring into existence on their own, either.
Posted by: Tulse
|
April 27, 2009 11:43 AM
Heddle, you said that atheists were "not a blip" on Christians' radars. I think the examples I gave, and the multitude of other stories in the press about Christian concerns around secularism and atheism, certainly constitute a "blip". I'm not saying that Christians as a whole feel hugely threatened by atheism, but that they certainly have registered the increased prominence that atheism has culturally.
Posted by: JGG | April 27, 2009 11:44 AM
Pastafarian! Non Prophet Organization!
Fantastic ideas! :D
Posted by: Holbach
|
April 27, 2009 11:47 AM
I read the article early this morning and thought it pretty good. Have reservations about hugs from atheists though. This might morph into an unknown backlash from the god-hugging retards, and perhaps also cause ridicule as witnessed from the "Bright" moniker.
Posted by: Watchman | April 27, 2009 11:50 AM
For the record, Dr. Heddle, Steve was talking about favorable treatment enjoyed by religion institutions, not by you personally.
Posted by: Holbach
|
April 27, 2009 11:55 AM
heddle @ 36
Your damn right we think highly of ourselves. Why should a person whose mind and life is free from the stultifying madness of religion not think of themselves above people as yourself so afflicted. Your imaginary god may be above you, but we have no gods below us.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
April 27, 2009 11:56 AM
People are still feeding Robert the Troll?
I mean, seriously? Still?
Posted by: Gruesome Janine | April 27, 2009 12:01 PM
Steve C, Robert made it loud and clear with his first post that he is a dipship. But you are ignoring one of the favorite sports of this blog, the troll stomp. Why else would I have these pretty blood red wooden shoes? All I want is for Robert to address my concerns that he is still beating his wife.
Posted by: CJColucci | April 27, 2009 12:04 PM
However, in my state it is still against the law for atheists to hold office. An atheist neighbor of mine has suggested that we run for office and challenge the law.
Those laws may be on the books, or in state constitutions, but they have been a dead letter for decades. See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). Whether, as an atheist, you can actually get elected is another matter.
Posted by: heddle | April 27, 2009 12:04 PM
Holbach,
Well that is convincing.
But thinking highly of yourself simply because you claim the right to think highly of yourself is, obviously, bogus. Tell me what you have done that deserves admiration, respect, or kudos. Being an atheist isn't it. I was an atheist--it took no effort--and even if it was the correct position, I deserved no credit for adopting it (or for abandoning it.)
And being stuck in an infinite for-loop with an embedded "imaginary gods" print statement isn't it either.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
April 27, 2009 12:06 PM
Suppose he has time to beat his wife? There's all that son and slave beating to attend to.
Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: Steve_C | April 27, 2009 12:07 PM
Oh I totally enjoy a good troll stomp. But he's the type of troll that will just post the same shit over and over, he's not even entertaining to read.
Posted by: Matt Heath | April 27, 2009 12:16 PM
We can has ban for Robert? Really, I like a good troll-kicking as much as the next person but this one doesn't make any attempt to seem on topic or to attempt to defend his claims.
Also he keeps dodging the question about when he stopped beating his wife.
Posted by: David Wiener
|
April 27, 2009 12:17 PM
CJColucci@92
I realize these laws are most likely unenforceable, but they need to be removed from the books. An atheist might not win a statewide election, but I live in Cabrorro, NC... or the Berkeley of NC as we like to call it, and an atheist might win a local election here.
Posted by: Gruesome Janine | April 27, 2009 12:17 PM
Steve_C, Robert still has that New Troll Smell but that is the only thing he has going for him. It is becoming close to time to discard that broken toy. He won't even address my concern.
Patricia! Are you suggesting that Robert would break US laws about the keeping of slaves?
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
April 27, 2009 12:22 PM
Janine - Of course I'm suggesting that. Robert has a GAWD given right to own all the slaves, wives, sons and chattel he cares to.
Posted by: tomh | April 27, 2009 12:22 PM
There are six state constitutions that bar atheists from holding office, but these are all holdovers from colonial days and none are enforceable since they are superseded by the federal constitution and the 14th amendment. There is no argument about this.
As far as privileges received by religious institutions, they are almost too numerous to count. Aside from tax breaks that are not enjoyed by other non-profits, they are exempt from all sorts of zoning laws, non-discrimination hiring laws, health laws (such as mandatory vaccines), the list goes on and on. The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) exempts religious institutions from all sorts of state land use laws and mandates special treatment for prisoners of faith in state prisons.
Posted by: St. Tabby Lavalamp | April 27, 2009 12:24 PM
Robert wrote:
ZING!
Rush, is that you?
Posted by: Holbach
|
April 27, 2009 12:29 PM
heddle @ 93
See, I knew you would be convinced by that comment; the problem is that you could never apply it to youself because most of your thinking and reason neurons are taken up by nonsense religion. Your cranial void has been occupied to it's fullest and there is no more room to reason with. It's not your fault that there is no imaginary god, but it is definitely your fault for believing so.
The admiration, respect and kudos is what I honor myself with, as well as the same from like-minded rational people. I definitely do not expect those same principles proffered from you in your current state of dementia, as you are unable to appreciate a rational mind. No, you were not a real atheist, more of a phony I conjecture. And any former atheist who reverts to religious insanity has either been physically or mentally wounded, and your current condition is perhaps what you deserve after a short life of reason.
Yes, "imaginary gods" is an apt wording, for the double negative just proves the senselessness of it all.
You will not win heddle, as my reason is stronger than your befuddled unreason.
Posted by: Robert | April 27, 2009 12:30 PM
Alright, alright. Inquiring minds (e.g., Janine, Patricia, Matt) want to know the status and schedule of my wife-beating.
Given that she is two inches taller than me (four in heels), I find it easiest to stand on a stool during the physical abuse. Since she is also pregnant, and I don't want to hurt our future baby (#4!), I am restricted to administering Indian burns and noogies.
Posted by: Lynna | April 27, 2009 12:32 PM
Re: Trish @81
Not all churches are responding to the economic crisis in the way that you describe -- and I suspect that much of the laudatory activity comes from individuals that help no matter what their beliefs are.
Dallin H. Oaks, Mormon Apostle, gave a talk at the April 2009 General Conference in which he basically told the flock that they shouldn't depend on the church for help. Here's a summary from one of the attendees:
[Apostle Oaks] emphasized how he and others had REPEATEDLY counseled us to avoid debt and become self-sufficient: "I have said this again and again at numerous stake conferences around the midwest... AVOID DEBT."
He then gave advice for keeping out debt. He paused for a few seconds, encouraging members to write these things down. "Husbands should regularly tell their wives these four things:
1) I love you
2) I'm sorry
3) Yes, dear
4) We can't afford it"
He made it very clear that the church welfare program was to be used as a last resort. I'm sure if anyone falls into need now or is using the system, they must feel VERY GUILTY. I felt really bad for a large, faithful, tithe- paying family in sitting close to me. Their father had lost his job and the church had been helping them with their mortgage payments so they wouldn't be foreclosed. Oaks words must have been very painful to them.
As an aside, the fasts offering program here in the Midwest is running a huge deficit (according to our leaders). A new strategy has been introduced to increase donations: the deacons will now travel by car great distances with the priests to collect fast offerings (this is done in Utah where member live close together-not as practical our here).
He then indicated that through TITHING we can QUALIFY for all blessings the Lord has for us.
[end excerpt -- you can read the entire post at http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon576.htm]
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 27, 2009 12:33 PM
The anti-funny little troll does not even understand why I expressed my concern.
Posted by: Watchman | April 27, 2009 12:35 PM
I hear that. Christianity has been organizing for 1800 years, with the benefit of having something to organize around. Atheists, not so much. Only in the past two hundred years have they not had to worry quite so much about being tortured and incinerated for their infidelity at the hands of their less charitably-inclined Christian neighbors, and even now have had to watch while fundies like George W. Bush exert pressure on government entities to divert funds away from secular organizations like CARE and towards faith-based organizations. It's like swimming upstream and being blamed for the flow of the river.
Posted by: dkew | April 27, 2009 12:43 PM
Tomh, I didn't look up which others states have an atheist ban, but Texas was admitted to the Union (unfortunately) in 1845.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
April 27, 2009 12:44 PM
Four Robert, Jr.'s... four! Damn it, it's not even 10:00AM here and I get boggled.
Posted by: Holbach
|
April 27, 2009 12:47 PM
Robert @ 23
Shouldn't we be taxing the churches and only getting what those houses of insanity owe to the public all these years? I would tax those nonsense buildings for more than they are worth, as a penalty, and also make that tax retroactive back to the first church built or whenever taxes were first enacted. And another tax at the door to each church to clip the morons who enter. I would vote for these measures if ever a referendum was passed. Tax those insane houses right out of the idiot business and convert them to science labs, schools, libraries, and even sanitation plants. You morons want to keep houses of insanity, you should pay for them out of your own pocket and also pay the taxes. Tax those dung heaps!
Posted by: tomh | April 27, 2009 1:00 PM
dkew wrote: I didn't look up which others states have an atheist ban, but Texas was admitted to the Union (unfortunately) in 1845.
Turns out there are seven, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennesee, and Texas. And you're right, the last two are post-colonial.
Posted by: Siamang | April 27, 2009 1:05 PM
Robert the troll wrote: "It's 9:55AM, and you're posting on the blog"
Stupid troll. Never heard of a time-stamped auto-post.
Everyone laugh at the stupid dumbass!
Posted by: tomh | April 27, 2009 1:09 PM
@110
Actually, that's not quite accurate. I shouldn't do these things from memory. Arkansas also has a provision, "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court," whereas Pennsylvania only has specific protections for religious people,
Posted by: CJColucci | April 27, 2009 1:19 PM
Religions have the considerable advantage of organization and off-the-shelf ceremonies for the major passages of life. And there's nothing wrong with this. It's harder for atheists. They don't have off-the-shelf ceremonies and our own, made-up versions are often treacly. As far as organization goes, it's a lot easier to form a chess club than it is to form a club of people who don't play chess. I don't see this changing in the short to medium-term future.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
April 27, 2009 1:23 PM
Guy Lombardo? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-LSlApiGew&feature=related
Posted by: MosesZD
|
April 27, 2009 1:29 PM
1. Zebrafish lay in the morning, dumbass. Most of the zfin experimenters that I know look at the embryos in the evening when they've had time to mature. And you don't do experiments every day, either.
2. This blog has an "auto-post" feature. It means many posts can be written and timed to pop-up through the day.
3. Professor hours are not business hours. Many teach at night. So they don't show up until later in the day.
4. It's none of your fucking business anyway.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
April 27, 2009 1:33 PM
Puppies, being small, are harder to clean. Much less meat-to-weight yield. Kind of like squirrels...
Posted by: MosesZD
|
April 27, 2009 1:46 PM
Heddle said:
Ah, ha ha ha ha aha haaaa... eleventy-one!!1!1!
YOU think the universe was created for YOU! We think too highly of ourselves? Son, against your privileged-planet, center-of-the-universe delusional-arrogance, reason beats in vain...
So don't act like we "think too highly" of ourselves. We, by-and-large, just think we're clever animals lucky to be alive. And not the reason for creation!
Posted by: Watchman | April 27, 2009 1:46 PM
heddle:
I would recommend a do statement. Why waste cycles iterating and testing a superfluous counter? ;-)
Posted by: dkew | April 27, 2009 1:50 PM
Tomh, Thinking about state histories a bit more: all of their constitutions are post-colonial, by definition as well as date.
Posted by: Blue Fielder
|
April 27, 2009 2:18 PM
Bye, Robert. Hope you enjoy being in the dungeon with the rest of the scum.
Posted by: Max | April 27, 2009 2:28 PM
I like the title of the article, an allusion to scripture
Posted by: D'oh! | April 27, 2009 2:46 PM
Trish,
I am curious where it is you live that doesn't have secular organizations providing for the needy. Feeding America (previously known as Second Harvest Food Bank) is nation-wide, as far as I know. So is Meals On Wheels. I'm sure there are others--these are just two I have contributed to.
As an atheist, I feel no need to establish an atheist version of a charity. I'd even contribute to a faith-based charity if it is effective, hands out its help fairly with no strings attached, and doesn't proselytize.
Posted by: tomh | April 27, 2009 3:29 PM
dkew wrote: Thinking about state histories a bit more: all of their constitutions are post-colonial, by definition as well as date.
You're right, of course, since technically the colonial era ended with the Declaration of Independence in 1776. This is when most states began writing their constitutions and almost all of the original ones were adopted during the war. It's interesting that almost all included a religious test for office, meant to keep out atheists and, in many cases, Catholics. The only ones that didn't have a test were NY and Virginia. The first constitution to prohibit a religious test was the US Constitution of 1787.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 27, 2009 3:32 PM
Ooh, time for a game of Whacko-Troll(tm)! Such concentrated stupidity, where to begin?
1. Robert apparently believes that blog posts are written the instant he reads them. The timestamp is 9:03 am, not 9:55 am.
2. Despite making a big point about being in a different time zone, Robert failed to consider what time zone PZ is in. Morris is in Minnesota. That's in the US Central time zone. SciencBlog time is US Eastern time zone. It was 8:03 am for PZ when this posted. He doesn't teach any classes before 11:40 am on Mondays. That gives him more than three hours to prepare.
3. What everyone already said. Including the fact that PZ has said on several occasions that he schedules posts to appear so that people around the wold would have fresh material to read.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 27, 2009 4:29 PM
Bystanders should keep in mind that the group of Christians that Heddle claims to represent is barely half the size of the group of Christians he is pooh-poohing. A silent minority (23%) vs. a vocal plurality (42%). His claim to being a representative of that class is based almost entirely on his perception of his local church.
Posted by: pcarini | April 27, 2009 4:30 PM
Watchman @ #118:
You're forgetting this amusing syntax, supported by most C-like languages:
</geekpedant>
Posted by: Watchman | April 27, 2009 4:33 PM
pcarini, you are correct! I'd forgotten about the no-condition, no-iteration form. *facepalm*
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
April 27, 2009 4:37 PM
I don't want to hurt our future baby (#4!)
*sigh*
It's Idiocracy, I sez.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
April 27, 2009 4:46 PM
A few thousand can make a big noise about anything and it's still a negligible fraction.
There are more than 30 million members in the Evangelical Church of America, Heddle.
(That's the one that Pastor Ted "I lubs to snort speed off gay hooker ass" Haggard used to be the head of, remember?)
I still, and always have, encourage you to look outside your tiny little church once in a while. It's a big world out there.
I know it's scary, but you're a big boy now.
Posted by: Teddydeedodu
|
April 27, 2009 5:10 PM
Kevin @124
"3. What everyone already said. Including the fact that PZ has said on several occasions that he schedules posts to appear so that people around the wold would have fresh material to read"
For which I am forever grateful to PZ for!! This site has been highly informative and entertaining. Not to mention a 'quiet' oasis in a desert of religiousity out there. Thanks again PZ and keep up the excellent work.
Posted by: RamziD | April 27, 2009 5:30 PM
Heddle,
Would it be too much trouble to ask you to elucidate your views on separation of church and state in regards to education, gay marriage, the military, influence on government? I am just wondering because we only seem to get creationist input from the theists on this site.
Do you agree with the national government's faith-based initiatives expanded by Bush that are present until today? Do you agree that the issue of gay marriage should be resolved purely as a civil rights issue without any discussion as to what a religious "definition" of marriage is? Do you believe that religion has absolutely no place in our military? Do you believe that religion (or thinly disguised religion, aka. Intelligent Design) should not be taught in public schools? IOW, do you believe in the complete separation of church and state?
If you do, then you definitely are not the type of theist we are used to seeing on these boards.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
April 27, 2009 8:16 PM
On the other hand, if one worships at the church of Free Speech, one is not exactly an atheist, right? Or Freedom of Thought or the Goddess of Democracy or...
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
April 27, 2009 8:23 PM
One of the funniest quiet revolutions in family life is the one brought about by reliable birth control. In many families, when one of the children brings home their One True Love to announce that they're going to marry and be Happy Ever After, parents are apt to murmur, "Are you sure you don't want to live together for a while first?"
This has, apparently, gone completely unremarked among sociologists.
Posted by: Katkinkate | April 27, 2009 9:00 PM
Posted by: Robert @ 47 "Y'all's inconsistent answers are pushing my tiny, religious brain! I'm being told, variously, that Ass.Prof. Myers is salaried, so can blog all day if he wants (which he clearly does); that he works non-traditional hours; that he writes all of these posts on his own time and then puts them on auto-posts (which I'm amazed to know that you all can state he does with certainty); or that it's OK for him to blog during the work day. So which is it?"
All of the above, in various combinations, as he sees fit and is convenient to his daily schedule.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | April 27, 2009 9:11 PM
How does Janine not have a Molly?
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
April 28, 2009 12:10 AM
Y'all's inconsistent answers are pushing my tiny, religious brain!
Is it a pea, or is it a brain? Whatever it is, it is apparently so tiny that it can't encompass the difference between "inconsistent" and "more than one".
that he writes all of these posts on his own time and then puts them on auto-posts
Nor the difference between having the ability to do something and always doing it.
(which I'm amazed to know that you all can state he does with certainty)
No one stated anything with certainty, but that it was stated might just have something to do with PZ saying he does this.
So get to work!
I agree. PZ has been lax and has allowed Mr. O'Brien to escape the dungeon; time to stuff him back in.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
April 28, 2009 12:16 AM
This has, apparently, gone completely unremarked among sociologists.
Do you suppose that there there's no dark side of the moon because you haven't personally seen it?
Posted by: SC, OM | April 28, 2009 12:23 AM
I've heard that sometimes he's so worn out he doesn't bother to remove his coveralls and forgets to punch the time clock on his way out.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
April 28, 2009 12:30 AM
Monado, a quick google yields http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/340778
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
April 28, 2009 1:15 AM
How does Janine not have a Molly?
Damn good question... insulting sinner - check, one of the Gruesome Trio , check, ignorant slut, check - vile bitch, check, trusted keeper of the brass bosoms - check.
Sounds like a Molly winner to me. :)
Posted by: Anonymous | April 28, 2009 5:34 AM
to RamziD, #131,
No. Get rid of them.
Yes. I also believe that churches can continue to provide the private religious ceremony, with the right to exclude whomever they want.
No. If it provides emotional comfort to some critical mass of soldiers, then I support it. I am fine with restrictions on proselytizing and fund-raising for parachurch organizations from those in uniform—but I support the notion of a modest and well-disciplined chaplain corps for the major faiths. I also support harsh punishment for those who attack or discriminate against those who believe differently.
I don't think it should be taught in science class, period. I think it can be a topic in a humanities class, for example as a current-events topic, or in a philosophy class.
That is not a proper IOW, but like a good Baptist yes, I believe in separation of church and state. Here are my church's articles of faith, which I support. See section 5, items E and H.
That may be true—but you need to ask if the type you are used to seeing on here is representative, or if there is something about his (possibly minority) position that encourages him to come on here and pke you with a stick.
Posted by: heddle | April 28, 2009 5:36 AM
Previous "Anonymous" post was mine. Obviously.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
April 28, 2009 6:13 AM
possibly minority
possibly.
good, Heddle. At this rate, in a few years you might even be able to drop the "possibly".
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | April 28, 2009 6:26 AM
Acknowledge a Supreme Being? I can think of several supreme beings. The girls from the Supremes are an obvious start. Or how about Ruth Ginsberg?
If they won't accept human examples, Texans can always point to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pasta sauce be on him). Or maybe Azathoth, the mad blind god.
Posted by: Anri | April 28, 2009 7:44 AM
I did want to thank Robert for his post in which he - albeit sulkily - apologized for his asanine comments about our host's work habits, and in which he says he's going to try to find out what's actually going on rather than just sitting around and whining.
It's posts like those that show that he's not a squabbling little toad.
That's post #...
Hmm, I can't seem to find a post like that.
Pity.
Posted by: Whateverman | April 28, 2009 4:11 PM
20 years ago, I wouldn't have seen anything useful about evangelizing atheism or being aggressive about it. Today, though, it's obvious to me that the neo-con radicalization of politics has done the same to evangelical Christianity - and that it's time to put a stop to it.
Keep it up, atheists. In a perfect world, discussions about (a lack of) God would be kept personal, but when in Rome...
Posted by: reason
|
April 29, 2009 5:55 AM
I like that bit about supreme being - I wonder how lawyers interpret it. How about Diana Ross?
Posted by: Nicolae | April 29, 2009 10:43 AM
Well. I must say I am a little saddened by the attitudes I see here regarding people of religion. Some of you are making assumptions that all religious people think alike. That we are all stupid small minded and we all always screw everything up but atheists are perfect. I am confused that the only way to truth is to be an atheist free-thinker. Sounds a little similar to the claims of religious people saying their way is the only way.
Oh, also, I liked the comment earlier in the thread about how heddle was never 'really an atheist' Gee that sounds an awful lot like a No True Scotsman Fallacy that religious people are notorious for using.
You know a fairly large majority of religious people do NOT believe that their faith is the only true faith: http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons# (Except, oddly, Jehovah's Witnesses...Click on beliefs and practices to the survey down the page)
Many religions also accept evolution: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=394 (I was actually surprised by this survey but happily so.)
And guess what? Many other religious people are totally fine with homosexuality too: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=245
Bottom line: no two people think totally alike and it would be nice if other people would see that.
One last thing I will say that might blow your mind. As a Christian I am thrilled that we have atheists in the world. No sarcasm. You guys add a wonderfully needed perspective on the world.I just wish some of you were not so verbally abusive or hostile to those who are religious. (Exceptions made for Jerry Falwell and his ilk.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 29, 2009 10:50 AM
Nicolae I was going to blast you, but frankly I think you have some good points.
The problem a lot of us have is that by subscribing to a religion means you are sacrificing rational thinking for irrational.
And yes I know we all do it. But being irrational about a baseball team, or a pets love is a whole exponentially smaller level of irrationality than religion, something that is supposed to guide your life.
Posted by: RamziD | April 29, 2009 9:40 PM
Heddle,
Thank you for responding. I have to say, I agree with all of your answers except for having religious personnel within the military. If all religious people felt like you and wanted to keep religion a private matter that doesn't interject itself into the government sphere, then the U.S. would be a much better place.
I think you will find that, for the most part, most atheists would not have any quarrels with this type of benign religiosity. However, the choice for being theist/atheist, religious/non-religious should be private for everyone. That includes your children, mine, and everyone elses.
There is one overriding difference between theists and atheists, though, and this is something that I'm afraid cannot be reconciled between the two schools of thought. That is, like Rev. BDC explained above, the difference between rational thinking and irrational thinking. Faith is irrational. We see the dangers of that mindset that go well beyond religion.