…and this is a 
The story Barbara Bradley Hagerty cobbled together from interviews with atheists is now up. It's called "A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists", and it's very strange. Her emphasis is on the differences within the atheist community, and she makes it sound like atheism is about to blow apart into a collection of warring sects, just like religion, and offers scornful quotes about how the New Atheism offers nothing.
That's not the message I gave when she interviewed me, but maybe she got it from the others. Or maybe it's what she wanted to hear.
I told her a number of things. I said that atheism doesn't have a central dogma or doctrine, so of course we have a variety of different views under the catch-all category of atheism; and that is a strength of our ideas, that we can freely argue among ourselves. I also explained that we need a variety of approaches to appeal to a wide range of people, and that my personal belief was that we should encourage a thousand flowers of godlessness to bloom, all different.
As to the charge that atheism is a purely negative philosophy, I also said that wasn't so: that it's a rejection of old dogmas and superstitions, sure, but that it's built on the positive value of rationalism and materialism, and scientific thinking. We adopt moral values from humanistic ideas that are centered on stuff that actually exists, like other human beings, rather than imaginary commands from an invisible man in the sky.
She also asked about Paul Kurtz, who does sound rather bitter in the sound bites used in the interview. I think Kurtz is a smart guy, and he has made and is making significant contributions to atheism, and I told Hagerty that I respected him…but that he's only part of the atheist mosaic, not the totality of it. And the same goes for people like Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris and Dennett.
None of that mattered, I guess. She had the goal of making a story that put atheism in a bad light, so she picked a version that made us look like schismatics on the verge of a Thirty Years War. If there'd been some kind of alien unity among us, she probably would have made a story about our intent to crown Richard Dawkins pope. Oh, well. She's wrong.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Hank Fox
|
October 19, 2009 9:41 AM
"Bitter Rift" is one of the coffee bean formulations that the atheist tasting panel rejected.
We were going to use it at our monthly bacchanals, but we decided it was too bitter and, you know, rifty.
Posted by: Valdyr | October 19, 2009 9:42 AM
I'd rather have Dawkins as Pope than Joey the Rat, all things considered.
Posted by: JackC
|
October 19, 2009 9:43 AM
Just heard this and thought"PZs gonna be pissed." Miserable really, I spent the wee waking hours saying "What?? You have GOT to be kidding..." - not healthy for one of my advanced years to be yelling at the radio before fully waking.
JC
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 19, 2009 9:44 AM
Is it just me, or when people want to insult us they directly try to make us appear as religious as possible...
So we worship evolution, we have a schism or two and we are fundamental in our beliefs. Apparently.
I can only assume that religiousity goes hand in hand with the complete inability to understand either irony or hypocrisy.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm | October 19, 2009 9:44 AM
I was shocked by what I heard this morning.
I'm glad to hear your version because I was so surprised at the tenor of her story.
Posted by: Aris
|
October 19, 2009 9:47 AM
Here is Barb explaining her mission:
"When you or I as Christ-followers go to work each day, we have to perform our jobs in a fundamentally different way from other people because our employer is Christ and everything we do has to be run through the filter of this question: How does Jesus Christ view my performance? It raises the bar higher than the most demanding editor or supervisor could possibly do."
Source: http://www.evangelicalnews.org/bp121.html)
____________________________________________
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 19, 2009 9:47 AM
from the article:
See... this is why I agree with PZ that Hagerty went in with a specific goal of painting atheism in a negative light. This is just a grossly false statement that shows a complete lack of effort and journalistic integrity. The "Great Desecration" was done on July 24th of last year, IIRC... not on Blasphemy day (Sept 30th if I am correct)... and stating it as such reduces the action to a mere publicity stunt that completely ignores the back story and the very poignant and necessary point behind the actions.
This is a piss-poor job of "pre-judgmental" journalism and the fact-checkers at NPR should be ridiculed for missing such an obvious factual mistake.
If you're going to write an opinion piece with an obvious prejudice, don't bother interviewing people, especially if you're simply going to quote-mine them and get the simplest of facts wrong.
Terrible job by Hagerty. I wonder how many of the other atheists she interviewed had their quotes mis-represented and otherwise cherry-picked?
Posted by: Michelle R
|
October 19, 2009 9:49 AM
Yea. She obviously had an agenda. She had her direction, and decided to dig in the snippets you guys gave her to put rotten meat around her skinny bone.
Posted by: Rorschach | October 19, 2009 9:50 AM
From that article, quoting Paul Kurtz:
Sounds like it's just a blown up piece about "New Atheists" versus accomodationists.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 19, 2009 9:52 AM
Clearly not high enough to fact check your fucking statements, though, huh Hagerty?
You made poor baby jeebus weep.
Posted by: Chester Burton Brown | October 19, 2009 9:53 AM
Standing up for what you believe in is rude -- basically, this seems to be the point.
She's all for allowing people to entertain their notions of godlessness in a disorganized and private fashion, but it's another notion altogether when we speak our minds. It's especially scary when we speak our minds en masse because of the mosaic quality PZ mentions -- to a flock-minded individual, this seems like nothing more anarchy.
She's confused, poor dear, by how so many people could know what to think without a central authority mapping it out for them. How messy! How unpredictable! How dangerous and potentially compelling!
Oy.
Posted by: longstreet
|
October 19, 2009 9:54 AM
No pope?
Damn. I was hoping to start an order of atheist monks.
Needless to say, we'd be dropping the celibacy requirement. Not to mention poverty, cloistering, silence, obedience, etc.
Ok, so it's basically a tax dodge with a mansion.
PZ, when you die, can you loan us a body part? I'm thinking the beard. That way we can put it in a gold case and claim it never decays.
Also, I was hoping to co-opt Hugh Hefner for atheist sainthood. Although an 80-year old with a stable of young blondes probably believes in God. We can just do a post-mortem deconversion like the Mormons.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
October 19, 2009 9:56 AM
Granting interviews to idiots, ideologues or religious fanatics never ends well.
Posted by: Rey Fox
|
October 19, 2009 9:56 AM
That was the South Park angle, if I recall correctly. We don't all agree on everything, therefore we're as bad as religious fundamentalists. Remarkably lazy, and it doesn't change the fact that there still ain't any gods, yo.
Posted by: James | October 19, 2009 9:57 AM
This is definitely unrelated but does anyone know if PZ has an Obama blogging twin brother in Minnesota?
http://obamesque.wordpress.com/about/
So weird
Posted by: bailey | October 19, 2009 9:58 AM
I thought the segment was great but severe. When I read blogs in the states it's like everyone wants to split hairs about atheists, vs antitheists, etc. I'm an atheist, I don't belittle, I just believe the science and not the superstition, as you said.
But then it gets creepy and disengenuous when you read blogs like Andrew Sullivan because he keeps changing the field post, first their were christians, then christianists, evangelicals, and then Palin, etc.
It seems ridiculous to me at least because it's simple; there's believers, agnotstics and atheists. Fair enough, we can agree to disagree.
But then they can't can they, so they insist on creating confusion thru semantics and emphasize how fascinating is their 'level' of faith. And maybe this is what pushes people like Hitchens and Dawkins to become so activist about the issue, but no, Hitchens hates some religions more than others so let's maybe just focus on the activism that Dawkins does and simply be grateful...
Posted by: bobxxxx | October 19, 2009 10:02 AM
As to the charge that atheism is a purely negative philosophy
I think of atheism as being just another word for sane. The alternative, theism, is a mental illness, which unfortunately is often incurable.
Posted by: toby | October 19, 2009 10:02 AM
Of course Christians never fell out over things like whether God was three-in-one, or whether he had a real presence in the blessed eucharist! Millions were never exterminated for holding one view or the other.
Naw, only atheists quarrel over obscure points of doctrine.
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 19, 2009 10:03 AM
I was hoping to start an order of atheist monks.
Needless to say, we'd be dropping the celibacy requirement. Not to mention poverty, cloistering, silence, obedience, etc. - longstreet
Been done, more or less: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Club.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 19, 2009 10:08 AM
@ bailey #16
Well, that's the point PZ tried to make to the interviewer... there are different methods of getting the message across to different people... and the spectrum of personalities active in the atheist movement is as broad as the spectrum of personalities in general. Why is this so surprising? We need varied ways to get the message out... and different people will be attracted to different approaches. I see this as a good thing. We may not agree on how we approach religion and the religious, but we (atheists) all agree on the general principal that there is no god, that we as humans have no need for belief in god, and that we'd be better off as a race moving on without that belief.
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 19, 2009 10:10 AM
You should see the bitter rifts that exist amongst people who don't believe in elves.
Posted by: raven
|
October 19, 2009 10:11 AM
It's a lot more complicated than just atheists not having a bible, catechism, creeds, and Popes.
Atheists are only part of the areligious movement. Atheists poll a few percent of the population. When you add in the agnostics, Deists, spiritual but not religious, Pantheists, Secular Humanists, Nones and so forth, the areligious (or Nones, or No Religion) run around 20% of the population. 60 million people and, if they were a sect, they would be in the top three in the USA
The Barbara creature had an agenda. So she lied and made up a bunch of stuff. Typical xian although I don't know her affiliation.
Posted by: lneely | October 19, 2009 10:12 AM
i may not agree with them completely at times, but as far as i'm concerned, i wouldn't want to do without the likes of dawkins, hitchens, pz, etc. they speak to my frustrations and outrages. what small quarrels i may have with so-called new atheist tactics or rhetoric can hardly be called a "bitter rift."
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 19, 2009 10:12 AM
-On Blasphemy Day, Myers drove a rusty nail through a consecrated Communion wafer and posted a photo on his Web site-
Yeah, I thought that was a bit odd. I wondered if you had done it again and I had missed the post or something. Nope, just lying for Jebus.
-You made poor baby jeebus weep.-
Lying for Jebus is part of the job as christian isn't it? It can't really be an accident or bad reporting because crackergate was last year.
Posted by: Ian Glendinning | October 19, 2009 10:15 AM
Come, come now PZ, as you said yourself edgy and revolutionary are good (for you as a new-school atheist). You wanted division, you got it.
Old school atheists (even recently-born-again old-school non-theists) like myself still prefer to pick-up the pieces of baby thrown out with all the bathwater.
Posted by: raven
|
October 19, 2009 10:21 AM
So she lied? Xians always lie. Jesus must be happy.
The usual fundie mantra. Who would jesus rape, mutilate, torture, and kill?Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 19, 2009 10:23 AM
It's been discussed ad-nauseum before on this site, but I just wanted to make it clear: part of the reason it's easy to paint the portrait of a "rift" among atheists is because of the totally invented term "New Atheists" that gets bandied about and used primarily as a derogatory by the religious and the accomodationists. In short, as far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as a "New Atheist"... what there are, are people like PZ and Hitchens and Dawkins... atheists that aren't content to "keep it to themselves and respectfully shut up" about their atheism so as not to offend. That's what "New Atheists" are.
Putting a moniker of "New Atheist" around those who won't keep hushed about it and calling that a "schism" is as silly as what Matt Heath adeptly stated at #21. It's totally missing the point.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 19, 2009 10:23 AM
I agree with Jordan, I wouldn't want that painting on my wall either. But that's because that style of painting would clash with the other art I already have.
Atheism doesn't have schisms. While atheists may disagree with each other on how to best effectively display atheism, there isn't an atheist dogma. As so many of us have told the goddists time after time, we're not a religion. Hitchens, Dawkins, PZ, etc. aren't gods or even prophets. They're just people who don't believe in gods.
I've disagreed with PZ several times. Told him so on his very own blog. But I don't disagree with PZ about gods. He doesn't believe there are gods, neither do I. If I disagreed, then I wouldn't be an atheist.
Posted by: Jack
|
October 19, 2009 10:25 AM
In a depressing way, many journalists are like the religious: they have a story or idea they develop an attachment to; they go out looking for evidence/interviews/data related to the story and they then sift, cherry-pick and distort the data to support the story they went to believe and/or tell.
This journalist clearly wanted to tell a story of atheism divided, and nothing PZ or anyone else said to her was going to change her mind about that.
Posted by: Victor
|
October 19, 2009 10:29 AM
That's what she wanted to hear. Hagerty if pretty flighty and NPR really deserves a better religion correspondent. She's far from unbiased in her reporting and has always seemed to be a bit snippy toward unbelievers.
Posted by: Beth B.
|
October 19, 2009 10:30 AM
@ Rey Fox #14: I had taken the South Park angle to be that if you eliminate religion, people will still find something to be irrational about and kill each other over. Oh well. Otherwise I agree.
And what is up with so many religionists attempting to *insult* atheists by making us out to be behaving in a religious manner? Is this merely a "ha ha, you do it too!!" thing? Otherwise it seems a bit...self-hating, to say the least.
Posted by: strangest brew | October 19, 2009 10:30 AM
Seems to me that theist sensibilities are under immense strain...probably the scariest for the bunnies in over a century.
Obama...they have been told is the anti-christ...and atheists are coming out of their closets like a group of previous folks that also had a penchant that dared not speak its name!
And these atheists do not seem to fear us anymore!
All that status quo social engineered machinery used on folks they hate has seemingly evaporated...now they must ride the same bus as them...and those nasty atheists are publicly laughing at us and our mewling over sweet baby jeebus...it is intolerable and apparently it is legal...they are thinking 'why are those nasty atheists daring to open their mouths in collective disdain of our dogma?
They never used to...tis the end days...praise the rapture!
They are oppressing us...with intolerance and hatred of jeebus...oh woe is us!...'
So why not lie a little...tis for jeebus after all...take words out of context...twist the data into what we would prefer to hear...and what we prefer to think...paint the atheists in the worse possible light...maybe we can get them lynched, metaphorically if not literally if we lie about them enough...we did it before about a folk we wanted to hate against...we can do it again...after all we are Christians...we happen to be very good at hating and lying!
Posted by: JJR | October 19, 2009 10:31 AM
She also frames Kurtz as "Old School Atheism", conveniently forgetting, oh, I dunno....Madalyn Murray O'Hare?
Because Madalyn was all about treating religion with kid gloves and playing nice /sarcasm].
I mean, what did her militancy ever achieve...besides that landmark Supreme Court victory, I mean...?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 19, 2009 10:33 AM
Well, since you insist on using the over-used and mis-placed "baby" analogy, allow me to further it... if the baby is an incurable, disease-carrying, infectious little bugger born without a brain, it probably should be thrown out with the bathwater.
But whatever you do, just keep it away from me and the people I care about... I don't want that thing passing its infection on.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 19, 2009 10:34 AM
Meh, a new atheist is just an old atheist that has had to deal with Ray Comfort.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 19, 2009 10:35 AM
First, a mini-rant:
But yeah, I think theists can latch-on to the heated differences of opinion among popular atheists because it is something theists are intimately familiar with. In fact, theists are atheists of a sort when it comes to the gods of religions other than their own, but unlike atheists, theists usually have a religious dogma to fall back on in refuting that other "god". Some atheists do, too, such as those whose political ideology demands atheism.So, I started listening to the broadcast piece and it kind of fell flat before it even took off by characterizing the "new guard" as saying "religion is dangerous and should be treated with contempt", which is neither new nor true. It depends on how an individual treats religion that determines whether or not it is dangerous; a knife can be a tool or a weapon depending on who wields it and for what purpose. And I wouldn't treat with contempt a religion that kept to itself any more than I would contemptuously treat any other kind of hobby I disagree with or hold in low esteem; I do not think I am alone in this regard.
The next words of the on-air introduction are "the old guard says they should work with believers". Again, the "old guard" is not solely old but as timeless and contemporary as the "new guard" and the "old guard" doesn't want to work with all believers, just the ones they like or tolerate. Are we to believe that Paul Kurtz would willingly work with Ken Ham or Fred Phelps? Of course not.
Without having listened past 18 seconds of air time, I am guessing there is a good chance this NPR piece will be a litany of lies from start to finish.
Posted by: qbsmd
|
October 19, 2009 10:35 AM
I think they are actually trying to make a similar point about us: if it is accepted that "we worship evolution, we have a schism or two and we are fundamental in our beliefs", then the conclusion is that atheists criticizing theism for such things are hypocrites with no sense of irony. And the logic is sound, it's the premise that's faulty.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
October 19, 2009 10:36 AM
... or, y'know... if it just is an infectious disease...
... and such a darling little Y pestis bacterium...
(/C'mon mommy, it followed me home... let me keep it...)
Posted by: JackC
|
October 19, 2009 10:41 AM
Tis @ 28:
How very very odd. The instant I clicked your link, Pete Seger (being interviewed on WAMC - again) said 'Sailboat"
Sometimes, synchronicity is just fun!
JC
Posted by: bob | October 19, 2009 10:44 AM
"[Atheism is] a rejection of old dogmas and superstitions, sure, but that it's built on the positive value of rationalism and materialism, and scientific thinking."
If it were, Bill Maher wouldn't have won an award for it. Period.
Atheism has gone too mainstream to assume that the only people who are atheists are intelligent and rational. Time to start calling yourself something else, PZ, or you can forget the last half of that quote.
Posted by: charley | October 19, 2009 10:47 AM
Perhaps as an evangelical Christian she has difficulty imagining a world where disagreement doesn't inevitably lead to a "bitter rift".
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | October 19, 2009 10:49 AM
Posted by: bob | October 19, 2009 10:44 AM
Bill Maher didn't win an award for it - Maher claims to be agnostic.
He won an award for making a funny movie.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 19, 2009 10:50 AM
bob -
True... very true... but this in no way contradicts PZ's claim that atheism itself is "built on the positive value of rationalism and materialism, and scientific thinking."
You can be a moron and an asshole and still maintain the tenets of atheism... we've had quite a few folks here that fit that description... no?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 19, 2009 10:50 AM
The comments after the NPR article are interesting. There's fatwah envy, "but we're so nice and those nasty atheists are so nasty because they don't think we're so nice", "why can't we all get along?", and even Pascal's Wager. To quote Ecclesiastes 1:9, There is no new thing under the sun.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | October 19, 2009 10:55 AM
The only "schism" I see in the atheist community is from the people on the fringes that feel they have been left behind or that want to give their view of what atheism should be philosophically. If there is a schism coming, I don't see it.
Posted by: steve | October 19, 2009 10:55 AM
Feeling Expelled again PZ? ;)
Posted by: Lynna
|
October 19, 2009 11:00 AM
I posted this on the NPR website page:
Posted by: SEF
|
October 19, 2009 11:01 AM
@ Jack #29:
That's behaviour which is not even remotely restricted to those groups though! It's the same thing seen among non-religious, non-journalist posters here - making up a strawman of what they want the issue to be instead of the real one and then pretending they've won by attacking that thing which was never in issue, while assiduously ignoring the actual issue on which they're wrong.
However, their incompetence at reading comprehension and argumentation is not mere stupidity. It's also a result of them not caring about the truth enough even to bother checking the actual facts (as per the date of blasphemy day in this case); as well as there being more overt instances of dishonesty on their parts. The world is chock-a-block full of people with insufficient regard for the truth. Endemic laziness usually wins even without the assistance of more intentional dishonesty.
That's the killer part of the saying: "all that's required for evil to triumph is for the good to do nothing". If religious people weren't so disgustingly lazy about the truth, not very many would remain religious. But it's not something at all unique to them.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 19, 2009 11:03 AM
Only the title is way overdone, but then I wouldn't dispute the importance of the title. Nevertheless, you actually got a lot of diversity in the article, and not much to support the claim in the title.
Slap a different title on it, and I'd say it's on the disparaging side, but not that bad. With the title, it's pretty much a hatchet job.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: qbsmd
|
October 19, 2009 11:04 AM
It has nothing to do with mainstream; atheism for the 20th century was more associated with communism than rationalism and scientific thinking. The choices are to either pick a different term, or change the connotation of the word "atheist" to "built on the positive value of rationalism and materialism, and scientific thinking". People have been trying to use other words: agnostic, humanist, secular, skeptic, etc., and the result is confusion among both atheists of any label, and theists like Hagerty. What's the harm in trying to redefine the word "atheist"?
Posted by: Wim Vandenberghe | October 19, 2009 11:09 AM
First off, by Paul Kurtz' standards, "old" atheists like the 19th century Robert G. Ingersoll were also "fundamentalists" for mercilessly criticising and ridiculing religion non-stop.
Secondly, his claim that organisations like the Center for Inquiry "merely attack" and don't provide alternatives is a lie and he knows it. By the way, the outspoken Ingersoll also provided a secular alternative and Paul Kurtz erected a museum in honour of this "fundamentalist" non-believer together with the Council for Secular Humanism.
On the other hand, I would like to know why the interviews at the Center for Inquiry were cancelled. The interviewer baselesly implies some kind of totalitarian big brother decision by Ron Lindsay, so it'd be good to hear the actual reason. In addition, if Ron Lindsay really said that they'll do "whatever it takes", I think that that was very clumsily stated because people will read into that whatever they want and it ain't gonna be positive.
Posted by: robinsrule
|
October 19, 2009 11:10 AM
I keep praying to Darwin but he isn't any better at providing a convenient and delightsome parking space than Yahweh, Allah, Elohim, Jehovah or Cthulhu. Frankly they all suck at anything automotive. Maybe I'm supposed to pray to the mother instead?
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 19, 2009 11:12 AM
Seems to me that theist sensibilities are under immense strain...
probably the scariest for the bunnies in over a century.
Obama...they have been told is the anti-christ...
and atheists are coming out of their closets like a group of previous folks
that also had a penchant that dared not speak its name!
And these atheists do not seem to fear us anymore!
All that status quo social engineered machinery used on folks
they hate has seemingly evaporated...now they must ride the same bus as them...
and those nasty atheists are publicly laughing at us and our mewling over sweet babi jeebus...
it is intolerable and apparently it is legal...they are thinking 'why are those nasty atheists
daring to open their mouths in collective disdain of our dogma?
They never used to...tis the end days...praise be to the rapture!
They are oppressing us...with intolerance and hatred of jeebus...oh woe is us!...'
So why not lie a little...tis for jeebus after all...take words out of context...
twist the data into what we would prefer to hear...and what we prefer to think...
Paint the goddamned atheists in the worse possible light...maybe we can get them lynched,
metaphorically if not literally if we lie about them enough...on the telly and in the papers!
We did it before about a folk we wanted to hate against and whip into a shape that pleased us...and therefore pleased god!
we can do it again...
after all we are Christians...we happen to be very good at hating and lying for jeebus!
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 19, 2009 11:12 AM
-QBSMD: then the conclusion is that atheists criticizing theism for such things are hypocrites with no sense of irony. And the logic is sound, it's the premise that's faulty.-
Well, no, I have to disagree. Basically they think we are just another religion. The "wrong" religion, with false gods and prophets.
When they are talking about us, it's fundamentalism. When it's them it's sticking up for Jesus. Our Schisms are their "little debates" and our prophets are fake because theirs are real.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 19, 2009 11:16 AM
Mere atheism can't split into warring sects. It's a logical impossibility! However, there's definitely disagreement between the accommodationists, pretending that there's something of genuine merit in religion (from the "opiate of the people" excuse onwards) and that it's possible to somehow gain respect by kowtowing, and those who don't like the dishonesty (and historic failure) of accommodationism.
So, unless all the accomodationists can be shown to be theists masquerading as atheists, that issue does form a rift between atheists. Its bitterness varies.
It's also not the case that all atheists are humanists. It's possible to have decent personal morals/ethics etc without believing in the rest of the humanist baggage - ie the unevidenced belief that humans can be trusted to be nice people. Humanists aren't even necessarily atheists.
Posted by: B166ER
|
October 19, 2009 11:17 AM
I wanted to listen to the show when I heard about it, but now I'm happy that I didn't. The idea that atheism is some homogeneous, single minded group is ridiculous. We have many differences between us, but if any "war" was to break out between atheists, it wouldn't be about non belief in gods, but over political differences. There are Liberal and Conservative atheists and those without political opinions. There are Fascist atheists and on the other end of the spectrum, like myself, Anarcho-Syndicalists and other Socialist Libertarians (term used by Noam Chomsky to call himself an anarchist without calling himself an anarchist). That is the very reason atheism is spreading, precisely because it isn't one view of the world, but many, none of which include deities. I think the key to a healthy mass movement is discussion and debate, for without those things all we would have is a stagnant pool of dying ideas. So keep arguing and keep discussing, because that's what makes us a much stronger force to be reckoned with.
A TOAST! For even with all our differences and similarities we are still able to come together in ways dogmatically minded people never could, and THAT is our true strength!
FOR REASON AND SCIENCE AND A WORLD WITHOUT DOGMA!
No Gods, No Masters!
Cameron
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 19, 2009 11:20 AM
PZ you need to record all of your own interviews. You can't judge the interviewrs' honesty by your own.
First Ben Stein, now this.
Posted by: MattF | October 19, 2009 11:24 AM
Interesting that the URL http://www.evangelicalnews.org/bp121.html now returns File Not Found...
Although a Google search returns the gist of it.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 19, 2009 11:24 AM
PZ you need to record all of your own interviews. You can't judge the interviewrs' honesty by your own.
First Ben Stein, now this.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
October 19, 2009 11:25 AM
I think it’s funny that not even NPR will put atheists in a good light. We are dismissed with basically a sneer for being pugnacious and bitter, and the reporter doesn’t even do some basic fact-checking. Apparently we’re not worth it.
Posted by: Standard curve
|
October 19, 2009 11:25 AM
Who started using this "new atheism" label in the first place? I know it's been thrown around a while, but I never knew the source of the silliness.
Posted by: qbsmd
|
October 19, 2009 11:31 AM
My comment would not apply at all for someone who argued that their religion is the right one. It only applies to people who "want to insult us ...[by] mak[ing] us appear as religious as possible". And I wasn't arguing that they are right, only that it if they believe the false premise (that while criticizing religion, we have certain similarities to the religious), then it makes sense for them to use it as an insult. But you may be right; I may be giving credit where none is due.
Posted by: hackerguitar
|
October 19, 2009 11:45 AM
PZ, I hope you get an opportunity to rebut that NPR report.
Keep in mind that Kenneth Tomlinson, who's the head of NPR, is a right-wing GOP operative, and has shifted NPR's reporting hard to the right....
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 19, 2009 11:46 AM
Should be shown respect? They should get the same respect that they, as non-judgmental God fearing Christians, give to us... the ones who hate the non-existent deity that they happen to worship.
/ hates pink unicorns and elves too.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 19, 2009 11:48 AM
Hagerty says this blog calls for the end of religion. I thought the spirit of this blog was more along the lines of:
You get to keep believing in your religion and we get to analyze, criticize, and mock it and try to change your mind about it.
Posted by: Tree Lobsters | October 19, 2009 11:50 AM
This article appeared on NPR's Morning Edition. Each week, Morning Edition presents letters, emails and voicemails from listeners about the week's stories. It may be worthwhile to send in a few comments.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
October 19, 2009 11:57 AM
Seriously, I don't get it either. We really should be religious, because our most negative qualities are synonymous with that mode of thought anyway. Ri-i-i-ight.
Y'know, I'll bet you that if we went to war against the agnostics over doctrinal differences--a real bloody, near-genocide-type of war after which generations would wring their hands about the inhumanity of humanity--we'd stop getting criticised as fundamentalists and atheism would be seen as just as Grandma-soothing as Catholicism (or whichever sect is supposed to be the kittens-and-porridge one we're all fools for rejecting). At least, that's the message the theists keep sending, in that adorable, I-heard-this-from-my-friend-and-so-I'll-repeat-it-without-stopping-for-even-a-moment-to-think-about-it way of theirs.
"Fact-check? Look, the only performance review I'm interested in is the one I'm going to be given by Jesus, so you can take your journalistic standards and shove 'em where God's light don't shine!
Erm, on the other hand, Jesus' payroll department is a little backlogged, so I'm going to have to keep working here for now. Feel free to send more assignments my way."
Somebody somewhere wrote something about the futility of trying to server two masters...
Posted by: Fred The Hun | October 19, 2009 11:58 AM
Celtic Evolution @ 27,
Of course there are! Every newborn is an atheist until they are brainwashed into whatever belief their parents hold.
Atheist parents on the other hand tend to teach their offspring critical thinking skills.
Obviously Ms. Hagerty's parents weren't too keen on the critical thinking skills thing...
Posted by: raven
|
October 19, 2009 12:00 PM
Respect??? Huh??? Polls show the majority of the US population are sick and tired of the fundies trying to take over and destroy the country. They also don't like religious wingnuts trying to impose their views on the rest of us.
We might respect them more if they crawled back under their rocks and merely told their lies to each other and killed their own kids with faith healing. But probably not.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
October 19, 2009 12:10 PM
I heard this this morning and it was truly terrible. The themes were:
1. Atheists are angry, nasty, hate religion and relious people. (Selective quotes from Hitchens.)
2. Atheists can't even get along with eachother. (Paul Kurtz saying confrontation is bad.)
3. Atheists are fringe people.
Not a single positive thing was said, as far as I could tell. It was all about atheist bad, atheist angry, atheist grumpy and confrontational.
That was an even-handed treatment, don't you think?
Posted by: SEF
|
October 19, 2009 12:22 PM
@ Standard curve #61:
Note that PZ, assuming he wasn't completely misquoted(!), wasn't exactly helping there by referring to "the old school of atheism" in his interview.
Meanwhile, Google found this reference/claim of a coining:
So there's a date to try and beat.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
October 19, 2009 12:24 PM
Oh, and I forgot my main thought when I heard this while preparing breakfast (waaaaay too early this morning): She cherry picked the information and chose the things most likely to anger the religious people. Sheesh.
Opening salvo:
That's all atheists do, all day long, don't they?! And so it goes, throughout. Terrible. Extremely biased.
I'm now listening to Mitch Albom talking about his new book Have a Little Faith on MPR. He even made a little nod to "even atheists have embraced my book."
Although I think much of his book is nonsense; but what it does tell me: We are becoming prominent enough to require mention in an interview about a woo book. That's progress.
He's now going on about how it's OK not to have faith until you get older and see people die and get sick, blah, blah, blah: when you need comfort, you'll come running back to Hank. Ugh!
Albom's definition of faith: "That there's more to the universe than us [read: the material world] and there's something special, we know when we're doing good, there's a divine spark, blah, blah, blah, there's something bigger at work than just eating, sleeping, procreating, dying."
Typical crap: Happy horseshit.
Posted by: Foggg
|
October 19, 2009 12:25 PM
It would be interesting to know if BBH had the interview with Kurtz before she interviewed PZM -- and didn't read it to PZ for his comment.
Reading between the lines, it looks like the timing of the story was inspired by Kurtz's departure from the CFI (following the DC art exhibit which caught the attention of Tomlinson or whoever at NPR, and put this on a ToDo list). If so, Kurtz's interview would likely have been first.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 19, 2009 12:27 PM
"Oh, well. She's wrong."
I think that she is better described as not even wrong.
"And some are very much for it, and some are opposed to it on the grounds that they feel this is largely a religious country, and if it's pushed the wrong way, this is going to insult many of the religious people who should be shown respect even if we don't agree with them on all issues."
In other words, some atheists are openly for pushing aggressive religiosity out of the public sphere and others are pushing impotent accomodationalism. Yet more are terrified that if we rock the boat too much those caring, sharing creo-bots will start murdering atheists just like anti-abortionists murder doctors. Isn't the balance of fear wonderful?
I know that many people on this thread have argued cogently in the past that the comparatively liberal gun laws in the USA are a vital element of American national life, but I can't help feeling glad that I live in a country where the crazies have great difficulty getting hold of a gun. Giving the poor discursive skills of many creationist trolls, I can see some creationists being all too eager to resolve a debate that they cannot win by the simple expedient of falling back on the unassailable argument of high velocity lead.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 19, 2009 12:28 PM
Oops! I realise I'd already found another item dated (on its copy anyway, since the original is a dead link) to a little before that - but it is still credited to Wired:
Posted by: u-must-b-joking
|
October 19, 2009 12:37 PM
RT to Aris (#6) ... especially when the wages of sin is death. Jesus is one stickler of a boss; he's going to take a dim view of not doing the fact checking, and didn't his minions have a comment about letting your speech be Yea, Yea, Nay, Nay? So much for editorial scope!
Posted by: jimmiraybob | October 19, 2009 12:37 PM
The "Great Desecration" was done on July 24th of last year, IIRC... not on Blasphemy day (Sept 30th if I am correct)...
But every day is Blasphemy Day in conjunction with Heresy Day in conjunction with Pagan Day in conjunction with Heathen Day. I believe though that the autos-de-fe had their own special day ["have your people (the king's schedulers) call our people (the Holy Office's schedulers) and we'll get it on the calendar."]
Posted by: danaellyn
|
October 19, 2009 12:38 PM
Hi, Dana Ellyn here. I'm the artist who created the paintings for the Blasphemy Exhibit that are talked about in the NPR article. I was also invited to interview with Barbara for this story. And yes, she was very nice on the phone.
She told me a bit of what the focus of the article would be - the 'kinder gentler' atheists versus the new 'in your face' atheists. I decided to stay out of the conversation and decline the interview. Having now done interviews with several other news sources on my art in this exhibit and the broader topic of how I feel on this whole subject of Blasphemy day, atheism, etc, I worried that there was an agenda - and I didn't want NPR to use me as the poster child for all that's wrong with 'new atheists'. Because the bottom line is that I don't feel I am doing anything wrong. And, it is people like you, PZ, that help me remind myself that I AM in fact doing nothing wrong. For that, I thank you!
Yes, the paintings they use as examples for the article are among my most controversial, but those paintings do not define me or my art on the whole.
If anyone is interested in seeing more of my work, I invite you to visit my website at
http://www.danaellyn.com
and here's a link directly to all the press around my Blasphemy Day exhibit and all the paintings that are in the show:
http://danaellyn.com/press/blasphemy/blasphemy.html
Posted by: ereador | October 19, 2009 12:42 PM
Negative? Negative?!?! I shall positively examine any positive, testable, evidence for anything, and positively accept it if it passes muster, until further positive evidence comes to light, at which time I shall positively follow the same process. So show me, fundies. I'm waiting....
I listened to some guy the other day insisting that a god was at work in his life, because the detectives who had arrested him for check fraud got too busy with another case, so the police did not hold him for arraignment. Must be ... (a) God!!! The guy said there was no other way things could have happened as they did without divine manipulation of events. Mm-hmm. How about: murder or armed robbery or something trumps check fraud in the detectives' minds? Couldn't be that, could it?
Posted by: amphiox
|
October 19, 2009 12:46 PM
It's all that dark chocolate they served up at the convention, isn't it?
That's why the divide is bitter.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
October 19, 2009 12:49 PM
I think the "New Atheist" tag gelled after Dawkins' The God Delusion was published in Sep-2006. He and Harris were the core, the most confrontational face atheism had seen in a long time (ever?). Dennett was included later I think when somewhere along the line Hitchens was joined with the other three as "The Four Horsemen" after god is not great was published.
The End of Faith, Harris, 31-Jul-2004
Breaking the Spell, Dennett, 1-Jan-2006
The God Delusion, Dawkins, 17-Sep-2006
Letter to a Christian Nation, Harris, 18-Sep-2006
god is not great, Hitchens, 30-Apr-2007
That was a lot of publishing in a short time. (And I'm leaving out so many other new books on atheism.) Quite a bolus for society to absorb.
Posted by: Thomas | October 19, 2009 12:53 PM
It's a shame Paul Kurtz is using an honest disagreement of Blasphemy Day to air dirty laundry in a vendetta against an organization he is no longer absolute dictator of.
From my perspective (and speaking for myself only as I worked there for a number of years) CFI was horribly mismanaged under PK with his irresponsible overspending, lack of priorities, arbitrary decision making and habit for surrounding himself with incompetent sycophants and cronies.
CFI is better off under new management, and the Atheist/Skeptic movements are better off with a strong national advocacy organization that is professionally staffed and managed (rather than the "PK model" where the PR director's only qualification was that he slept with Kurtz books under his pillow).
Posted by: David B
|
October 19, 2009 12:55 PM
One of my friends at Sec Cafe points out that Hagerty has an agenda.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200505050004
To quote from the link -
'At the 2003 Baptist Press National Student Journalism Conference, according to an October 13, 2003, Baptist Press article, Hagerty discussed with conference attendees the effect of her religious beliefs on her reporting:
When you or I as Christ-followers go to work each day, we have to perform our jobs in a fundamentally different way from other people because our employer is Christ, and everything we do has to be run through the filter of this question: How does Jesus Christ view my performance? It raises the bar higher than the most demanding editor or supervisor could possibly do.
[...]
What's important is that [one's colleagues] begin to think differently about Christianity. And I actually think that's what we're supposed to do as Christians. We're supposed to draw people, through the power of attraction, to Jesus Christ just as He drew people to Himself.
[...]
Early in my career at National Public Radio, I decided that being true to my God had to be the nonnegotiable. If it meant losing my job, so be it. ... In the long run I had to think, is a story or even is a career ... more valuable than my relationship with God and eternal treasure in heaven? And I think the answer is no, and the decisions we make count for eternity'
David
Posted by: residualecho.myopenid.com
|
October 19, 2009 12:58 PM
In her one-sided hatchet job on atheists, which she can't even be bothered to fact-check, Hagerty characterizes the rejection of religion as insulting incivility. The supreme insult is to respect religious beliefs more than the person who holds them, to presume that a person cannot reasonably countenance criticism of religion, or our reasons for having rejected it, without retiring to the fainting couch. I'll respect, even fight to protect, Hagerty's right to believe any damned fool religious belief that gets her through the night, but religion is not entitled to more deference and respect than the person held in its thrall.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 19, 2009 1:01 PM
Lynna @ # 47: ... a young man whose life was threatened because he walked out of a church with a cracker.
Technically, it wasn't a church, just a room in a building at the University of Central Florida which had been made available for religious services.
Also, according to the clergy involved, it was not "walk(ing) out ... with a cracker", it was the kidnapping of god's son.
[/fair 'n' balanced]
Posted by: Bert Chadick
|
October 19, 2009 1:02 PM
What an unpleasant way to wake up. The first thing that went through my mind while laying in bed was "WTF!" The theme of this line of thought is that atheism is just another religion, and should be deconstructed as such. For decades the only atheist that had a public face was the brave, but certifiably odd, Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her story has infected the media with a story arc that will not die. sigh........
Posted by: airbagmoments | October 19, 2009 1:10 PM
More on Hagerty, the formerly Christian Scientist reporter, on my NPR blog:
http://airbagmoments.wordpress.com/
Posted by: llewelly | October 19, 2009 1:13 PM
Aris, your link gives me a file not found error.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
October 19, 2009 1:14 PM
I've contributed to my local NPR stations for a long time. I'm going to send in a complaint on this piece. I recommend that all other NPR members on this thread do likewise.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200505050004
http://betterangels.blogspot.com/2004/05/ballad-of-barbara-bradley-hagerty.html
http://betterangels.blogspot.com/2004/05/shouldnt-she-be-nprs-christianity.html
http://betterangels.blogspot.com/2004/05/something-rotten-in-state-of-npr.html
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 19, 2009 1:29 PM
SEF @ # 71: Wired Magazine dubbed it 'The New Atheism' in a November 2006 cover story
SEF @ # 75: Sunday, October 23, 2006 ... This is the challenge posed by the New Atheists.
JBlilie @ # 81: ... the "New Atheist" tag gelled after Dawkins' The God Delusion was published in Sep-2006.
I think I've got y'all beat (slightly) with an August '06 HuffPo article that reveals who's really responsible for Teh New Atheism™:
Posted by: Carl Buell | October 19, 2009 1:33 PM
I don't care what this woman or anybody else says about something they are not. Atheism was a very private and lonely journey for me. I didn't have a mentor into disbelief. It was reading and thinking and looking at nature and life on my own, all the time surrounded by people who I came to realize had nothing to share with me, who told me that I "thought too much...needed more faith". Over the years I did manage to find a common voice with a few friends, but it's only been with the Internet that my now 60 year search has found a wonderful and amazing number of fellow travelers. And we disagree about everything except belief. So what! That's just fine, because I know that even atheists that find me stupid or my reasoning less than perfect aren't going to go to war with me in any literal sense. Be they Socialist or Conservative we all realize that THIS is the shot we have at life, and we can agree to disagree without violence. Our "bitter rift" is intellectual not physical; I don't see any burnings at the stake in our future.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 19, 2009 1:41 PM
@ Pierce R. Butler #90:
I'm not so sure that that appearance really is using "new" as part of the label attached to the atheism itself rather than as a description of it being a new religion. It's not just the lack of capitals. It's the context. I.e.:
(new (atheist religion))
not
((new atheist) religion)
Of course it could still have set other people off into intending the latter rather than the former.
Posted by: Paul W. | October 19, 2009 1:51 PM
A 2004 article at Eschaton quoted the World Journalism Foundation's mission statement, which seems to have changed---I'm guessing because it was too embarrassing to reporters like Hagerty.
Emphases mine.
In case you weren't sure that that implied some serious presuppositions behind their reporting...
They appear to be actual presuppositional apologists---I don't know which stripe, but that's way way way different from objective reporting any way you slice it.
Here's the Eschaton link... page down a couple of times or search for WJI to find the relevant post:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2004_03_14_atrios_archive.html
Posted by: Nate | October 19, 2009 1:56 PM
It's interesting to see this pendulous swing between (equally fatuous) attacks on the "New Atheist" movement (and, yes, @SEF #92, they really are using it as part of a proper title).
On one hand, you have folks who, like Cardinal Francis George of the US Bishops' Conference, claim that New Atheism is fiercely dogmatic and intolerantly fundamentalist.
On the other you have those like Barbara Hagerty, who insist that a lack of centralizing dogma or formal belief structure weaken it and doom it to failure (clearly, however, still auditing the movement on religious merits).
Posted by: Gropenfuhrer | October 19, 2009 2:09 PM
In any case, what happened to Paul Kurtz is reprehensible. If you've followed any of the details, it is not hard to draw this conclusion.
"I was unceremoniously ousted as Chairman of the Center for Inquiry/Transnational on June 1, 2009. It is totally untruthful to state that I was not." --Paul Kurtz
Paul Kurtz built the whole infrastructure and "outerstructure". Everything there. They wanted to throw him out of his office, which is in the building he designed, funded, and built.
C'mon, that's low. Ron Lindsay is a sleazeball.
Call me sentimental, but I see a vague parallel with the early formation of Christianity. Jesus was just a dude walking around saying stuff like, "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself." Then a bunch of fucking assholes (the Roman Empire) took it over and recast it into an exclusive doctrine (with a virgin birth, WTF?) to justify their own power.
Posted by: fossilator
|
October 19, 2009 2:09 PM
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church" - Martin Luther
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM
|
October 19, 2009 2:13 PM
Writingly, Bitingly,
B. Bradley Hagerty
Writes about Atheists,
Finding a schism;
Godlessness, organized
Quasi-religiously:
All of humanity
Seen through her prism.
long and eloquent rant in prose at
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/10/plato-linnaeus-darwin-and-atheism.html
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | October 19, 2009 2:13 PM
I found the NPR story more encouraging than disturbing, because it presents a unique opportunity. Atheists don't agree on everything. As an advisor to a student atheist alliance, I see quite a few bitter arguments. So I say fine. Let's have a war. Let's argue bitterly and heatedly, divide into factions, nominate leaders and fill the interwebs with rants. And let's make it public, so that people see that when our "religion" suffers a schism, no one is killed. That's the kind of war that I'm up for.
Let me get it started. PZ Meyers is a splitter and an attention-hound! Down with his rotten blog and those who post upon it!
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 19, 2009 2:19 PM
@Antiochus Epiphanies -
Fuck off! We're not the Atheist People's Front! We're the People's Front of Atheism!
:-D
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 19, 2009 2:21 PM
SEF @ # 92: I'm not so sure that that appearance really is using "new" as part of the label attached to the atheism itself...
Well, I wasn't exactly 100% serious in nominating St. Ann as Our Glorious Founder - but someone with more time than I have at the moment might want to investigate further (than HuffPo's presentation of a Paul Krassner(!) report) to see how the combination of those two words proceeded along that trail.
Wired is just flaky enough to print articles by someone who might be "influenced" by AC, after all.
[Uh-oh... sign-in is back on!]
Posted by: SEF
|
October 19, 2009 2:39 PM
I did find another copy of that mini review review pointing at the actual review (by Jerry Coyne) - which in turn didn't seem to include the phrase at all! Though it does imply the contextual reading I suggested as the more likely of the two. I haven't read the Ann Coulter original (which was being doubly reviewed in this chain) to know if she had used the phrase herself.
Posted by: RickR
|
October 19, 2009 2:48 PM
"The practical need for Christian worldview journalists in our contemporary society is self-evident, but to simply note the obvious, there is the urgent need to provide journalistic "salt" and "light" and "leaven" within the mainstream media as a manifestation of our Christian obligation to lovingly model justice to our society."
Translation: "We need xians in the media to howl and demonize atheists, abortionists and faggots as subhuman garbage."
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
October 19, 2009 2:49 PM
I don't think NPR employs fact-checkers anymore. They really have gone down the tubes.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 19, 2009 2:53 PM
You better watch your back. He carries a cyberpistol.Posted by: abb3w
|
October 19, 2009 3:05 PM
Time Magazine piece from May.
She deserves some sympathy for how far she's had to go already on her intellectual journey. It's understandable if she's leery of the local customs.
It also helps if you understand the idea of statistical distributions when dealing with evolved traits; the views of Atheists range in such a manner.
Posted by: Rod | October 19, 2009 3:05 PM
According to Sam Harris atheism is just the sounds people make when confronted with supernatural BS. That sounds as good as any definition I've seen. It is otherwise without philosophical content. Real respect for evidence and the scientific method is not a given...even in atheists. I've known several atheists, Russians in this case, who were raised without religion, and believed in all manner of "supernatural" pseudoscience. They were never taught the skills of skepticism...much like, I suspect, the ex-atheists who now claim to have found God.
Atheism can be just a way of going with the flow as well, if that's how one is raised. A good BS meter has to be taught, or learned through a series of hard knocks, I think.
Posted by: Cannabinaceae
|
October 19, 2009 3:11 PM
Yeesh. Sports on saturday, Krista Tippett on sunday. I already dread waking up to NPR on the weekends. Now this crap, and who knows, possibly even worse in the future.
Guess I'll just retire from pop culture and listen to nothing but the classical station.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
October 19, 2009 3:20 PM
The default is atheism. And many believers will acknowledge that they are atheists regarding all gods except their own.
Apologies if I've posted this before. Re: The claim that atheism is a religion or is "fundamenatlist"*:
Atheism is not a religion. Atheism fails to possess the key characteristics of religion:
1. It is not a system of beliefs. One factor alone determines atheism: lack of belief in any God or gods. Disbelief in any gods doesn't constitute a religion any more than disbelief in fairies or trolls does. Of course, you may have some very vociferous and outspoken atheists who exhibit the metaphorical sense of religion: "he was religious in his rejection of all things supernatural." Everyone understands this sense of the word to be a metaphor: derived from the fervor and ritual conformity exhibited by many religious people throughout time for long enough for the characteristic to become recognizable and memorable to all.
2. Atheism does not include belief in anything supernatural. If a religion does not entail belief in something supernatural, then metaphysically it is simply an acceptance of the natural world as fact. It makes no sense to call such a thing "religion." It would rob the word of any meaning. We use the word religion to indicate belief in the supernatural: that is its function.
3. Atheism does not involve worship of any sort. It does not imply any worship.
4. There are no “priests” or “church” hierarchy in Atheism. There are admired atheists; but their pronouncements are not taken as “holy writ” as in religions. Rather, they are subjected to the same scrutiny and skepticism as anyone else. A casual look at any on-line atheist discussion board immediately shows how quickly prominent atheists attract (often vehement) criticism from their fellows.
5. There is no training or “confirmation” needed to be an atheist. One doesn’t even need to know they are an atheist: if they simply fail to believe in the supernatural, they are an atheist. No action is required by the atheist.
6. There are no: creed, catechism, holy books, oaths, or liturgy associated with atheism in any way. Again, simply failing to believe in any supernatural entities makes one an atheist by default: No action is required.
7. There are no rituals, rules of conduct, taboos, ceremonies, or any other social hallmarks of atheism, as there are in religions.
8. Atheism doesn’t splinter into multifarious “sects” of atheism each devoted to their own particular opinion on the correct way to not-believe in the supernatural, each denouncing the others and perhaps even killing each other over fine points of disbelief. No one is starting groups of people who fail to believe in any gods in new and different ways.
(* I'm only fundamentalist in that I base my decisions on skepticism of everything, the evidence, reason, and logic. Those are my fundamentals. I've had numbers of believers insist, vociferously, repeatedly assert that atheism is a religion.)
Posted by: bobxxxx | October 19, 2009 3:36 PM
My usual reply to this strange non-logic: Then are you saying non-religious people are religious?
I've also heard these retards claim that evolution is a religion. My usual reply: Do you also think gravity is a religion?
Stupid can't be fixed and that's why for most Christians, their disease is incurable.
Posted by: jerseyguy | October 19, 2009 3:36 PM
In May 2009, Hagerty said, "My faith is the prism through which I look at the world and make moral decisions."
(See: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1898804,00.html )
Posted by: bdh | October 19, 2009 3:37 PM
Here's an interesting* conversation between Barbary Haggerty, Francis Collins for the Pew Foundation back in May. I too awoke to NPR and had a WTF moment. I don't know why I felt the need to punish myself further, but here it is:
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=217
* By 'interesting' I mean 'silly'.
I too will start looking for Fingerprints of God - starting with my privates, since I'm pretty sure that perv got to me when I was little.
Posted by: Paul W. | October 19, 2009 3:39 PM
Gropenfuhrer,
Could you provide some links to some real information about what went down with Kurtz and CFI?
Unceremoniously ousting a leader isn't necessarily the wrong thing to do.
CFI was always an elitist organization, i.e., carefully engineered not to be very democratic.
Just because Kurtz founded the organization and did a lot of fundraising, etc. doesn't mean he deserves to be leader for life. (Doesn't mean he doesn't, either.) A whole lot of other people contributed time, money, and talent to CFI, and it is not his property.
The question in my mind is whether his ouster was justified.
When you oust somebody in a situation like that, it's likely not be very ceremonious.
BTW, I've seen Kurtz-led CFI oust somebody unceremoniously myself, and it wasn't pretty. Turnabout might be fair play.
BTW, I have great respect for Kurtz and his contributions. I just suspect there are two sides to this story, and I don't know either of them, really.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 19, 2009 3:47 PM
qbsm @62 - And I wasn't arguing that they are right, only that it if they believe the false premise (that while criticizing religion, we have certain similarities to the religious), then it makes sense for them to use it as an insult.-
In hindsight you may well be right actually for some people. It would depend on the person. Phew, I think we just avoided another schism there :)
- But you may be right; I may be giving credit where none is due.-
A safe assumption.
Thing is, what would happen if we did get more organised and have a sharper focus. Is that what the reporter really wants?
Posted by: DagoRed | October 19, 2009 3:50 PM
#55: SEF said Mere atheism can't split into warring sects. It's a logical impossibility! However, there's definitely disagreement between the accommodationists...
Exactly! Precisely! Agreed! The advantage to being atheist is this simple, unary desire we all share -- fighting against irrational thinking, for which we only differ in our degrees of disgust. Other issues will divide us (such as over tactics), certainly, but even if we all end up hating one other, atheists always unite without being united over this singular issue.
(The only thing that has stopped rational minds from prevailing in the past is those damnable irrational theists keep making up immoral reasons to kill us off in the name of their god(s)).
Posted by: redmonster
|
October 19, 2009 3:58 PM
Well. I don't think atheism is a purely negative philosophy--I don't think "atheism" is a philosophy at all; I think it's a purely negative definition. That's mainly a semantic distinction, but I think it's an important semantic distinction. All atheists are not rationalists or scientific thinkers, as much as we'd like them to be. They're not all humanists. All atheism really means is when someone doesn't believe in any particular god.
I tend to feel a little squirmy when I hear people using "atheism" interchangeably with humanism, rationalism, skepticism and love of science. It encourages the idea of atheism being a religion in itself, and let's be honest; there are atheists out there who are not the least bit rational, skeptical, or scientifically inclined. There are people out there who are perfectly superstitious, illogical, irrational and don't believe in any gods. While such folks are arguably less numerous than the scientific/skeptic/secular humanist atheists, at least in largely religious countries such as ours, we really don't know that they are, and besides, all countries are not like ours. While the non-reality-based atheists may also be less dangerous than the folks who tell ignorant, illiterate, semi-starved people that using condoms makes baby Jesus cry, they can still spread misinformation about vaccines, for example. The only thing all atheists have in common is that we don't believe in any gods.
Oh, also, since SB isn't letting me sign in on TypePad, I'm using my LJ account for this post; this is Alyson Miers.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
October 19, 2009 4:01 PM
I doubt Scientologists and Raelians share that desire even though they are atheistic.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 19, 2009 4:03 PM
I suspect the real reason it's so very, very important to the religious that atheism be made to seem like just another religion is their desperate need to validate their leap of faith. Faith is a great virtue and, at the same time, it's the norm. Everyone believes things that would otherwise sound silly. Everyone. Nobody is supposed to analyze their beliefs. Nobody does. So that's okay.
And nobody can criticize anyone else's religion, because their religion is just as loony toons as the one they attack. I think the religious hope that they can frame the atheist criticism of religion as just another instance of one sect criticizing another. It defuses the rational aspect, and turns the argument into politics. Instead of having to examine whether their beliefs really are reasonable, they can shape the dispute as one about power. Atheists are after control.
Whether God exists or not has to be, at worst, 50/50 odds. You can't possibly look at the natural world and extrapolate anything to the supernatural. Unless, of course, if you find evidence for God.
Thus, they come up with the idea that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist, as to believe in God. In fact, they'll say with no sense of irony, it takes more
The faithful are very afraid of critique. They're terrified of ridicule. They want their religion to be a sanctuary where it's okay to believe whatever you pick and choose to believe, and nobody will be able to tell you you're wrong. Belief is supposed to be private and personal -- but only when its criticized. When it's being praised you can't wax eloquent enough.
What a sad article. The writer leaves the impression that the so-called New Atheists are aggressively pushing themselves into private, personal lives -- interrupting christenings and throwing eggs at choirs. Of course, if I believed in the crap they believe in, I might be trying to reframe the issue as well, as a matter of strategy.
And there's no excuse for getting Crackergate so completely wrong.
Posted by: shonny
|
October 19, 2009 4:09 PM
Sounds like the 'hag' bit in her family name describes her best.
Posted by: shonny
|
October 19, 2009 4:37 PM
Wrong. It's you who are a fuckwit, as further indicated by your silly nom de blog
Posted by: danaellyn
|
October 19, 2009 4:47 PM
Hi, Dana Ellyn here. I'm the artist who created the paintings for the Blasphemy Exhibit that are talked about in the NPR article. I was also invited to interview with Barbara for this story. I think it was a good thing that I declined to comment. More on that below...
But first I wanted to share with everyone the speech I gave at the opening. It answers a lot of the questions that have been coming my way since all of this hit the press a few weeks back. If you have 7 minutes to spare, I invite you to watch/listen. Thanks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqZSbfFZ2FI
Back to the NPR story - Barbara told me a bit of what the focus of the article would be - the 'kinder gentler' atheists versus the new 'in your face' atheists. I decided to stay out of the conversation and decline the interview. Having now done interviews with several other news sources on my art in this exhibit and the broader topic of how I feel on this whole subject of Blasphemy day, atheism, etc, I worried that there was an agenda - and I didn't want NPR to use me as the poster child for all that's wrong with 'new atheists'. Because the bottom line is that I don't feel I am doing anything wrong. And, it is people like you, PZ, that help me remind myself that I AM in fact doing nothing wrong. For that, I thank you!
Yes, the paintings they use as examples for the article are among my most controversial, but those paintings do not define me or my art on the whole.
If anyone is interested in seeing more of my work, I invite you to visit my website at
http://www.danaellyn.com
and here's a link directly to all the press around my Blasphemy Day exhibit and all the paintings that are in the show:
http://danaellyn.com/press/blasphemy/blasphemy.html
Posted by: wistah | October 19, 2009 4:47 PM
Sent to the NPR Ombudsman today:
I have to say Ms. Hagerty's story today was something I’d expect to hear on FOX rather than NPR. In the past, I have found Ms. Hagerty's reporting to be somewhat problematic in that her personal bias can be, at times, easily detectable, but nothing to date has been as egregiously biased as the piece broadcast today.
Her premise, to begin with, is manufactured out of thin air. Indeed, Ms. Hagerty contrives a construct that exists only in her imagination. There is no monolithic atheism to experience a “bitter rift.” Anyone who devotes even a minimal amount of time researching atheism would know that such a suggestion is absurd. Is there really a group of people out there organized around the fact they see no evidence of a God? What is the organization these people belong to? Who comprises its titular leadership? Where does one find them? If there is such an organization, that would certainly be news and she might have reported on that. Of course, she did not, because the notion is silly. Ms. Hagerty, however, is apparently determined to make a point, and her construct provides her an opportunity to do just that. She reports on a “bitter rift” in the leadership of an organization that doesn’t exist, and from there provides “evidence” that atheists are a disrespectful and angry group, soon to be found, no doubt, eating their own.
None of this should come as a surprise to you as I know complaints have been made in the past to NPR about Ms. Hagerty’s bias. By broadcasting her report today, however, she has completed her mission, only the “mission,” it seems, is not the one related to upholding NPR’s journalistic standards, it’s the mission she addresses in here own words below:
“When you or I as Christ-followers go to work each day, we have to perform our jobs in a fundamentally different way from other people because our employer is Christ, and everything we do has to be run through the filter of this question: How does Jesus Christ view my performance? It raises the bar higher than the most demanding editor or supervisor could possibly do.
[...]
What's important is that [one's colleagues] begin to think differently about Christianity. And I actually think that's what we're supposed to do as Christians. We're supposed to draw people, through the power of attraction, to Jesus Christ just as He drew people to Himself.
[...]
Early in my career at National Public Radio, I decided that being true to my God had to be the nonnegotiable. If it meant losing my job, so be it. ... In the long run I had to think, is a story or even is a career ... more valuable than my relationship with God and eternal treasure in heaven? And I think the answer is no, and the decisions we make count for eternity. “ (http://mediamatters.org/research/200505050004)
Ms. Hagerty is a disgrace to the standards of NPR. If any other reporter simply manufactured a problem or conflict out of whole cloth in order to broadcast a report to further a personal agenda, NPR would—I hope—do the right thing. You folks should do the right thing now.
(my name here)
(and my town)
WFCR 88.5 Amherst, Massachusetts
Posted by: shonny
|
October 19, 2009 4:48 PM
As to the charge that atheism is a purely negative philosophy
But of course it is, it forces you to think for yourself, which is not required from believers, and for which they are, on the whole, not equipped.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 19, 2009 4:54 PM
@6
How does Jesus Christ view my performance? It raises the bar higher than the most demanding editor or supervisor could possibly do.
More disgusting Xtian exceptionalism. Like I don't judge myself at a higher standard than my supervisors do? Like I don't beat up on myself when I misjudge someone and treat them poorly?
Most Christians are much too worried about what Jesus thinks of their performance and not in tune enough to what they do to others.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 19, 2009 5:19 PM
Well, it's a change from Mooney's clownish articles about how "New Atheists" like R. Dawkins are doing more harm than good and that being an accommodationist is the Right Thing to do - and in the same breath claiming that R. Dawkins is really an accommodationist. He reminds me of the Queen in Alice in Wonderland (or was it Through the Looking Glass?): Nonsense! It means whatever I want it to, neither more nor less.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | October 19, 2009 5:43 PM
Next time Hagerty calls, or someone like, send 'em my way. I'll put in some good words about the atheists we have down here in Texas, including the North Texas Church of Freethought, that the Secretary of State is trying to keep from incorporating as a church.
No creed, no ideology, but great Sunday services with a good band, sometimes irreverent songs (but always good), and a Moment of Science for the kids.
I'd like to know why they keep trying to cast atheists as bitter. Most atheists I know are more sane, sound and funnier than most other people.
And from my Christian perspective? Most atheists act a lot more Christian than most Christians, in the good ways.
I keep telling people in my church that our biggest challenge is to make sure that Christian music isn't the biggest and best thing Christians do. That is a damnably big challenge. At least you don't need to worry whether atheist music will eclipse good deeds by athiests. I don't think there is such a genre, really.
Posted by: kshep | October 19, 2009 5:49 PM
I heard the report this morning too, and the first thing that came to mind was, "that reporter is barely able to contain her disgust for the subject she's covering." Of course, the "report" all went downhill fast from there.
I thought it was pretty obvious---you could just feel it in her vocal inflections. NPR should be ashamed to have aired that ridiculous piece.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 19, 2009 5:50 PM
At least you don't need to worry whether atheist music will eclipse good deeds by athiests. I don't think there is such a genre, really.
Well, I wouldn't call it a genre, per se. But one can certainly find freethought-themed music. Dan Barker has a couple CDs. Very nice. There are probably others as well. :-)
Posted by: DaveL
|
October 19, 2009 5:59 PM
I would say that atheism is a purely negative philosophical position. Of course, there's nothing stopping an atheist from also holding a variety of positive philosophies that are consonant with it, such as secular humanism.
There is nothing wrong with atheism as a purely negative philosophy. Its purpose and goal is to avoid the error of believing in something that does not exist. It requires no further justification.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 19, 2009 6:16 PM
Simple fact is the Christians that get their knickers in a twist about atheism seem do it for several reasons.
1. As a sop to their own ego, they cannot be so wrong can they?
2.Like to be seen by their own as tilting at the atheist windmill of rationalism.
A kind of street cred for the gullible.
3.Are very scared that atheism seems to be a growing trend and appears to be fighting back in the media and society.
4.They are aware of the diminishing numbers of converts to any particular faith.
Churches are starting to get half empty, some are closing down and merging with other parishes to share chattels!
5.That diminshment is further undermining financial stashes, several main line cults are for the first time getting poor with no relief in sight.
6.They have no idea how to actually fight a lack of religious faith.
They fight other faiths they consider are false and use the language of religion, that they can handle!
Christians have done it for 2000 odd years, tis second nature, but they know what they are dealing with, they understand the mind set if not the dogma of a theistic opposition.
But Atheism is different enough to make 'em shit themselves.
They cannot engage with logic or the intellectualism to counter the 'evidence' against their claims, which by default and to a claim are matters of pure faith that traditionally requires no logic and no intellectualism to hold...And more poignantly has no tangible bona fide evidence to present!
They are outclassed there severely and they are dully aware of the fact.
In panic and confusion they revert to type and can only conjure up old and creaky battle tactics that always used to work, but which apparently bounce off the armour of atheism.
They try the same, only louder, same affect, and then quite alarmed reiterate to anyone in earshot the tired old morality clichés, just desperately begging that the audience concurs and maybe/might join forces in decrying atheism for them, always better to lob a few mortars of appalled general public sentiment out of left field then launching solely dead centre from a religious stage!
They are not shy about lying either, in fact several of the more vociferous, like this dozy dame, are proud of it and basically brag about it, seems to be an xian trait that is to be aspired to amongst the sheeple.
They can only frame atheism as a religion, cos they relate to that premise, thing is, it is not working, they are more confused then ever.
And the reason it is apparently not working is very simple...
Atheism is not a religion...
nor has it ever been...
and nor shall it ever be...
simple like so!
Posted by: SEF
|
October 19, 2009 6:30 PM
Of course they do! (a) Libel them. Eg Psalms 14:1 and 53:1. (b) Kill them. Standard religious practice.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
October 19, 2009 6:34 PM
Or, more tersely: 'Who Would Jesus Slime?'
(/Rhetorical question, natch.)
Posted by: woozy | October 19, 2009 6:39 PM
I was a little perturbed that she seemed to finger "contempt" for religion as a defining factor. I know many of us do feel contempt for religion but ... I just can't muster that level of loathing. And I really have a hard time imagining contempt as positive or desirable force. (Denton sounded almost rabid in his comment that when talking to a christian or muslim he's not going to sugar-coat by denying he feels contempt.) Among those of us who do feel "contempt" toward religion express it as pointed critique as why religion *deserves* contempt, and not that contempt is *the* justified and reasonable force of the new atheism. PZ out-of-context comment about contempt being "edgy" and nescessary was reasonable but the whole impression came off that we are a bunch of hateful, contemptuous boors.
If I were to posit a defining factor of the "new atheist" (much as I hate the term) I'd say it's not our contempt or confrontationalism, but our straightforwardness and refusal to be marginalized. It's simply that we won't talk about our disbelief abstractly. If asked we tell, and if glossed over we point out we exist.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 19, 2009 7:01 PM
To me, this highlights the problem with the term. Atheism is the negation of theism, nothing more nothing less. Yet it's taken to be an alternative to theism, and the lack of prescribed morality, meaning, etc. becomes apparent and undesirable.I'm more than happy to call myself an atheist, but atheism is not my worldview. This seems to fall out from people wanting to categorise, and in this case they make a category error. My morality, my sense of meaning, while these have things in common with other atheists (I would contend most people in general have a centralised source of morality and meaning that is ultimately external to religion) but there's nothing alien about me.
This "with us or against us" mentality surrounding religion is incredibly unhelpful, it's a lie that separates us based on culture. It's a shame that morality is so tightly coupled to religion, as is existentialism. It makes this kind of alien mentality come out. Why can't when people ask me where I get my morality or meaning, I answer "The same as you"? I can't because while ultimately it's the same for where I derive morality and meaning, the answer for them is ultimately God.
This dialogue shouldn't need to occur, it's divisive and outright hostile. Atheists aren't a curiousity, they aren't different, they're still human and are thus subject to the human condition. It is a damnable doctrine that teaches otherwise, that pushes original sin and relegates what should be a celebration of humanity as fallibility towards what should be perfection.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 19, 2009 7:12 PM
@82
From my perspective (and speaking for myself only as I worked there for a number of years) CFI was horribly mismanaged under PK with his irresponsible overspending, lack of priorities, arbitrary decision making and habit for surrounding himself with incompetent sycophants and cronies.
Oh, so that's why I'm no longer getting those "we're broke, we're so dead broke we'll be turning the lights off next month" letters even though the economy is worse now?
I never found Kurtz that compelling. I always thought it was me.
Posted by: The Ungodly Goddess
|
October 19, 2009 7:15 PM
So that is what I heard on NPR this morning? I was peeved to hear that there is a divide between atheists who think religion should be treated with contempt and others who go for a softer approach. I think they were attempting to illuminate the divide between the faitheists and the incompatiblists, but they they failed.
I am one of the "new atheists", and I don't think religion should be treated with contempt anymore than any other superstition. I treat most religions the way most religions treat cults that conflict with their teachings and beliefs that they find wacky... and for the same reasons! It's just that religions are used to getting deference they don't deserve, and when the atheist doesn't kowtow to the "faith in faith" folks, they see that as "contempt" while their own lack of deference for other "woo" is "free speech".
I would say I have no more "contempt" for religion in general than most theists have for Scientology in specific. I just think all religions are as goofy, untrue, and potentially harmful as Scientology is. I see no reason to respect religion in general than I see to respect Scientology specifically.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 19, 2009 7:26 PM
The saddest part about the whole affair is this: For as terrible as Haggerty is--and many other aspects of NPR--it's one of the best sources of journalism, overall, in the United States. Fox doesn't even bother to pretend they do journalism anymore. MSNBC and CNN are all about conventional wisdom and sucking up to idiots in power, the Sunday morning talking-head shows are unwatchable for all the misinformation and spin flying every which way. We're stuck with NPR/PBS (Frontline and NOW do admirable work) and the best media criticism doesn't come from professional media critics like Howard "conflict of interest" Kurtz but fake news shows on Comedy Central.
If well-functioning democracies (or even democratic republics) depend on a well educate populace, and if the news media are to serve as a source of education for that public....America is fucked.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 19, 2009 7:52 PM
MadScientist #124
I think you're referring to Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass:
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 19, 2009 8:05 PM
I tend to think of those shows like the Shakespearean fools, they are the only ones who can tell the truth because they are the only ones who aren't accountable. As Jon Stewart pointed out when he was on Crossfire, he comes on after puppets making crank calls. Thus he can be the most powerful man on television at the same time as playing down his importance. He's the fool, the jester, and as such the only one who has the ability to talk truth.Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 19, 2009 8:18 PM
SEF @ # 101: I haven't read the Ann Coulter original ... to know if she had used the phrase herself.
I just did a search of Godless for "new atheism" via Google books. Couldn't find that wording, but I did manage to scan multiple pages.
Ugh. That is all.
Posted by: woozy | October 19, 2009 8:56 PM
As to the charge that atheism is a purely negative philosophy
To be fair, she did end with this bit:
Maybe that's too little too late.I did have the feeling that the story overall portrayed the "new atheist" in a bad light (by overplaying our "agressive, often belittling" posture; by over exagerating the "schism"; and concentrating too hard on our "blaspheme"-- blaspheme day? I never even heard of that and ... well, who cares...) but I don't think it was as dishonest or as negative as some of us are making it out to be.
For example, although I find the story opening with a discussion of blasphemy day (which I believe is over-emphasized and serves to set us up as a bunch of taunting fight-baiting jerks), we did have a blasphemy day (didn't we? I mean she couldn't just make that up out of cloth) and she does (eventually and pretty late in the story) quote the reasons ""What we wanted were thoughtful, incisive and concise critiques of religion," he says. "We were not trying to insult believers."
When she said For example, Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and author of the book God Is Not Great, told a capacity crowd at the University of Toronto, "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right." His words were greeted with hoots of approval. I find such a statement will obviously make us look bad. But then, it is a true statement, isn't it? He did say that and it was greeted with aproval, wasn't it? (I think such a statement is presented to appear shocking and it doesn't support it with Hitchen's reasoning.)
Oh, I don't know. I guess I feel bad simply because we interpret an objective statement like "New Atheists oppose religion" as meant to be insulting even though ... we agree with it. But it *is* meant to be insulting and *is* percieved as such.
*Phooey* "Atheists don't believe in God, deny Christ, and reject the Church!" What is the proper response to this sort of "accusation"?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 19, 2009 9:02 PM
Atheists don't believe in God, deny Christ, and reject the Church!" What is the proper response to this sort of "accusation"?
Proper response? I'd go with: "Sure. And?"
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
October 19, 2009 9:04 PM
& the damn Easter Bunny into the bargain!
Posted by: TheBiologista | October 19, 2009 9:24 PM
Bitter, multi-faction schisms look set to tear the coffee-drinking community apart from the inside out. Prominent coffee-drinker says "we have no central dogma".
Posted by: Dentroman | October 19, 2009 9:26 PM
Did anyone address the whole thing about center for Inquiry denying interviews? I found that deeply disturbing if true (plus the most substantial part of the whole thing).
-Dentro
Posted by: Paul W. | October 19, 2009 11:31 PM
Dentro@144,
Given the evident leanings of the reporter, I might be inclined to decline an interview, too.
There's not much to be gained from talking to a reporter who will edit your remarks down to something that misrepresents your views.
Posted by: RickR
|
October 19, 2009 11:52 PM
woozy- "And I really have a hard time imagining contempt as positive or desirable force."
Johnny Rotten begs to differ.
Posted by: Caine
|
October 19, 2009 11:58 PM
Woozy @140:
My response would be "Yes, and?"
Posted by: Dentroman | October 19, 2009 11:59 PM
@145-I agree, it just seemed like she was saying there was an organized movement by the C. for Inquiry... probably just exaggeration, but it rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. I'm a bit amazed they agreed to the interviews in the first place.
-Dentro
Posted by: Rorschach | October 20, 2009 12:11 AM
I don't actually have any contempt for religion as such, or religious belief. I think it's ridiculous, but that's about it.
What I do have contempt for are individuals who under the mantle of religion commit crimes and atrocities. Every person no matter how deluded has free will, and can decide to say " no i will not take part in stoning that woman" or "i will not abuse my authority to buttfuck that altarboy".
It's individuals who do these things, not theologies.
Posted by: woozy | October 20, 2009 1:19 AM
>>>>"Atheists don't believe in God, deny Christ, and reject the Church!" What is the proper response to this sort of "accusation"?
>>My response would be "Yes, and?"
Which is fine and good, but the general feeling will be the intent to portray us in a bad light. And we recognize that.
Let's summarize this story:
a) Atheists had a "blasphemy day". True.
b) One leading atheist said he wants people to think about atheism and doesn't want to insult believers.
c) But there are some more agressive "new atheists". Okay, that's unbalanced and over-exagerated and a bit misleading, but not exactly false.
d) One atheist claims we should invoke our right to hate, belittle, and respond to religion with contempt and he got cheers of agreement. Whoa, don't lump me into one group! but ... yes, it's true.
e) There's disagreement about this issue among atheists. True.
f) One atheist think this is counter-productive and and its hate-mongering foundimentalism. True, one atheist does say that.
g) Some atheists think it's nescessary to present our point. True
So..... basically the story was accurate. And what's our impression? Why, we were maligned, of course. (And we were.)
It just depresses me that we're in a state where a statement "Atheists don't believe in God" is meant to be a malignment and we recognize such a statement to be a malignment it's meant to be.
I dunno. I'm just depressed, I guess.
I don't actually have any contempt for religion as such, or religious belief. I think it's ridiculous, but that's about it.
I wouldn't have anything against you if you did. (And I don't have anything against Hitchens either.) I just don't have it in me to drum up contempt, and I don't think it'd be contructive for me to try.
I just found it a bit ... off-putting ... to hear it implied that "contempt" was a defining element of so-called "new atheism". If there were such a thing as a "new atheist", I'd say our straight-forwardness and unwillingness to be marginalized is a more defining factor.
If an "old atheist" argues abstractly and esoterically, then a "new atheist" simply says, when asked, "no, I don't believe in God. No, it's not a matter of philosophy; it's simply a rational conclussion". When a "new theocrat" glosses some sound-bite about how everyone has some christian derived morality and a relationship with God, we say "No, they don't. Stop generalizing and stop trying to pretend everyone is like you. They aren't".
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | October 20, 2009 8:32 AM
Contempt is such an emotional reaction to a belief. Does Hitchens have contempt for every false belief? The contempt for unjust action justified by false belief I can understand. I think we can live without the histrionics, though. I'm not going to get apoplectic every time I'm confronted with someone's weird ideas.
Also, its pretty apparent that not all atheists are efficient logicians or even have a rudimentary understanding of science. Just check out the Athiests group on FB.
Oh. And "Myers" is an orthographic variant below contempt! Richard Dawkins is a pan-adaptationist! Hitchens is a war monger! Dennett is a cuddly old Santa Claus! The new "new atheists" will no longer stand for the shenanigans of these cultural dinosaurs!
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 20, 2009 9:20 AM
Maybe it is a case of beware xian tactics...divide and conquer is their favourite.
What gives the agitators for atheistic hatred wet dreams and a fuzzy feeling of intense desire is to be able to quote some atheist comment that yes indeed atheism, especially 'new atheism' is a religious calling, and every atheist, not just the 'new' ones wants the goal of their 'belief' to yield a apocalyptic smashing of xian 'belief' on the desecrated alter of a burning church...like all of them...and curse god on national Television.
And they are not getting that in fact what they are getting is nowhere near what they actually want.
But they are creatures of habit, they will try and stir the pot, tis what they do.
They discovered a long time ago that to destroy a creed or alternative dogma they must destabilise the edifice from the inside, set one against the other, cause friction and instability, and erode their credibility not only with the public at large but between the enemy themselves.
The best way is to lob a rhetorical grenade, and watch the atheists tear each other apart getting to the exits!
At least that is the theory.
It is a lesson they learnt concerning their own mob, they know that the religious would do that, they do not understand why the atheists seem to be more immune to such a ploy!
Their greatest ally are the accommodationist fraternity that is their fifth column and the fulcrum they hope will break the resolve of the satanic legions.
They love the term respect...they have no idea how it works or even really what it actually means...but to them it is the 'holy grail' in a secular society it means 'getting their own way'.
Apparently it also gives them complete freedom to watch their own children die an horrendous torturous death...it means chopping the skin off the end of a child's penis without anaesthetic...it means killing doctors or nurses...it means lying to school boards...it means lying to children and other adults...mostly it means lying to themselves...but tis okay that is for jeebus!
It means any damned thing they want it to mean...that is why it is such a powerful tool...and they invoke it whenever and however they can!
One could suggest the sad point is...the religious just do not get it.
Oh dear!...how sad!...never mind!
A sadder point is if they continue and are allowed to demand such abject unrequited respect from the rest of society..then they will continue and will feel allowed to carry on murdering their own children...killing doctors...chopping off any bit of their child that offends their make believe god!...and lying to anyone they damn well please.
These are not reasonable people whatever the accommodationist's opine...these are folks that believe utter gobbly gook...and just because that foible has always haunted civilisation for longer then xianity has been lurking does not give it carte blanche to always be respected..or indeed tolerated.
Posted by: Howard the Kay | October 20, 2009 9:37 AM
The *most* important thing to remember about reporters is that they tend to be not too bright. And they do NOT have the training of scientists that at least makes it more likely that a person with scientific training will pay attention to the data that disprove the hypothesis a scientist suspects is "really" true.
The fact that media folks tend to start out with a hypothesis or particular idea and then pay more attention to the data, interviewee statements, etc., that support that idea, than to statements and data that refute it, has been established by research with journalists and editors. And that's consistent with a well-known finding of cognitive science called "confirmation bias".
Posted by: Michael Drake | October 20, 2009 10:27 AM
Yes, one mustn't be negative. Like those anti-slavery types. Or the Ten Commandments.
Posted by: jay
|
October 20, 2009 1:37 PM
144
Did anyone address the whole thing about center for Inquiry denying interviews? I found that deeply disturbing if true (plus the most substantial part of the whole thing).
Probably they knew exactly what she'd do with the story and did not wish to supply any more quotes to mine.
Posted by: monkeymind | October 20, 2009 1:40 PM
It's all a devious plot by the Neville Chamberlain atheists and the faitheists in league with the Christards!
Posted by: Kraynium
|
October 20, 2009 4:48 PM
Hmm,
Seems to be yet another attempt by the religious to defame Atheism. I have yet to discern any tangible rift in the community of Atheists.
While there are many approaches and outlooks, there doesn't seem to truly be any hard divisions.
I suppose that the religious prefer the "Post-Modern Relativist" approach, but for more pro-active Atheists this just doesn't work. Some of us have no desire to remain silent ............
Posted by: Jeff D | October 21, 2009 4:13 AM
I read the NPR transcript of BB Hagerty's piece, and now feel no need to listen to it. As it turns out, at least half of the NPR member stations in the nation are in the middle of their 1- to 2-week sessions of wall-to-wall audio waterboarding known as "on-air pledge drives." And many of these pieces are not broadcast at all on those stations.
Posted by: jay
|
October 21, 2009 12:53 PM
Comment from CFI on this issue
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blog/quick_thoughts_on_npr_story/
Posted by: spazdaq | October 21, 2009 10:53 PM
It isn't just a rift between individual atheists. I find that politics of late has created a rift in my own atheism. The atheist I was tended to be soft spoken and tolerant. But as I get older and see the damage people can do when armed with their religious beliefs, I can't help but start to bend towards the militant atheist side.
Posted by: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth | October 29, 2009 11:44 AM
We new atheists can be nice and mean, whichever we want to be. Off-line, I don't raise a word generallly. On-line I can call the religion Christinsanity, the god Sky Pappy and so on or call it by its real name, the God the Ground of Being and so forth . I can be polemical or scholary- Google skeptic griggsy or the problem of Heaven, arguments about Him-that square circle, covenant morality for humanity, the presumption of naturalism and the ignostic-Ockham.
Crush the scam of ages! And Kurtz's "The Transcendent Temptation," reveals the scams of the supernatural and the paranormal.
And the accommodationists can have their approach, only they should never state that religion and science are compatible.but relgious people think so.
The teleonomic argument argues that God- teleology- contradicts science -teleonomy- natural causes only. Let us ever attack that scam creationist evollution. What obscurantism as Coyne and Amiel Rossow reveal @Talk Reason!
PZ, go after the confessionals,please! Do they just assuage but not get people to do better. Some protestansts confess before the congregation. What are the facts on all this? And how about those miracles and pareidolias when genocide goes on!
Posted by: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth | October 29, 2009 11:46 AM
We new atheists can be nice and mean, whichever we want to be. Off-line, I don't raise a word generallly. On-line I can call the religion Christinsanity, the god Sky Pappy and so on or call it by its real name, the God the Ground of Being and so forth . I can be polemical or scholary- Google skeptic griggsy or the problem of Heaven, arguments about Him-that square circle, covenant morality for humanity, the presumption of naturalism and the ignostic-Ockham.
Crush the scam of ages! And Kurtz's "The Transcendent Temptation," reveals the scams of the supernatural and the paranormal.
And the accommodationists can have their approach, only they should never state that religion and science are compatible.but relgious people think so.
The teleonomic argument argues that God- teleology- contradicts science -teleonomy- natural causes only. Let us ever attack that scam creationist evollution. What obscurantism as Coyne and Amiel Rossow reveal @Talk Reason!
PZ, go after the confessionals,please! Do they just assuage but not get people to do better. Some protestansts confess before the congregation. What are the facts on all this? And how about those miracles and pareidolias when genocide goes on!
Posted by: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth | October 29, 2009 11:48 AM
We new atheists can be nice and mean, whichever we want to be. Off-line, I don't raise a word generallly. On-line I can call the religion Christinsanity, the god Sky Pappy and so on or call it by its real name, the God the Ground of Being and so forth . I can be polemical or scholary- Google skeptic griggsy or the problem of Heaven, arguments about Him-that square circle, covenant morality for humanity, the presumption of naturalism and the ignostic-Ockham.
Crush the scam of ages! And Kurtz's "The Transcendent Temptation," reveals the scams of the supernatural and the paranormal.
And the accommodationists can have their approach, only they should never state that religion and science are compatible.but relgious people think so.
The teleonomic argument argues that God- teleology- contradicts science -teleonomy- natural causes only. Let us ever attack that scam creationist evollution. What obscurantism as Coyne and Amiel Rossow reveal @Talk Reason!
PZ, go after the confessionals,please! Do they just assuage but not get people to do better. Some protestansts confess before the congregation. What are the facts on all this? And how about those miracles and pareidolias when genocide goes on!