Pharyngula

Posted by: Randy | November 5, 2009 8:48 AM

Now you've done it... you said pope and erecting in the same sentence. Billy D. will be SO pissed.

Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | November 5, 2009 8:52 AM

They make is sound like diverse thought, differences in tactics and lack of centralized leadership is a bad thing.

Posted by: Brian | November 5, 2009 9:00 AM

Deeeep hurting! DEEEEEP HUUUUUURTING! Er, I mean rifts! DEEEEEP RIIIIIIFTS!

Posted by: Paulos | November 5, 2009 9:13 AM

There is a rift in the Seattle Athiests? News to me...

Posted by: mattincinci | November 5, 2009 9:17 AM

and we're "neo atheists" too! lol

"Greg Craven’s God awful own goal against the atheists"

In taking Greg Craven to task over a rather paranoid, bare assertion

http://thinkerspodium.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/guy-rundles-god-awful-own-goal-against-greg-craven/

Posted by: T Mackiewicz | November 5, 2009 9:25 AM

While I agree that it is natural for freethinkers to be fragmented, I tend to think that this is in actuality a wonderful thing. We are going to need diverse tactics to finally take down the evil empire. For some religionists, it takes an in your face approach to get through to them, while others require a more gentle approach. I can't see an atheist getting through to the Pope with strong religious bashing, but can imagine a peaceful discussion, regarding religion's absurdity, working.

Posted by: gettingfree | November 5, 2009 9:38 AM

@ #12 / T Mackiewicz
"While I agree that it is natural for freethinkers to be fragmented, I tend to think that this is in actuality a wonderful thing. We are going to need diverse tactics to finally take down the evil empire. For some religionists, it takes an in your face approach to get through to them, while others require a more gentle approach."

I couldn't agree more!

Posted by: bilbo | November 5, 2009 9:48 AM

Just one year ago, PZ and the rest of the Peanut Gallery were flaming anyone who pointed out that there appeared to be differences in the atheist community because, well, it couldn't possibly happen. Their always vigorously-nodding sycophant commenters were saying "yes, Lord!!!" and flaming right back with the usual lack of critical thinking skills. I especially liked that Jerry Coyne denied it, despite having made up his own mocking label for certain atheists and differentiating them from the rest (can't hypocrisy always be this obvious?).

Now they're accepting it, but brushing it off as no big deal. I'm sure by this time next year they'll be flaming anyone who says there are not differences in the atheist community, just to come full circle.

Posted by: Lost Left Coaster | November 5, 2009 10:07 AM

What really stood out to me was the use of the word "increasingly" in the headline. The article subsequently provided exactly zero evidence that this so-called rift is increasing.

Yep, atheists are a diverse bunch and have different ideas about all sorts of things, including atheism, how to promote it (or whether or not it should be promoted at all, etc.) I have a newsflash: so are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., all a diverse bunch. 6.5 billion people in the world, you get all types. Newsflash!

I guess all press is good press, though, right? At least people reading the article are reminded that we exist.

Posted by: DaveX | November 5, 2009 10:17 AM

While I'd much rather hang out with a bunch of "new atheists," I'll admit that it's not my style at all, and I do think there are problems with the approach. But that doesn't mean that I'm being "conciliatory".

Personally, I'd rather just let their shit die out on its own, and lead others to atheism and rationality by my example-- don't go to church, have a good life, treat other folks decently, and otherwise go about my business. If someone asks me what my belief is, I'll let them know, but I don't honestly see value in trumpeting it for everyone to hear. That's the sort of behavior I don't enjoy from the religious folks, why join them?

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 5, 2009 10:17 AM

It is funny, in real life, I do not go about proclaiming my atheism. I avoid getting in people's faces about it. But no would would mistake me as a person who is open to being accommodating. I guess I must be doing something wrong.

Also, could some one translate bilbo's gibberish into something I can understand?

Posted by: Torrie | November 5, 2009 10:23 AM

I think being adament about Atheism and getting the word out is the only way. They have Joel Osteen, we have Richard Dawkins. If we can save one kid from being saved, it's worth it!

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 5, 2009 10:26 AM

I am surprised as hell that any non-believer would think an ad on a bus exhorting people to just be nice was over the top. Effing milktoast, in my opinion. Its not like setting a communion wafer on fire or anything.

The rift that I worry about is among people who are outspoken about their unbelief--I also haunt other fora and see that many of these people are not so rational themselves. They write stupid things, and further, they write stupid things stupidly. I would like to ask those people to catch a clue.

The reason that I'm concerned is that at least in the USofA (and good Bog, in Tejas too), supernatural explanations have a place in a public forum and are used to make policy decisions. I think unbelievers are at least united in having the opinion that this is bullshit and must end. But arguing is so much fun, and most of us also hate toeing a party line. Crap.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 5, 2009 10:31 AM

As much as a proclaim it loudly on here, I don't often bring up my atheism in conversations unless the conversation is directly related to it in the Real World.

It's just part of who I am, not what I base my whole persona on.

But if the situation is right I'll bring it up and go to town arguing about it. I'll rail on stupid religious events, activities superstitions but when I do I rarely do so while letting everyone know "OH YEAH BY THE WAY I'M AN ATHEIST".

If they ask I'll tell them.

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 5, 2009 10:43 AM

Posted by: bilbo | November 5, 2009 9:48 AM

Just one year ago, PZ and the rest of the Peanut Gallery were flaming anyone who pointed out that there appeared to be differences in the atheist community because, well, it couldn't possibly happen. Their always vigorously-nodding sycophant commenters were saying "yes, Lord!!!" and flaming right back with the usual lack of critical thinking skills. I especially liked that Jerry Coyne denied it, despite having made up his own mocking label for certain atheists and differentiating them from the rest (can't hypocrisy always be this obvious?).

Well, it's easy to make accusations of hypocrisy when you don't have any moral qualms against blatantly lying in order to manufacture "evidence" of said hypocrisy. You know perfectly well that your portrayal of events above is incorrect. Will you show evidence of having a conscience and retract your lies or not?

Posted by: Ewan R | November 5, 2009 10:47 AM

"Dowsing for explosives."

Natural selection in action. We need more of this type of thing, not less - it may not benefit us, but think of our children's children. Apply the selection pressure heavily enough to make a better world.

Posted by: strangest brew | November 5, 2009 11:23 AM

Apart from the regular secular museums...I was wondering if a edifice can be raised extolling the virtues of pure Atheism?

Diametrically opposed to that shoddy no account hick shack preaching creationism and Ham for tea?

Prob is no idea what to include..

Hell could be represented either by a visual image of a planetary body spewing fire and brimstone as it cooled in the first billion odd years of its existence...or a 3 minute tape loop of 'Banana dick' explaining his ignorant understanding of how to blatantly lie about Evolution!

Heaven might be based around The Mesozoic Era and the unseasonably warm weather?...or maybe a society completely devoid of creationists...indeed devoid of religion full stop!

Anyone like to cause schisms in what to include...or not include...?

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 5, 2009 11:35 AM

-Also, can we rename Pascal's wager as Pascal's Roulette?-

We could call it Pascals postcode roulette since most people don't choose their church, they are jsut born into it. Or Pascals gift to atheists...since when you work it out and factor in the other religions and observances it proves atheism is best.

Posted by: Sastra | November 5, 2009 11:48 AM

From the article:

But Epstein also acknowledges that "religion can provide humans with good things: congregation, community, an organized way to pursue that which is meaningful in life."

Oh for crying out loud -- the so-called New Atheists which this reporter uses as a contrast to "good atheist" Epstein all say the same damn thing he just said. That's not evidence of a 'rift.' Yes, religion provides people with good things, of course it does. We're not stupid. Dawkins repeatedly acknowledges the same observation Epstein acknowledges.

But these good things are not good only because of religion. They don't require a belief in the supernatural. That, too, Epstein acknowledges. They are human goods, here on earth. No atheist is arguing that every church is a secret cell of sociopathic killers who give and get no joy in life, and no good has ever come out of a religious area. Hell, people get major warm fuzzies and community from every pseudoscientific form of nonsense you can think of -- the alien abduction community is close. People love their psychics, and feel they've been helped.

OOoo, now I just split the skeptic community.

Posted by: jolly wahlstrom | November 5, 2009 12:24 PM

I believe we must be in their faces about atheism. Look what's happened when people didn't shout, government decisions based on religious beliefs, less free speech, abortion doctors being killed, war. We must shout louder and longer than the theists to get our so-called leaders to feel safe in not making decisions based on religion. The other option of 'going along to get along' didn't work.

Posted by: not a gator | November 5, 2009 12:52 PM

@19 Die Anyway

I like your handle. Now to your comments. First off, disagree about the rift, but I think I know why you would think so. My impression is that in the old days (mid-1990's) people flocked to face to face groups who tenets they concurred with and only a minority of people were on the internet so they didn't know what was going on there. The wars on Usenet's alt.atheism group (I know, I know--it was alt.*) between atheists debating points of doctrine ("strong atheism is untenable!" "no, strong atheism is the only sane position!" "you're defining it wrong!" "no, you are! "Well, at least we agree that agnostics are limp-wristed SNAGs." "Ha! I would go down on an agnostic any time, anywhere. Atheists? Keep dreaming." etc.) were far more hair-singing and paint-bubbling than anything I've seen on atheist forums today.

Also, let's face it, there was a great deal of dislike of O'Hair, if grudging respect. Atheists and their allies were weak and scattered.

What I am seeing this year are open disagreements and leadership shuffles in face to face orgs, which I suppose can be somewhat disconcerting. (Ironically, the online discussions are much more civil and the FSM has replaced IPU as young atheists cut their teeth destroying ID rather than tearing into each other over pointless semanto-philosophical arguments.) It's all good, though--those orgs were packed with dying greybeards. (No, seriously--CSICOP's news items even in the mid-2000's inevitably consisted of "So and so died and he will be sorely missed.")

But, the faitheists and accomodationists are still in-tribe while fundamentalists, creationists, and cracker eaters are out-tribe.

See, this bothers me. This is your kind of dogmatic, ethnocentric language that one expects from committed fundy faith heads. And the thing is, for me anyway, it is SO EASY to slide into this kind of thinking even though I personally find it detestable. I think that's part of the reason people run over to the accommodationist camp.

The only reason I'm here in the confrontationalist camp is that accommodationism isn't working. Sure, it works when everyone agrees on the same secular basis for society, but it doesn't work when you have nutty fundies of whatever religion trying to rip the secular fabric apart. My particular aha moment came when the academic world continued to make excuses for Islam post 9/11.

Now, there are plenty of areligious people who are Muslims for being born into it. There are plenty of religious Muslims who aren't violent or particularly tribal. But there's no escaping the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is a major force and it is horrifically violent and oppressive towards women. And trying to equate that with, say, Unitarianism, simply does not hold water. (I think fundyism is the enemy, but even liberal Xtianity can be a menace in spheres like bioethics, with its arrogance of ignorance.) I don't think ANY kind of religious extremism should be excused.

(Reading The Authoritarians by Altmeyer. Very apropos.)

Posted by: Slaughter | November 5, 2009 1:03 PM

Deep riffs? I know a lot of deep riffs!

Dum-dum-dum, dum-dum-DA-dum (Smoke on the Water).

DUM-dum-DUM-da-DA-dum (Aqualung).

Da-da-da-DUM, da-da-da-DUM (Beethovern's Fifth).

Oh? Rifts? Deep RIFTS?

Never mind.

Posted by: Lynna | November 5, 2009 1:10 PM

Link to article that also shows a pic of "Yes, Virginia, there is no god" bus banner in Seattle.
http://ffrf.org/news/2009/seattlebus.php

Posted by: Traveler | November 5, 2009 1:21 PM

Enough with the "deep rifts" already! Can we start calling it a "deep cleavage" in the atheist community? At least that might drive some search traffic to atheist web sites.

Posted by: Lynna | November 5, 2009 1:25 PM

There's a Freedom From Religion Foundation convention being held in Seattle:
http://ffrf.org/news/2009/seattleconvention.php

Go there and show some deep cleavage!

Posted by: strangest brew | November 5, 2009 2:20 PM

# 39 Antiochus Epiphanes

@strangest brew: As long as there is a bar in that edifice, any edifice will do. This way we can all proudly claim our beliefs, as in "I believe I'll have another."

Touché Monsieur la puddycat!...;-)

Posted by: Dibs | November 5, 2009 3:01 PM

#37 Richard Eis, I was thinking that Pascal's wager is more like Pascal's Roulette as you have to chose which one of the many deities and sects available, and that it isn't a yes/no wager, but multiple choice.

Posted by: Wonderist | November 5, 2009 3:48 PM

Ophelia Benson has a good article on this at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/04/atheism-religion-philosophy

Posted by: JHS | November 5, 2009 4:45 PM

The media can't handle nuance, and they sure as hell don't know what to do with loosely affiliated groups of people who (gasp) tend to talk through their differences. Note the recent wave of "ZOMG Rifts in the Democratic Party!" and "ZOMG Obama administration in shambles!" type headlines and sound bites on Fox, CNN, and the like. They're like the hyperactive children who bounce around the room while the adults are trying to have a civil conversation. So are Republican, for that matter.

Posted by: venerant | November 5, 2009 5:38 PM

@57 Yeah, that!

Posted by: truth machine | November 6, 2009 12:00 AM

Well at least all the OM's agree on everything.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | November 6, 2009 7:41 AM

One must also consider the source: The Baltimore Sun. Popular news media know they are marketing to a predominately, self-described Christian customer. Journalists find a way to spin the story to appeal to these customers because it sells more papers than offending them.
Hence you get a story that makes the atheists look silly or fractious and, better yet, quote some atheist who thinks religion isn't really that bad.

Zuckerman himself is involved in the debate. Self-described as a culturally Jewish agnostic, he's working on a book about why people leave their faiths. He's a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and will be speaking at the convention on "the Goodness of Godlessness." But he also thinks religion can serve some good.

The hackles that rose when the reader saw the word "atheist" in the title are soothed & settled back into place by the time they get to the end of the article. Modern journalism at its best!

Posted by: Die Anyway | November 6, 2009 1:45 PM

For 'not a gator' @42:

Hmmm... if you are not a 'gator does that make you a Seminole? I'm neither a Gator nor a Seminole, but am both an Argonaut and a Bull, while my younger daughter is a Gator. I started using the Die Anyway handle in 1999 on Martin Willett's Debate Unlimited forum (formerly Meme Machine) and have used it on every other forum I've frequented in order to maintain a continuity of identity (with one exception and that is Zygote Games where I use my real identity - Thom H.)

Anyway, I don't think we disagree much. My thought about the 'rift' is that it is more visible simply because atheism is out of the closet. And from there it is a matter of perception. A rift with 50 people on one side and 50 on the other doesn't have the apparent weight of the exact same rift with a million people on each side. In this respect we are maybe a victim of our own success, at least in regard to the news media casting aspersions on our entire group because now we are big enough to be noticed. So my "seeing" the rift is more about seeing it in the public arena and not about whether we had similar arguments on alt.atheism 10 years ago.

As for the in-group/out-group thing, I make no apologies. I find nothing wrong with being tribal about some things. I temper it with a smidgen of rationality, I'm not completely Jingoistic, but there are friends and there are foes and I don't forget it.

Eat well, stay fit, Die Anyway

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 7, 2009 6:31 PM

-What do they expect from a group that literally has nothing in common?-

More rifts!!!!!!