Pharyngula

Posted by: Valdyr | November 9, 2009 12:57 PM

"Despite this, atheism was last week rent by disagreement"

I just love the reference to "atheism" as some kind of contiguous entity or community. I'm getting these mental images of Richard Dawkins coming out onto the balcony above St. Sagan's Square to calm the dissident masses.

Posted by: venerant | November 9, 2009 1:01 PM

And lo, the atheist will crush the believers, drive them before them, and hear the lamentation of the prophets.

Posted by: Holytape | November 9, 2009 1:04 PM

There was a God, but He got extinguished.

As long as proponents of religion try to infuse their beliefs into the public life, then we should respond and point out that their fundamental core for their belief system is a crock. Or if people use religion to cheat and scam others, then we should be loud and vocal about opposing it. Truth will out.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 9, 2009 1:11 PM

In the end, it's just a really weird argument, isn't it?

I mean, what's the author's point here, anyhow? "Look... see??? Atheists argue amongst themselves just like the tens of thousands of sects of christianity, therefor: god"?

Every time I see one of these articles I am always struck with the same question:

"Was there a fucking point in there somewhere?"

Posted by: Alexis | November 9, 2009 1:19 PM

In other news, Noncollectors of Stamps and Stamp Noncollectors have been thrown into deep schism on the issue of whether the coercion to collect stamps found in our culture should be actively opposed, dealt with through ridicule, or simply ignored. The Noncollectors of Stamps tend to more moderate and accepting of stamp collectors and stamp collecting, whereas the Stamp Noncollectors tend to take a more millitant stance of actively opposing coercion toward stamp collecting.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 9, 2009 1:32 PM

"blinkered throwbacks" is good...gotta remember to use that one.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 9, 2009 1:34 PM

And you know what all those freedoms bring? You know what all that stuff means? It means we're free to argue!

I think it means argument is pretty much inevitable.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | November 9, 2009 1:42 PM

The thing about atheist creatures
Is, we're willing to challenge our teachers;
Don't call it a schism,
It's mere criticism:
These things, they're not bugs--these are features.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 9, 2009 1:54 PM

I'm post a comment after Pope Ditchkins tells me what to think about this.

Posted by: Tacroy | November 9, 2009 1:55 PM

YOU would think, wouldn't you, that one of the principal attractions of theism would be the complete absence of schisms. Where the non-devout always seem to be working themselves up into a frenzy over some obscure political point, believers can glide through life, absolved, as they are, of the need to negotiate the terms of their belief. If there is a God, there is His message. And if there is His message, then there's nothing much to argue about.

It's a much better argument this way, I think.

But yeah, I agree - the best thing about being an atheist is intellectual integrity, not some made up bullshit about "schisms".

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 9, 2009 2:00 PM

It would be nice to have an anthology of Cuttlefish rhymes. They are freaking awesome!I would give them to all my friends for wintersolsticeholiday, or what I refer to as "the war on Christmas".

(seriously...I would buy print copies)

Posted by: cac | November 9, 2009 2:09 PM

Oh Yeah? Well I'm gonna nail 97 copies of The Origin of Species to your front door!!!!

-- Charles

Posted by: Peter G | November 9, 2009 2:23 PM

Now wait one darn minute here. It's pretty clear that some posters here are only 99.999 percent sure that there are no deities. Well I'm a 99.9999.... per center. We need to burn those other guys at the stake. Then immerse them to see if they float. You can't be too ideologically pure can you? or too thin. Or too rich.

Posted by: Zmidponk | November 9, 2009 2:26 PM

I think what you've highlighted here, PZ, is the fundamental difference between atheism and religion. It seems to me that religion, for many, is achieved through listening, believing, following and accepting the established 'wisdom', whereas atheism, for many, is achieved through questioning, exploring and testing that 'wisdom', which leads to arguments like this as a natural byproduct, as atheists are therefore more likely to question whether 'X', whatever 'X' may be, is a good idea.

Of course, this leads to religibots not realising that, as far as atheists are concerned, arguments like these are a very healthy sign, as it indicates a rampant and freeflowing exchange of ideas and viewpoints, whereas, for religion, such an exchange may risk some religious folk critically examining their own beliefs, and finding them wanting.

Posted by: kopd | November 9, 2009 2:28 PM

So a group of people who are only defined as a group because of sharing one particular view (or rather, lacking one particular belief) happen to disagree on a number of other things? Wow, they've got us right where they want us.

But if you really want schisms, you should see the people who don't believe in UFOs. Or the people who prefer cake instead of pie. And the people who prefer black coffee have some really bitter rifts.

Posted by: Peter G | November 9, 2009 2:31 PM

@12"...saying that "religion isn't supposed to explain anything, that's not what it's about at all", and then not explaining what the whole point of religion." He really couldn't be expected to explain that what it is about is providing a rather nice lifestyle for otherwise economically unproductive scam artists could he?

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 9, 2009 2:44 PM

Paul/Cuttlefish: Plunk! Thanks, AE.

Posted by: Richard Smith | November 9, 2009 2:44 PM

With all this talk of schisms, you'd think atheism was some sort of Volunteer Fire Department or something. Now, was it the FSM or a crocoduck that ran off with that sugar bowl..?

@Alexis (#9):

Noncollectors of Stamps and Stamp Noncollectors have been thrown into deep schism

Meanwhile, Philately Forgoers are reserving comment, but nobody pays any attention to them anyways, the splitters!

Posted by: Jim B | November 9, 2009 2:47 PM

Schisms? They started it. After all, Jesus Christ is the "fissure of men."

Posted by: A Greenhill | November 9, 2009 2:57 PM

Alyson Miers... I would think one of the primary things that attracts atheists to their worldview would be its truth value.

"YOU would think, wouldn't you, that one of the principal attractions of atheism would be the complete absence of schisms."

...the religious writer doesn't understand that some people's worldview is based on observation and rationality.

Posted by: Ashley F. Miller | November 9, 2009 3:01 PM

"they should regard us atheists as diverse barbarians who gird themselves for war at birth, and train themselves with a lifetime of fierce strife among themselves and against our weak, whiny foes."

I sound my barbaric YAWP!

I think this sort of makes sense from their point of view, because they assume that one must have faith in something. So it's not that we've come to the conclusion that there is no god, it's that we fervently believe that there is no God and worship his non-existence.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 9, 2009 3:07 PM

....while Stalin was not really an atheist, because his politics somehow became a religion, even though it was always godless.

For fuck's sake, learn some history.

You could start with looking at the places Stalin studied as a young man. You might then not make such idiotic claims as Stalin was always an atheist.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2009 3:17 PM

I used the naughty "God" without derision. Now observe the schism.

yawn

Posted by: MadScientist | November 9, 2009 3:22 PM

So what's the issue here? It's just another delusion of the cry-baby theists. "Those atheists are so mean." "The atheists are uncivil." "The atheists eat babies." "The atheists have a deep rift." "There is too a god."

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2009 3:25 PM

sick and tired of the -ism schism

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2009 3:33 PM

I never say that Stalin was always an atheist. I say that his politics was always godless, even though some atheists want to call it a "religion" and thus excommunicate Stalin from "atheism" as a consequence. I can show you specific examples of this practice if you want.

But his atheism was far from the driving force of his purges and cruelty. The cult of personality he build based on his paranoia, ego, need to retain power, and just being an all around violent person can lay claim to that.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 9, 2009 3:37 PM

Rev., The yawn won't stop the schismists. They can't help themselves.

By the way, Paul Kurtz' Council for Secular Humanism practically exemplifies schism. Kurtz himself wrote the manifesto of the American Humanist Association but later resigned to form another organization because the AHA wasn't sufficiently godless for him. The AHA was never conventionally religious, but its members made common cause with religious humanists and even sought tax exempt status as a "religion" themselves.

Kurtz wasn't happy with these compromises, so he broke with the AHA, formed another organization with a practically identical manifesto, except for its explicit rejection of all "God" talk. This organizational development is practically the definition of a "schism".

But the CSH and the AHA ultimately joined forces again under the International Humanist and Ethical Union, and the linked article now describes Kurtz as one of the "old atheists" who would make common cause with liberal theists. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 9, 2009 3:44 PM

I never say that Stalin was always an atheist. I say that his politics was always godless, even though some atheists want to call it a "religion" and thus excommunicate Stalin from "atheism" as a consequence. I can show you specific examples of this practice if you want.

You could also look at the places Darwin studied as a young man, but what would that tell you?

You are correct. You did not say Stalin was always godless, but rather his poltics.

However you are still wrong to claim his politics did not form a type of religion. I suggest you learn about the concept of political religion. It is not a concept that is exclusively embraced by atheists, and is pretty much accepted amongst political scientists and philosophers.

Posted by: Souljacker | November 9, 2009 3:52 PM

As I've said many times, there are far far deeper rifts in the group of people who don't believe me to be the sexiest man on Earth. That particular group is also responsible for the vast majority of war, death and famine this world has ever seen. Still think it's safe to deny my sexiness?

Posted by: FlameDuck | November 9, 2009 4:14 PM

There is no theist pope, catechism or holy book either.

Agnostics, deists and naturalistic panthiests all fit under a broadly atheistic umbrella

I say that his politics was always godless

Posted by: llewelly | November 9, 2009 4:20 PM

Antiochus Epiphanes | November 9, 2009 2:00 PM:

It would be nice to have an anthology of Cuttlefish rhymes. They are freaking awesome!I would give them to all my friends for wintersolsticeholiday, or what I refer to as "the war on Christmas".


(seriously...I would buy print copies)

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | November 9, 2009 4:25 PM

We pay rent? No one told me!

Posted by: BeamStalk | November 9, 2009 4:30 PM

So what, we are like Warhammer Orks who beat each other up until we find something else to beat up, then go back to beating each other up again? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 9, 2009 4:38 PM

Martin Brock,

Catholics, Muslims and Hindus are all theists.

Not all Hindus are theists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

Agnostics, deists and naturalistic panthiests all fit under a broadly atheistic umbrella,

Agnostics maybe, since that pretty much live like atheists do. However, if you consider deists and naturalistic pantheist to "fit under a broadly atheistic umbrella", you are using the term "atheistic" way too loosely to mean 'non-believer in an interventionist God'.

Other atheists claim that Huxley and Einstein were really atheists even though both explicitly rejected the label,

According to you Einstein's pantheism makes him fall under the "broadly atheistic umbrella".

Godless and religious are the same species of formal system acceptors.

I'm not sure what you mean by "formal system acceptors", but both astrology and relativity are accepted by many people. That doesn't mean there is an sort of equivalency.

I used the naughty "God" without derision. Now observe the schism.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/02/atheist_agnostic_society.jpeg

Posted by: Hasan-i Sabbah | November 9, 2009 4:56 PM

The biggest problem is the loose verbage of "schism." Much like words such as "theory," it has a very general definition - i.e. any sort of dispute within a group - and a very specific definition to religion/ideology - a split in loyalties to certain establishments or leaders. While the argument between "soft" atheists and new atheists could be described as a schism in the first sense, it cannot be described as a schism in the second, religious sense, because there are no atheist churches, no atheist leadership or authority structure, or any other socio-political establishment based on the ideology.

In history, we see that this second definition really is what best defines real religious schism. For instance, Roman Catholics had lots of arguments about doctrine within the Catholic Church establishment. For instance, in the Middle Ages, Peter Abelard argued vehemently against the idea that the Jews could be held morally responsible for the death of Christ, with which many others in the Catholic Church disagreed. But this disagreement did not result in a "schism," and Abelard never claimed to be anything other than a Catholic. On the other hand, you have the first major schism within Christianity between Rome and Constantinople (into Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodox, respectively). Although some minor doctrinal issues were involved (particularly the use of icons), the major deciding difference was one of leadership: who was to lead the faithful, the Roman Pope or the Byzantine Emperor? And there are countless other examples in many other religions which have had furious debate within themselves and did not schism, while schisms occured around overtly political/leadership disputes. For instance, the four Sunni rites (madhahib) are different bodies of legal precedent and arguments, not different sects, and any credentialed jurist can come up with any legal opinion (fatwa) he cares to argue, whether or not any other jurist agrees with him. All of these things are considered legitimate Sunni Islam, and even these vast differences are not the basis of anything which can be or has been called a schism. On the other hand, Islam did split between Sunni and Shi'ite, not based on any article of faith, but based solely on who was to be Caliph (a purely political station, with no real juridical or interpretational power whatsoever). That was a schism, and it had nothing to do with the idea or practice of Islam (those differences emerged well after the split).

So really, the defining characteristic of a specifically religious schism is only that which has to do with political leadership and social authority. Doctrinal differences may or may not be present at all, and don't seem to be the deciding factor either way. Thus, it is a clever rhetorical tactic by opponents of atheism to equate a general "schism" (i.e. a simple difference of opinion) with a religious schism as historical examples define it. Thus, they intend to demonstrate that atheism is just like the religions we claim to despise. But, such an argument relies on the ambiguity of the word "schism" and amounts to nothing more than the fallacy of equivocation. There is no socio-political establisment in atheism, and the only authority we follow is that of the facts and reasoning. Therefore, there cannot possibly be a "schism" in the religious sense.

Posted by: Jim B | November 9, 2009 4:59 PM

Martin Brock said in #40:

I've had laughably bitter disputes with atheists claiming that ... atheism is identical to agnosticism, that atheism does not deny "God" but only refrains from affirming the notion.

I don't disagree that atheism and agnosticism are different. As for the second half of your statement, it sounds like for you the only kind of atheist is what most others classify as a "strong atheist."

I'm an atheist and know a lot of atheists, and have yet to meet a strong atheist. Just about every atheist, including PZ, including Dawkins, would believe in God if He made himself manifestly known instead of playing hide and go seek. Most atheists I know would define an atheist is someone who, lacking evidence, chooses to believe God doesn't exist.

Mind you, a quick personal appearance late at night would probably lead most atheists to believe they had just had a dream or small stroke and not a personal visit from God. We'd need something more substantial, repeatable, and unexplainable than a disembodied baritone voice to change our minds.

Posted by: CJColucci | November 9, 2009 5:08 PM

Reading the article, the real complaint is obvious: it's not okay for atheists to act as if their views are right, and other people's views are wrong. They can't say it, or imply it. Not in religion.

There are days I'd take that deal if the theists would observe the same rules. But I'm not waiting for the offer.

Posted by: CJO | November 9, 2009 5:23 PM

Most atheists I know are agnostic atheists. That is, they can admit that we don't know everything, and that there is a possibility, however distant, that the universe is, in fact ruled by a trickster deity or by one who for whatever other reason does not make his/her/its existence manifest to human beings. Or, in even weaker terms, has not made his/her/its existence manifest to me.

You can't really oppose the terms without making a category error. Agnosticism is an epstemological position; it's about what we can and can't know. Atheism is an ontological position; it's about what does and does not exist.

Atheism in the face of inevitable epistemological uncertainty says, in effect: yes, yes, there might be a god, but why isolate that 'maybe' out of all the other unprovable absurdities that the human imagination has invented throughout history? It might be turtles all the way down, too. And at that point, it's more about other peoples' beliefs than one's own. Because theists must face epistemological uncertainty as well. That much is universal.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 9, 2009 5:28 PM

To continue Wowbagger's point in #68, I'll say that many if not most atheists are apathetic towards the concept of deities. However many of us are anti-religion.

I have no trouble with Mrs. McGillicuddy and spending an hour every Sunday singing hymns and listening to that nice Pastor Schemellfinger telling her and the rest of the congregation that gossip is really hurtful to others so The Lord™ wants them to knock it off. I don't mind theologians arguing whether angels dancing on the heads of pins are doing the waltz or the macarena. I do object to Ken Ham trying to have mythology taught in public schools instead of science.

God is just an excuse for power-hungry people to control others. Pope Ratzi probably doesn't care if Mary ascended into heaven or not. He does care that he's the main man for millions of Catholics. Ayatollah Khamenei personally selects which figurehead will be president of Iran. Oral Roberts held himself for ransom and his followers coughed up over nine million bucks. None of these guys really care about god, they care that when they say "shit" their followers squat and make grunting noises.

Everyone hates being told they're a fool. That's one reason so many religious people complain about atheists. We say that religious leader X is duping his followers and they've got two choices, admit to themselves they really are fools or attack the messenger. We know which choice is more psychologically satisfying.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 9, 2009 5:38 PM

... it sounds like for you the only kind of atheist is what most others classify as a "strong atheist."

In common parlance, an "agnostic" does not deny "God" but does not affirm "God" either, but this wasn't exactly Huxley's usage when he coined the term. In Huxley's sense, an agnostic could be a theist without claiming to know anything about God.

In fact, Huxley's agnosticism doesn't concern "God" necessarily. It concerns what Huxley called "the problem of existence". In my pantheistic way of thinking, "God" denotes existence itself, so this distinction is not a difference for me.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 9, 2009 5:49 PM

In Huxley's sense, an agnostic could be a theist without claiming to know anything about God.

There is no person on this planet who is not 'agnostic', since no-one has any actual knowledge about gods - they fall into two categories: those who believe what is claimed about gods and those who don't.

In my pantheistic way of thinking, "God" denotes existence itself, so this distinction is not a difference for me.

When your definitions become as nebulous as that, what's the point of bothering? For your next trick why don't you try defining God as oxygen and then challenge us to deny that it exists and then claim victory when we don't?

Posted by: DLC | November 9, 2009 5:53 PM

Oh sure... you Atheists and your There is no God!
what about the negative Agnostics?
What about the Scientific Rationalists ?
Splitters!
Splitters!

[/People's liberation front of Judea ]
[/montyPython]

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 9, 2009 5:55 PM

Martin Brock,

I'm only saying there's a schism among you.

The problem is that you are using the word so loosely that any time there are two sides (or more) disagree that constitutes a 'schism'. That would mean East–West Schism or two Catholic priests disagreeing on one of Jesus' parables both are 'schisms'. When one uses the word there is usually a separation between the two (or more) sides.

A pantheist identifies "God" with the Universe. The Universe is not non-interventionist. It's the most interventionist notion I can imagine.

By 'interventionist God' I meant a sentient supernatural being intentionally interfering in human affairs. You specifically mentioned naturalistic pantheism. Yes, naturalistic pantheists believe the that the universe is God, but they don't believe it's sentient so they won't believe in my definition of an 'interventionist God'.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 9, 2009 6:11 PM

... it sounds like for you the only kind of atheist is what most others classify as a "strong atheist."

If we're being very precise, in a careful, academic context, you're right. An "atheist" in this sense denies the existence of God or asserts that "God" is a meaningless label. That's how the word has evolved in the last century anyway.

This conflation between atheism and knowledge seems wrong. Atheism is a question about belief, not knowledge. I don't believe in gods, hence I'm an atheist. I can't prove the non-existence of gods, but I have no reason to believe in them anymore than I do unicorns or fairies. That being said, I consider myself a strong atheist - subject to change of course, show me evidence of interventionist deities and I'll change my position.

Posted by: bastion of sass | November 9, 2009 6:21 PM

Speaking of deep rifts--I was sent this video making fun of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and their stance on gays in ELCA churches--by a friend who is a pastor of a Lutheran church not affiliated with the ELCA.

Not exactly sure why my friend found the video amusing, but I sure did because it demonstrates the utter insanity of the religious trying to figure out "what god wants."

Posted by: alextangent | November 9, 2009 6:40 PM

Martin Brock

I'm not the group-thinker here. I'm trying instead to break the group-think mold, although it's difficult if not fundamentally impossible.

I'm only saying there's a schism among you.

Grouping atheists together and then crying "schism!" because we hold different views outside of a core disbelief is nonsense. You might as well point to the deaf, and claim that different sign languages are evidence of a "deaf schism". The name dropping and overlay of high-falutin' philosopher's babble doesn't improve the clarity of your argument one jot either.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 9, 2009 6:51 PM

Since the question of the existence of God first occurred to me I have always assumed that once it was answered, or at least convincingly argued, that there would still be a surfeit of other questions left to discuss or argue or squabble over. As a youngster that just made the future more exciting and promising.

And now it becomes fashionable to argue the lack of something? I thought we already did. I think someone is trying to pull our legs and the correct response is likely to be as little response as possible. More engaging subjects lie all around.

Like a pesky itch about the ankle it will probably go away soon without fussing with it. Just keep truckin' on.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 9, 2009 6:52 PM

These different definitions divide people into ideological groups, some people accepting one definition of a particular word and others accepting another.

Which actually says far more about language and how humans are constrained by it than it does about the opinions/positions we hold. We're forced to try and explain how we feel when without necessarily having the exact words to convey that in the fine detail and that's always going to be - to a certain extent at least - subjective. Heck, even the word 'atheist' is unsatisfactory to many (myself included) because it doesn't really encapsulate my position.

Just because there are people who don't agree on what the words mean doesn't mean they don't agree on the underlying concepts. Trying to make out that that is a schism that undermines godlessness as a position is a desperate attempt to fabricate dissent - the god of the semantic gaps, if you will.

Posted by: FlameDuck | November 9, 2009 7:21 PM

So I'd disagree that they are not atheists, and I'd go as far to say that natural pantheist and agnostic are complementary / interchangable with atheism.

Hindu is not a schism from Catholicism or vice versa.

Dawkins is something of an atheistic authority, and he calls naturalistic pantheists "sexed up atheists", his words, not mine.

Atheists routinely claim Darwin, Huxley and other agnostics as their own, although you need not.

I'm only saying there's a schism among you. If some organization of atheists celebrates Einstein as one of their own, you presumably do not join it.

Is "the Universe" poorly defined?

So you belong to this atheistic school, but I can show you self-described "atheists" who disagree with you, so you and they use the label "atheist" differently, sort of like Baptists and Methodists use "Christian" differently.

Dictionaries cite political schisms and other ideological schisms.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 9, 2009 7:51 PM

Really? It seems especially recently that the word atheist is almost synonymous with weak atheist as opposed to strong atheist.

Dictionaries and pollsters typically define "atheism" with "denial of the existence of God", so this usage apparently is very common; however, the most precise sense of a word often is not the most common. Most people don't use "electron" like a modern particle physicist either. Most people probably still imagine the classical electron, if they have a definite impression of an electron at all.

Putting atheist into the strong atheist category pretty much scrubs out all those who self-identify with the word atheist, ...

I had this very debate at skepticforum.com recently, and most of the self-identified atheists in the thread ended up accepting the strong atheist position (affirming "God does not exist"), and a recent poll of "Nones", people saying they have "no religion", also used "atheist" in the strong sense. I had a terrible time convincing one of the regulars of the forum to accept the word in its strong sense though. People often object to my using "God" in a pantheistic sense too, but I'm only following Einstein and other people I respect. We all learn to use words somewhere.

... and limits the group it covers to such a small group that it's meaningless as a label.

Well, I'm willing to say (and have already said here) that a much larger group fits under a broadly atheistic umbrella, including agnostics like Huxley and pantheists like Einstein. Even Bertrand Russell said that he was an "atheist" only in a popular sense of the word and that he would call himself an "agnostic" in more rarefied, academic company.

Meanwhile it means that a label used for people who share essentially the same position now are left without any descriptor because of the impossible standard set.

No. You have "agnostic" and other labels. I don't know why some atheists think "agnostic" is a wussy word. Huxley obviously didn't think so. Russell didn't think so either.

This conflation between atheism and knowledge seems wrong.

Well, it's standard usage. I don't know that usage is ever "right". It's only standard.

Atheism is a question about belief, not knowledge.

Atheism is a particular belief, denying God. Denying knowledge of God is agnosticism. That's what an academic philosopher or theologian would tell you anyway.

I don't believe in gods, hence I'm an atheist.

"Hence" presumes a usage of "atheist" that is not most common according to many dictionaries, because an agnostic doesn't affirm God either.

As a pantheist, my "God" (the word) denotes Existence or all encompassing Nature or the Universe. The Universe I imagine probably differs little from the Universe you imagine, but I give it this name, and you don't. I use "God" this way, because the word traditionally denotes an immortal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient being, and I don't know of anything that is always everywhere and has all power and information except for the Universe. I also call you by your name because you have the characteristics I associate with your name.

My "God" describes no more woo than your "Universe", and I didn't invent this usage. Many intelligent, respectable people have used the word this way, and this understanding also illuminates much traditional theology read as allegory. Why would I prefer Pat Robertson's usage? It seems nonsensical to me. Why give it any more attention than I give the Ptolemaic description of the solar system or the Copernican system for that matter, since Kepler's is superior to either.

I can't prove the non-existence of gods, but I have no reason to believe in them anymore than I do unicorns or fairies.

I consider the non-existence of God a contradiction in terms. If you want to discuss literal interpretations of ancient theological texts, we can do that too, but I don't interpret theological tradition literally, any more than I interpret Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairy tales literally. I don't therefore believe that Aesop's fables are meaningless.

That being said, I consider myself a strong atheist - subject to change of course, show me evidence of interventionist deities and I'll change my position.

We must agree on a definition of "deity" first. If you want me to show you evidence of a white bearded old man in the clouds whispering to Moses from a burning bush or impregnating virgins, I can't do that and don't wish to do it, but the word "God" has far more varied usage. I'll stick with the God of Spinoza, like Einstein, because it makes more sense to me.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 9, 2009 8:04 PM

No-agenda-here folks. Move along.

Maybe if you had real evidence for your deity and babble instead of just the wish that they were true and real.

Posted by: dae | November 9, 2009 8:09 PM

I'm an atheist Goddamn it. Leave ma alone!

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 9, 2009 8:15 PM

No. You have "agnostic" and other labels. I don't know why some atheists think "agnostic" is a wussy word. Huxley obviously didn't think so. Russell didn't think so either.

As you pointed out with Russell (and as I did above), he used both words in different times. If I were talking to a philosopher, I might say agnostic. If I were talking to a general audience, I'd say atheist. Why? Because in each of those situations it gets the point across depending on how they hold the definition. Given that I don't spend my time arguing for atheism in philosophical circles, the word atheist is a far better descriptor.

Besides, on the question of whether I believe in gods, the answer is no. I don't have absolute proof they don't exist, but I don't have any reason to believe in gods any more than I do in a teapot orbitting between earth and mars. Am I meant to be a teapot agnostic because i can't prove the non-existence of a teapot?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 9, 2009 8:21 PM

Atheism is a particular belief, denying God.

Posted by: alextangent | November 9, 2009 8:32 PM

Martin Brock's back from the gym already?

I'll stick with the God of Spinoza, like Einstein, because it makes more sense to me.

Good on you. But wait! Spinoza:

as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 9, 2009 8:35 PM

Welcome back Patricia!

Posted by: ckitching | November 9, 2009 8:38 PM

Every atheist I know is calm and mild mannered.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 9, 2009 8:47 PM

Thank you! I'm going to try it.
My husband of 34 years died on October 13th, so I'm kinda shaky. I've missed you all.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 9, 2009 8:52 PM

Sorry to hear that Patrica :(

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 9, 2009 9:07 PM

PS - Is this an atheist mind-trick?

Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | November 9, 2009 9:12 PM

Nerd of Redhead, OM Author Profile Page | November 9, 2009 8:21 PM @ #107

I think that you might have confused Martin Brock (Post #99, November 9, 2009 7:51 PM) for "Lyin' JIRC" (Post #100) with your quotation before. The poster's argument was still just as vacuous, nonetheless: atheism is an absence of belief rather than the negation of it, but the mistake is just as frequently made.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 9, 2009 9:15 PM

Sorry for your loss, Patricia.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 9, 2009 9:41 PM

Patricia, I'm deeply saddened by your loss. Your on-line family is here for you.

Posted by: Ray | November 9, 2009 9:44 PM

Patricia, so sorry to hear of your loss. My sympathies, I hope that you are managing to carry on. Although I comment infrequently, I read here every day and I have missed your comments.
Cheers & Happy Monkey,
Ray

Posted by: llewelly | November 9, 2009 9:48 PM

In practice, an agnostic is an atheist who is a pedant.

Posted by: Rich | November 9, 2009 10:06 PM

A Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Mormon, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh, and a Bahai are sitting in a bar. Two atheists walk in, order a couple of beers and sit down at a table. The first atheist says to the second, "We should come out of the closet and be vocal about our disbelief." The second atheist replies to the first, "We should be careful not to antagonize those we disagree with." All the other patrons of the bar smirk at each other. The Catholic turns to the Protestant and says, "Look at the bitter rift between those two!" The Protestant replies, "No kidding, they can't decide WHAT they believe!"

Posted by: articulett | November 9, 2009 10:17 PM

I hear that assorted non-Scientologists are bickering...

Posted by: Anri | November 9, 2009 10:52 PM

Atheism is a particular belief, denying God

Which god is that again?

Is not accepting the existence of Thor the same as not accepting the existence of Isis? Presumably not, as it's possible to believe in one but not the other.

That sounds like it might be two particular beliefs, if it ever was one at all.

Oh, and LLoth, I don't accept her existence, either (Yeah, yeah, geek points for me...)
So now we're up to three particular beliefs... yes?

What do I do in terms of counting my lack of belief in gods I've never even heard of... are those all particular beliefs as well?
This is getting complicated.

...

Regarding Lion's List...

Ok, so, you have cataloged all of those statements you believe are central to atheist discussion. Our friend Martin tells us that's all a single belief system.

Do you agree?
If not, care to explain this to him, assuming we're too... well, whatever we are... to be able to see it clearly ourselves?

Also this:

The problem is when I encounter a real 100% proof atheist they usually say to me...what’s to discuss?

Or you're not actually honest.
Anybody wanna lay odds?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 9, 2009 11:03 PM

Or you're not actually honest. Anybody wanna lay odds?

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 9, 2009 11:26 PM

Ahh, Patricia. So nice to hear from you at 108 saying how calm and well mannered we all are. And then so sad to learn of your loss.

Aahhh.

May I speak for many of us in offering some calm and well mannered sympathy? Many of us have been visited by the loss of irreplaceable loved ones and have endured. Now we grieve with you, offering our understanding and compassion. We cannot ease the loss you feel but it is my/our hope that you will find comfort in company.

We stand by, somewhat awkwardly, our faces subdued, hands turned outward and a feeling of kinship informing all. It's what we do when there is nothing to do but to try to be a source of courage and strength for someone whose pain is familiar.

Courage to you, and love.

Posted by: efrique | November 10, 2009 12:34 AM

The thing is, open, robust disagreement is how atheists (generally) DO things.

The faithy sometimes can't comprehend that, because questioning, disagreement with (claimed) authority, and demands for evidence are DEADLY to faith.

It's the lifeblood and beating heart of atheism.

There's no schism and there never can be, because there's nothing to schism OVER. If there were something to schism over, that something would not be atheism.

Disagreement isn't schism to an atheist. It's how you get somewhere other than here.

Posted by: Punxatawny Phil | November 10, 2009 1:00 AM

“I don’t believe in god”
“Yeah? Well I don’t believe in god x1000!!!”
“You two are clowns, ***I**** don’t believe in god x infinity!!!! Plus 1!!!!!”
And thus the great atheist schism of 2009 was born.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 10, 2009 1:31 AM

A proposition:

Atheism is nothing, really.

Personal relationships count for much more than emptiness. Knowledge of place and time and function and form and warp and weave impart extra insight, sometimes understanding. Relying on the physical world has been shown to be highly profitable in terms of individual and collective survival. Pooling collective knowledge can lead to back yard rockets as easily as it led to tanning hides. Whether gods are invoked in the learning of these things or are willfully ignored, what we discern with our senses and how our brains interpret that information is highly congruent with reality

Except when it's not. This usually happens when there is religion lurking about. Religion which, unlike atheism, is everything, really.

So how can there be any argument about the qualities of nothing when there is so much of everything's qualities to bicker and grouse and prophecy about? Who'd waste their time pursuing an obvious chimera? No reasonable person, surely . . .

Posted by: RobertL | November 10, 2009 2:11 AM

Hi all. First post from me, after stalking this website for some weeks.

Although this is a theist/atheist argument, this is the classic argument run by members of any dominant paradigm.

A feminist friend once explained it to me with this example:

You often see a TV segment with two economists (say) debating something. It will always be two boring guys in suits arguing over whether the government should raise taxes or lower taxes or whatever. That sort of debate is "OK" because that's how "economics" work.

However, if two feminists (say) argue over something, that's always seen as "a bad thing". The dominant hierarchy will argue that feminists can't even agree among themselves, so why should anyone listen to them.

This is the same thing.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 10, 2009 4:57 AM

@ 152,

Atheism is deeply schismatic at its core because the word itself is so fuzzily defined. Assertion or disbelief?

See, I think it actually is as clear as crystal, if you just go by the origin of the word a-theism. And we're not the ones asserting shit, so not-belief it is.

We could have read Bill Maher out of the club: not one of us

Define "us" .When will people get the point that the club of not-stamp-collectors is not a real club actually.

Posted by: Aquaria | November 10, 2009 5:00 AM

Patricia==Sp sorry about your loss. If you need anything at all...

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 10, 2009 5:11 AM

Wait a minute, wasn't the whole 'atheist schism' the basis of a South Park episode? Is that where they are getting their information from?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2009 5:22 AM

Patricia,

My thoughts are with you. And I join all the others who have offered their sympathies.

Posted by: Russell Blackford | November 10, 2009 7:11 AM

There's much to be said about this. Some of it is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/06/religion-atheism

... where Udo Schuklenk and I get our go at the question on Comment is Free.

But it also needs to be said that the deeper issue is the need for opposition to all bodies of authoritarian, apocalyptic dogma. This includes a lot of religion, but not all religion (the Greek religion was not all that authoritarian or apocalyptic, or even dogmatic most of the time). It also includes various kinds of quasi-religious ideology: Nazism, fascism in its different forms, communism of the more comprehensive and destructive varieties.

We should be opposing all these things fiercely. We ought to scrutinise them harshly from every angle. However, we will, from time to time, find people who are more accommodating about the supposedly "moderate" kinds of fascism, Christianity, communism, Islam, etc.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 7:54 AM

I also deny knowledge (or certainty) of gravity by the way. I have knowledge of various models of gravity, like Newton's and Einstein's, and I have very limited, direct experience of gravity, but further from my experience, at the center of the sun for example, gravity could have characteristics I hardly imagine, so I remain agnostic on the gravity question, but I'm not therefore a sucker for every hair-brained inventor claiming to have an anti-gravity device.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 8:01 AM

As if PZ just wanted to win over the Hitchens and Dawkins followers - after all, I haven't seen those pussies desecrate anything lately.

It's an apt description of the effect. Intention hardly matters. We aren't discussing any profound scientific questions here. This is just entertainment, hardly more substantial than internet porn. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with internet porn, only that it addresses no profound scientific questions.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 10, 2009 8:16 AM

Patricia,

I've just seen your very sad news. Many condolences, and all best wishes, sent your way.

Posted by: Anri | November 10, 2009 8:26 AM

Martin Brock sez:

A word has no God-given meaning. It only has more and less common usage.

And, when and where I was growing up, 'black', when used as a noun refering to a human, in comon usage meant 'inferior', 'ugly', 'lazy', etc...

Did that make it so?

With regards to the definition of atheism, you seem to be willing to spend a grerat deal of time and effort on 'just a word' discussions, but that's your call.

Speaking for myself, I do not believe that we lack knowledge about god - we've got plenty of knowledge about god... about lots of gods, in fact.
And this knowledge does not fit with the great deal of knowledge we have about the way the world actually works. I do not accept the existence of god - not because of ignorance, but because of knowledge.

If you are uncertain as to how I, or anyone else here, is using atheism to describe themselves, you might want to ask them. If you care to say "Hmm, well, then, by more common definitions, you're not what I call an atheist", then feel free. An agnostic, is seems to me, could state "I do not know of the existence of god, but I still believe." That is the point of difference, and it's a huge one.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 8:46 AM

Atheists do not have the quality of theism. They do not form groups united by the similarity of the quality of their atheism - atheism does not have characteristics.

Atheistic groups seem less cohesive than groups formed around a myth system, but the groups have these other characteristics as a matter of fact. The web has ignited explosive growth of atheistic groups recently, and this web site is a prime example, but the web has ignited growth of many other groups as well. I don't expect the latest incarnation of atheistic groups to be so different ultimately.

Posted by: Thriftybat | November 10, 2009 9:04 AM

Martin, @171:

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My argument is that the groups formed by atheists are not formed by virtue of their shared atheism, but (for example) by virtue of political interests that may be corollary to that atheism.

The examples you give exemplify that position. American Atheists seems to be a group focussed on ensuring that civil rights for atheists are not infringed, and the AHA seeks to widely educate on the principles of humanism. The quality that unites the (probable but not necessarily) atheists that belong to these groups is not, I assert, their atheism, but a desire to see certain political or social outcomes. It is the quality of this desire that unites, and changes in the quality of which might lead to perfectly legitimate schisms as you define them.

Hence, the argument that atheists are undergoing a turbulent time of identity crisis and schism is misleading. Atheism is in no crisis.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 9:22 AM

And, when and where I was growing up, 'black', when used as a noun refering to a human, in comon usage meant 'inferior', 'ugly', 'lazy', etc...

Don't know how it's relevant. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the "atheist" label or the "agnostic" label or any other label. I've been conventionally godless since I was twelve. That was 35 years ago.

With regards to the definition of atheism, you seem to be willing to spend a grerat deal of time and effort on 'just a word' discussions, but that's your call.

I've responded to posts directed at me and insisting that the word "atheist" has some definite meaning other than the meaning I find in dictionaries and in the usage of literate authorities like Huxley and Russell. Why wouldn't I respond?

If you are uncertain as to how I, or anyone else here, is using atheism to describe themselves, you might want to ask them.

I have asked, and I'm not the one insisting that the word has some definite meaning, other than the meaning implied by its various uses.

An agnostic, is seems to me, could state "I do not know of the existence of god, but I still believe." That is the point of difference, and it's a huge one.

An agnostic could embrace some tenet of a theological faith, like some notion of immortality with some god governing mortality, as long as s/he makes a proper distinction between knowing and faith.

An atheist could also accept a theory of immortality for that matter, because atheism only addresses the "god" question, and "god" is a separate issue. Sam Harris gives some credence to reincarnation for example, though he seems to be covering bases for the sake of his girlfriend.

People have a wide range of beliefs. A theist could also reject immortality, and some authorities in the Hebrew tradition question it at least. "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

"Ashes to ashes and dust to dust." Every time a preacher recites these words over the grave of the departed, he seems to recall a skeptic of immortality. I love irony.

I'm a convinced mortal myself, but people have a wide range of beliefs, and belief in various notions of "god" is only a small part of it all.

Posted by: beriukay | November 10, 2009 9:41 AM

I need to bring to urgent attention a "Deep Schism" (yes, in scare quotes) of atheism bubbling up in my neck of the planet.

There are anti-cat-control atheists, and the anti-cat atheists.

Okay, we haven't broken apart so much that we have fancy names to hide behind, but the message is clear. Anti-cat-controlists must be stopped, because they aren't the true nonbelievers!

Posted by: Walton | November 10, 2009 10:27 AM

Patricia,

You have my sincere sympathies and condolences. Losing a loved one is terrible.

And I may as well take this opportunity to say that, if I have said anything offensive or hurtful to you in the past, then I apologise.

Posted by: Thriftybat | November 10, 2009 10:34 AM

I'm not sure that's a strictly fair characterisation.

I'd contend that it's fairly common ground among religious types that certain classes of people are more qualified to comment on certain types of divine knowledge than others. And that's not a matter of erudition or Earthly knowledge, it's simply that - by virtue of their status in a hierarchy - such people have special access denied to others.

I don't think that attitude exists in atheists. In fact, the very idea that there is such a thing as divine knowledge accessible only to some is a fundamental principle of most theistic systems of belief that is outright rejected by atheism. Myers may have a gift with words and an amusing way of expressing himself, but I doubt that anyone here believes that he's capable of determining anything about reality that we cannot also determine for ourselves. Specialist knowledge (available to anyone) and access to lab facilities (available to anyone) notwithstanding.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 10, 2009 10:39 AM

I will also say that the commenters on this forum are as conformist (to the will of PZ or others) as a sack of weasels. Any damned comment has the potential to invoke repudiation...Myers takes his lumps like everyone else, and gives some back too. This forum is the mosh pit of intelligent discourse. Mosh pit =/= congregation.

Posted by: kopd | November 10, 2009 10:44 AM

Patricia,

I'm so sorry about your loss. I wish I knew what else to say.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 10, 2009 10:53 AM

When you hear about violent riots between the followers of Stephen Fry versus Christopher Hitchens, or the devotees of Dan Dennett organizing burnings of Sam Harris' books -- then come talk to me about rifts in atheism.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2009 11:14 AM

Is it just me, or is Martin Brock coming over as unbearably smug and pompous ?

Posted by: kopd | November 10, 2009 11:17 AM

I don't suppose the congregation. I observe it here. We are (virtually) "congregating" as a matter of fact. Use of this word is not limited to churches.

Well, in that case a bus stop or a Starbucks is also a congregation. But I contend that it's a rather pointless use of the word.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 10, 2009 11:20 AM

This forum is not a political or a scientific forum either. I've only been involved with it for a few days, but so far, it's all about religious kookery and the superiority of atheism> - Martin Brock

Perhaps you should have waited a bit longer, or trawled the archives, before making such a false, and indeed stupid, generalisation.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 11:23 AM

Perhaps you should have waited a bit longer, or trawled the archives, before making such a false, and indeed stupid, generalisation.

But I didn't generalize. I referred specifically to the last few days. You generalized and then attributed the generalization to me, to associate a "stupid" generalization with me, presumably because you think I'm not one of Us.

Posted by: BAllanJ | November 10, 2009 11:27 AM

HUGS, Patricia

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2009 11:27 AM

The club of not-Manchester United fans has a name. It is called ABU - Anyone But United.

I have been a member for many years, ever since a girlfriend dumped to move to Manchester so she could go to more of their games.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 11:39 AM

Yes. Yes it is an insult. It's also stupid and wrong and I'm somewhat disturbed why a supposedly self-confessed atheist can't see that it's stupid and wrong.

Calling a group of people a "congregation", regardless of their motivation for congregating, is not an insult. You can consult any dictionary on this point.

Calling an individual "stupid" is an insult.

Regardless, you perceive me as "insulting", and presumably don't perceive yourself so, even though I've only described this group with a common word and even though we hardly disagree on a substantive question. I'm not sure you understand your own perception at this point.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 11:47 AM

This forum is not a political or a scientific forum either. I've only been involved with it for a few days, but so far, it's all about religious kookery and the superiority of atheism

As sure a sign of someone not interested in being honest as can be shown when they comment here.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 11:52 AM

As sure a sign of someone not interested in being honest as can be shown when they comment here.

No. It's just that the forum has focused almost exclusively on religious kookery and atheistic schism for the last few days. That's just a matter of fact. I recall one exceptional post, and it was by far the briefest.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 11:57 AM

There are two exceptions, mole rats and the summarizing evolution contest, both extremely brief; otherwise, this forum is about some imagined culture war between atheists and stupid theists and their apologists. It's just a matter of fact.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 10, 2009 12:06 PM

There are two exceptions, mole rats and the summarizing evolution contest, both extremely brief; otherwise, this forum is about some imagined culture war between atheists and stupid theists and their apologists. It's just a matter of fact.

The right wing christians out to attack everything that they deem to oppressing them (This includes secularism, humanism and atheism) is just a figment of our collective imagination. It's just a matter of fact.

I will keep this in mind the next time a person informs me that I am evil because I am an atheist. I must keep in mind that I imagined it.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2009 12:10 PM

I see you are only able to understand the past as it applies to the past week.

Do you think he has trouble remembering events further in the past ?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 10, 2009 12:14 PM

Do you think he has trouble remembering events further in the past ?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2009 12:16 PM

I suppose we all imagined that last week Maine voted to remove the right of same couples to marry.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 12:20 PM

Martin Brock, you have been full of presuppositional smug and pompous shit ever since you arrived.

Pompous shit comes from Thomas Huxley and Bertrand Russell doesn't such a terrible sin to me, but we all have our preferences.

You seem to have an agenda to show that atheism is the equivalent of a religious belief, and you are twisting language and facts to get there.

I've discussed distinctions between atheism and theism without denying them, and I deny willfully twisting language or facts, of course.

Like calling PZ the minister of this congregation.

He is. This assertion is only descriptive. You perceive it as insulting, presumably because you associate the word "congregation" with religion, and you dislike the association. I might have said, "We're a group of people discussing atheism on the web, and Myers leads the discussion by posting subjects for discussion in a blog." I don't think you'd then accuse me of pompous shit. Both "congregation" and "minister" have broader usage, so why let the words bother you?

My larger point is that we're aren't really so different from the religious kooks disparaged here, and we don't really need a culture war with theism. It's just a game we're playing, and we play it for the same reasons that theists play it. I freely acknowledge this purpose, but I'm not one of Them, unless you want me to be.

Pure sophistry. But don't think we aren't on to you. Your idiocy is transparent, starting with your inane and wrong propositions.

I expected this reaction, of course. I could visit some theistic web site and provoke a similar reaction similarly, and I don't seem much difference in the psychology involved.

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 10, 2009 12:23 PM

Wow, Martin Brock is so determined to have his schisms that he'll manufacture one for himself if he can't get us to see his otherwise imaginary ones. Too bad for him his lies are so easily exposed.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 12:27 PM

"This forum is not a political or a scientific forum either" is a generalization, not a limited description.

But you've deliberately taken this statement from its context. The very next sentence clearly limits my description to the last few days.

That you admitted you based it on the last few days does not change that.

Of course, it does. I clearly state that my observation is limited to the last few days. If I had wanted to assert a more general description, I wouldn't have done that. You ignore the context this way, to call me a "liar", because you feel this antipathy toward me now. I understand how it happened, but I'm not sure you understand it yet.

Posted by: Lynna | November 10, 2009 12:29 PM

Janine @218

I read many of these posts. The main reason why I kept coming back to this blog at first is because PZ is very good at breaking down scientific papers for the non scientist. And the main reason why I rarely comment on those post is because I have nothing to say nor contribute. I may be making a huge presumption here but I am sure the many regulars also do not post on those threads for the same reason.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 12:36 PM

I may be making a huge presumption here but I am sure the many regulars also do not post on those threads for the same reason.

Yep.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 12:43 PM

.. it is one those of us on the side of rationality, science and respect for human rights need to win.

Many theists in my neck of the woods, and presumably in yours, are on the same side of rationality, science and human rights and don't want any war with you, so any dispute over these issues is not simply a dispute between atheists and theists.

We still have religions denying even the most basic of human rights to woman, gays and people of other faiths and none.

Homosexuality is still a crime in China, where the ruling party is still officially atheistic (not only secular) and a majority of citizens are irreligious. Homophobic standards emerge from theological traditions, along with most standards, but atheism does not imply tolerance of homosexuality. Many atheists are humanists, but many humanists are not atheists. That's the Old Paul Kurtz' point, and it seems a good point to me.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 12:47 PM

You say that words don't have a "God given meaning," but then you hold up the dictionary as some kind of vernacularist god, thereby contradicting yourself.

No. I hold up the dictionary as record of common usage, and I'm very explicit about it. "Vernacularist god" is your own construct. You attribute it to me only so you can then turn around and dispute it while pretending to dispute me.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 10, 2009 12:53 PM

Both "congregation" and "minister" have broader usage, so why let the words bother you? -Martin Brock

Posted by: Sastra | November 10, 2009 12:58 PM

Martin Brock #188 wrote:

This forum is all about an appearance of erudition, being more erudite than thou, more erudite than a kooky religious fringe at least. For what it's worth, that's what we're doing here. That's another observation. You're right that I'm playing the same game but directed less at the conventionally religious and more at the assumptions of New Atheists. I don't deny it. I'm one of the Old Atheists, like the old Paul Kurtz.

What you call a "kooky religious fringe" is someone else's deeply-felt faith, and even the Old Atheists are going to be tarred with the "Insensitive Arrogance" brush. Where do we draw the line? The ability to recognize the nuanced differences between religions requires a previous recognition of the fundamental similarities.

Religious beliefs involve fact claims bundled up with attitudes, values, communities, ritual, identity, aesthetics, history, culture, and so forth. We can be sensitive to the significance of the latter, and still consider the facts to be wrong, and even kooky wrong. As we see it, the problem isn't that religious people are so very different than we are. It's that they're not -- and so they should know better. New Atheists come at the opposition from the combative stance of peer-to-peer, not Benevolent Wise ministering down to the feeble-minded, for whom we need make allowances. If I were religious, I know which one I'd prefer.

Posted by: alextangent | November 10, 2009 1:00 PM

Martin Brock replying to

We still have religions denying even the most basic of human rights to woman, gays and people of other faiths and none.

Homosexuality is still a crime in China, where the ruling party is still officially atheistic (not only secular) and a majority of citizens are irreligious.

I could discuss my academic credentials, but I doubt that you'd grant me greater credibility regardless of the provenance.

Yeah, right on. Give over with the argument from authority, and try addressing the point; where's the schism? Or, for that matter, the groupthink (apart from a fairly uniform assessment of your argument). Try to avoid dropping references to dead, male, white philosphers while you're at it.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2009 1:04 PM

Many theists in my neck of the woods, and presumably in yours, are on the same side of rationality, science and human rights and don't want any war with you, so any dispute over these issues is not simply a dispute between atheists and theists.

Actually, no, not that many.

I live in the UK and the only group of theists that seem to subscribe to the same values as I do are the more liberal Anglicans.

However I note how parochial you are. "My neck of the woods" ? Do people who are not in your neck of the woods somehow matter less ?

Homosexuality is still a crime in China, where the ruling party is still officially atheistic (not only secular) and a majority of citizens are irreligious. Homophobic standards emerge from theological traditions, along with most standards, but atheism does not imply tolerance of homosexuality. Many atheists are humanists, but many humanists are not atheists. That's the Old Paul Kurtz' point, and it seems a good point to me.

I am not sure what you are talking about here. If you are arguing that atheists can abuse human rights then that is not news. No one here will disagree with you, so one must assume you bring up only to obfuscate.

However this is not relevant to the discussion over whether religion presents a threat to liberal democracy. Based on its record it clearly does. That you refuse to acknowledge that fact tell us much about your likely motivation.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2009 1:12 PM

Martin Brock seems to think that there is a large pool of liberal theists out there, all in favour of allowing women free access to birth control and abortions, of allowing same sex couple to marry, of allowing scientists use embryonic stem cells in their attempts to find cures for horrible diseases, of ensuring that science rather than psuedoscience gets taught in schools.

Well there do not seem to be that many of those. The Catholic Church is OK on evolution but hardly enlightened on rights of women or gays. That is half the world's population of Christians gone already. Even Anglicans are divided on these issues. Islam has a pitiful record on women's rights. Hinduism not much better.

Posted by: Sastra | November 10, 2009 1:16 PM

Martin Brock #227 wrote:

Many atheists are humanists, but many humanists are not atheists. That's the Old Paul Kurtz' point, and it seems a good point to me.

It's also the Old Richard Dawkins' point as well, and is frequently mentioned by the so-called New Atheists. We gladly work on common cause with the liberal religious, who share many of our values.

This admission and recognition, though, is then followed up by another point: that humanistic religions owe their reasonable, fair, and benevolent nature to human values, grounded in this world. Whether a religion happens to be humanistic is largely a matter of chance, for the supernatural can't look too much like the natural, or we've got a working life philosophy, instead of a religion which worships and follows God. Religions are under no obligation to look like humanism. If anything, they are under an obligation to make sure they don't look like humanism.

Ironically, one of the disagreements the "new" atheists often have with the "old" atheists is that we're not really in disagreement in the areas they think we're in disagreement.

Posted by: strangest brew | November 10, 2009 1:19 PM

"My larger point is that we're aren't really so different from the religious kooks disparaged here"

I think you should really reconsider that comment.
Unless it was a deliberate ploy at incitement to riot.
Even the 'schizummed' can resent a rather asinine comment.

Atheist and Theist are not the same...one has issues with reality the other has issues with the premise of an all knowing, all singing, all dancing uber sky daddy and all other wannabe supernatural deities both past present and future!
One lives by a spurious code of conduct that is bent to suit the other is rational.

And Atheists seem to fail to congregate in public places and harassing folks or condemning them to some obscene figment of a stunted sadistic imagination.
Theists are irrational!

And so it goes....

"and we don't really need a culture war with theism."

Why not?
They chose the battle field and their favourite is the school yard presumably because it is not holy ground...mind you that is never normally a problem for them anyway!

"It's just a game we're playing, and we play it for the same reasons that theists play it."

Theists did not get that memo...it ain't no game Sherlock!

Posted by: Lynna | November 10, 2009 1:28 PM

Matt @239

arge pool of liberal theists out there, all in favour of allowing women free access to birth control and abortions, of allowing same sex couple to marry, of allowing scientists use embryonic stem cells in their attempts to find cures for horrible diseases, of ensuring that science rather than psuedoscience gets taught in schools.

Posted by: Anri | November 10, 2009 1:42 PM

Martin Brock sez:

And, when and where I was growing up, 'black', when used as a noun refering to a human, in comon usage meant 'inferior', 'ugly', 'lazy', etc...

Don't know how it's relevant.

Ok, I'll explain more carefully.
You stated that there is no 'god-given' meaning for words, that 'common usage' is the definitive factor. I was bringing up an instance of 'common usage' to ask you if 'common usgae' could ever be incorrect. As of right now, I'm not certain if you believe that when 'common usage' held that blacks were sub-human, you think they actually were, becausd the words defined them as such.
If not, please stop telling me about the 'common usage' of atheist and how it defines me. Thanks.

Many theists in my neck of the woods, and presumably in yours, are on the same side of rationality,

Not if they irrationaly believe in god.
If they rationaly believe in god, let them present their evidence.

science

Not if they believe that science does not apply to god.
If they believe that it does, let them present their evidence.

and human rights

Not if they believe that human beings owe submission, and indeed their lives, to a dictatorial deity.

and don't want any war with you, so any dispute over these issues is not simply a dispute between atheists and theists.

Good point. We're only in dispute with the theists who believe in god, and/or punishment or reward in the afterlife, and/or moral codes specified by an alien source. Would you say that typifies the theists in your neck of the woods?
It does in mine.

Lastly:

But you've deliberately taken this statement from its context. The very next sentence clearly limits my description to the last few days.

Please allow me to suggest, then, that you are deeply ignorant about this site's contant, and should have a more comprehensive grasp of it before commenting on it. Unless, of course, you prefer to speak from ignorance - that seems unlikely.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 10, 2009 1:45 PM

It is not only North American atheists, but atheists in liberal democracies in general that oppose religion-based rationales for condemning homosexuality. As Sastra said upthread, in such democracies most but but not all atheists would also consider themselves humanists.

A year or so ago here in the UK there was a change in the law that was going to make it illegal to refuse to provide goods or services to people on the grounds of their sexuality. The Catholic Church was outraged as it meant it would not be allowed to discriminated against gays in the adoption services it runs. The Church demanded it be exempted from the law. The Church of England, whilst saying it would follow the law, joined the Catholic in demanding an exception be made so that discrimination on religious grounds was legal. So much for liberal theism there.

I am glad to say the Government showed some back bone for once, and told the bigots to get lost.

Posted by: alextangent | November 10, 2009 1:55 PM

Martin Quoth;

Personally, I feel much more ideological kinship with these liberal theists than with a homophobic atheist, and homophobic atheists certainly exist.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 10, 2009 2:00 PM

and we don't really need a culture war with theism

Culture war is upon us, whether we would risk it or not.

When the not-so-liberal theists stop trying to force their beliefs into our laws, our classrooms, our science labs, our health clinics, and our public institutions, then we can stop fighting the culture war. That golden era has not arrived.

Posted by: Anri | November 10, 2009 2:05 PM

I'm not deeply ignorant about posts over the last few days, and I haven't discussed anything else. You desperately want to characterize me as deeply ignorant of something, as well as a deliberate liar, but you're overreacting.

So... you're saying that you are taking the last few days as typical?

Or that you're not doing so?

Or that you're not drawing any conclusion in any direction?

I'm not certain what you're saying here.

(Also, what a pity that was the only part of my post apparently worth responding to... oh, well.)

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 2:09 PM

It is a pretty sick person who regards that as a game.

No one here has called suicidal gay teens a game. The game involves suggesting, disingenuously, that someone has.

And if you knew anything about my sexuality, you'd also know how laughably ridiculous the insinuation is.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 2:21 PM

So... you're saying that you are taking the last few days as typical?

No, I've never said such a thing. For all I know, this forum was devoted exclusively to discussions of biology before I saw it for the first a few days ago. That's why I went out of my way to say that I had only experienced the forum over the last few days. Only you can explain why you suggest, over and over again, despite my repeated reiteration of the point, that my explicit qualification did not qualify the sentence immediately preceding it.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 10, 2009 2:22 PM

Martin,

Atheists who are intolerant of homosexuality appeal to religious dogma, party platforms, and tradition (wrongly, I might add). You brought in China to show that atheistic states are just as backwards about homosexuality as theocracies, but you knew that China's being atheistic has nothing to do with their stance on homosexuality. Both atheism and heterosexuality are party lines in China, and we all know what happens when you cross the party line in Dear Leader territory.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 10, 2009 2:38 PM

atheism (not only secularism) is an official stance of the Chinese Communist Party

You keep speaking of secularism and atheism as if they are different degrees of the same thing. They're really not. State-enforced atheism is not hardcore secularism. It's not any kind of secularism. China is not a secular country; it is one in which religious practice is not allowed. This is an environment which is not conducive to freethinking. Their homophobia comes from a place of religious dogma--yes, the dogma can survive even after the practice is banned--and traditionalist bigotry. It is not the result of an open culture of secular debate.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 10, 2009 2:58 PM

but the law prior to 1997 still supports the assertion that atheism doesn't rule out homophobia.

No, atheism does not rule out homophobia. Atheism rules out nothing except for believing in gods.

Yeah. And?

An atheist can also be homophobic, misogynistic, racist, classist, nationalistic and/or irrational.

Yeah. And?

If there's supposed to be a point in your enjoying the virtual sound of your own voice, you might try making it.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 10, 2009 3:12 PM

That's an odd way of describing it. Does "secular" imply "liberal and democratic". Is that in the dictionary?

Well, I understand "secular" to mean "independent of religion" rather than hostile to it. A secular society is one where people can practice the religion of their choice, or none at all. China doesn't really fit that description.

My point was that one can be an atheist without being "correct" on the laundry list of liberal, humanistic values above.

Yeah. And? Is this supposed to be news to us?

I agree, but people free to think may choose to think theistically, and many do. You're equating "freethought" with "secularism", and I don't know why.

Well, a secular environment is just about the most supportive environment for one thinking for one's damn self, independent of pre-established superstition and authority. I suppose one doesn't have to be an atheist to be a freethinker, but it certainly helps. Many people may choose to think theistically, but most do so mainly because that's how they were raised. If you believe something simply because your family and church have told you it's true since you were too young to evaluate the evidence, that's not exactly intellectual freedom.

I doubt it. Homophobia seems genetic. It's an emotion, and emotions are hormonal. Same-sex attraction is obviously genetic. Why wouldn't opposite sex revulsion also be? Theological traditions reflect this sort of thing.

I'm not suggesting that homophobia is rational or praiseworthy, only that it has some genetic foundation. Homosexuality itself presumably also has some genetic foundation, and these assertions are not contradictory.

Whoa.

Where are you getting all this?

There are so many leaps of logic here, I don't know where to start.

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 10, 2009 3:28 PM

Anri (#255)

So... you're saying that you are taking the last few days as typical?
Or that you're not doing so?
Or that you're not drawing any conclusion in any direction?

Well, he is taking the last few days as typical (most notably in #207), unless someone tries to hold him to that, and then he's not doing so. But he's definitely not drawing any conclusions except for where he is. Don't you get it?

Also, the common usage definition of a word makes him right, but the common interpretation of his blatherings makes us wrong.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 10, 2009 4:00 PM

Matt Penfold writes:
You could start with looking at the places Stalin studied as a young man. You might then not make such idiotic claims as Stalin was always an atheist.

I agree. (as if that matters)

Something I've often wondered is "is it possible to be anti-semitic and atheist?" Stalin, of course, was crazy anti-semitic. But what is that? Don't you sort of implicitly have to have some theistic beliefs to think that "Jewishness" is meaningful enough to want to suppress it? Obviously, zionism wasn't quite on the radar screen, yet, so Stalin would have had to either believe implicitly that there was something to the jewish faith, or that there was a separate "race" - although that's problematic since the "race"s distinction and founding is (theoretically) theistic. Yes, there's the whole "Judaism is a culture not a religion" trope and I sure wish I knew Stalin's opinion on that, not that I'd want to have asked him personally.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 4:04 PM

Yeah. And? Is this supposed to be news to us?

Who is us? Above, I respond specifically to Matt Penfold saying, "Martin Brock seems to think that there is a large pool of liberal theists out there, all in favour of ..." a long list of humanistic values including tolerance of homosexuality. I "seem to think" so, because I do think so, and I think so, because the large pool exists. It's larger than the pool of atheists in fact, so I agree with the "old atheists" discussed in the article linked in the original post.

There are so many leaps of logic here, I don't know where to start.

Just pick a leap and dive in, if you're interested. If homosexuality has a genetic predisposition, why wouldn't homophobia? I'm not defending homophobia on these grounds.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 10, 2009 4:09 PM

If homosexuality has a genetic predisposition, why wouldn't homophobia? -Martin Brock

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 10, 2009 4:15 PM

If homosexuality has a genetic predisposition, why wouldn't homophobia?

This does not logically follow. Homophobia serves heterosexism, which protects traditional gender roles, which are not universal even in ancient cultures. Homophobia appears to us, living in Anglophone culture in the 21st century, to be ubiquitous, but it is not consistent throughout history in all parts of the world. Not everything is genetic.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 10, 2009 4:21 PM

Ahh, Martin. So you are aligned with Christian dogma. Sex = reproduction. Anything concerning sex is concerning reproduction. Homophobia ensures that people don't experience the heroin-like addictive powers of homosexuality, thus ensuring the survival of the human species. Wonderful Martin. Wonderful.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 10, 2009 4:25 PM

Everything people do is not integral to reproduction. It's the natural selection thing.

So, how does hating on gays and lesbians improve reproductive outcomes? Do homophobes have more kids than people who let sexual minorities be themselves and get on with their lives? Or do they have healthier kids? How does bigotry help these people?

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 10, 2009 4:33 PM

tag-fail:

"Homo-tolerant"? >>facepalm<< If you are a bigot, why don't you just come out and say that you hate gays? Get it over with.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 4:52 PM

So, how does hating on gays and lesbians improve reproductive outcomes?

"Phobia" implies fear, not hatred, but the emotions are related.

Exclusive homosexuality clearly does not improve reproductive outcomes for the exclusive homosexual. An emotional revulsion toward homosexual partners avoids a non-reproductive act satisfying an essentially reproductive impulse. As a reproductive being, I don't want all of my children to be exclusively homosexual, clearly.

At the same time, having some homosexuals (or otherwise less reproductive beings) among my progeny could improve my fitness through kin selection, because my homosexual progeny are inclined to invest in their reproductive siblings. Someone with a natural inclination toward homosexuality could be like a non-reproductive ant for example, so a genetic propensity toward homosexuality seems reasonable enough to me. A selective pressure in this direction is possible through kin selection.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 10, 2009 5:03 PM

An emotional revulsion toward homosexual partners avoids a non-reproductive act satisfying an essentially reproductive impulse.

What you have described is not homophobia. It's just heterosexuality. One does not imply the other. So you're still not answering the question.

At the same time, having some homosexuals (or otherwise less reproductive beings) among my progeny could improve my fitness through kin selection, because my homosexual progeny are inclined to invest in their reproductive siblings.

Therefore, you have just described a reason why acceptance of sexual minorities is compatible with natural selection.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 5:16 PM

What you have described is not homophobia. It's just heterosexuality. One does not imply the other. So you're still not answering the question.

No. The homophobia I'm discussing is an aversion to homosexuality in the form of a fear of potential, homosexual partners. So the heterosexual homophobe is not only attracted to opposite sex partners. He is also repelled by same sex partners, and this revulsion feels like "fear" to him. He sees it and wants to avert his eyes or walk away.

Some of us don't respond this way to homosexuality, but others apparently do. Even those of us who respond favorably to homosexuality can have a sense of the other emotional reaction also. I know I do.

Therefore, you have just described a reason why acceptance of sexual minorities is compatible with natural selection.

I'm not suggesting that a universally homo-tolerant culture violates natural selection, but I don't see the evidence of it. I see much evidence of homophobic cultures though.

Posted by: Anri | November 10, 2009 5:27 PM

Martin Brock, #259:

No, I've never said such a thing. For all I know, this forum was devoted exclusively to discussions of biology before I saw it for the first a few days ago.

In other words, you are largely ignorant of the content of this blog. Okay.

That's why I went out of my way to say that I had only experienced the forum over the last few days. Only you can explain why you suggest, over and over again, despite my repeated reiteration of the point, that my explicit qualification did not qualify the sentence immediately preceding it.

I think you're getting your people mixed up here. I only asked if you were, or not, making any assumptions about the general content of the blog based on ignorance. You said you weren't. Lovely.

I then asked if you were drawing any conclusions based on the content you were familir with. You said... well, nothing.

If you are, I'm interested in what they are.
If you're not, I'm interested in why you brought content (or lack thereof) up in the first place. You know, way back up at #182.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 10, 2009 5:33 PM

The homophobia I'm discussing is an aversion to homosexuality in the form of a fear of potential, homosexual partners. So the heterosexual homophobe is not only attracted to opposite sex partners. He is also repelled by same sex partners, and this revulsion feels like "fear" to him. He sees it and wants to avert his eyes or walk away.

being repelled by an unwelcome sexual partner is a normal response to unwelcome advances. It's why many women carry pepperspray in their purses and often avoid watching movies with gratuitous male-centered sex in them.

what precisely does this have to do with homophobia? or natural selection?

Posted by: Paul | November 10, 2009 5:42 PM

Humpty Dumpty is not subject to your mundane word definitions! Watch, as he deftly argues against you by redefining the words you're using!

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 6:15 PM

... being repelled by an unwelcome sexual partner is a normal response to unwelcome advances.

For a heterosexual, all homosexual advances are unwelcome, so this "normal response to unwelcome sexual advances" hardly seems comparable. There are no welcome homosexual advances for the homophobe, and even the prospect of a homosexual encounter is unsettling. Is this reaction to homosexuality emotionally neutral, simple indifference, or is it a visceral revulsion akin to fear? That's the question. If the reaction is emotional, then I doubt that it's simply a product of reading Deuteronomy. I suppose Deuteronomy is a product of the visceral emotion instead. I doubt that fear of or revulsion toward homosexuality is simply a learned response.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 6:19 PM

I know I am reading too much into this but I read this and I see a man who does not want to be treated like how he treats women.

I don't understand. You think I don't want to be treated the way I treat women?

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 10, 2009 6:22 PM

For a heterosexual, all homosexual advances are unwelcome, so this "normal response to unwelcome sexual advances" hardly seems comparable.

Evidence please or is this just projection?

I have known straight men who were flattered that an other man showed some interest.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 6:29 PM

PS Homophobia an universal human trait, eh? Nice and misanthropic, that is.

No. I've never suggested that homophobia is a universal human trait. I say that acceptance of homosexuality is not a universal human trait. That's hardly the same.

Some people are homosexually aroused, happily so, including me in case that wasn't clear enough before. Other people are not, and some of these other people are not simply indifferent. They are repelled by homosexuality. They fear and even detest it. Some these people probably experience cognitive dissonance, when homosexual arousal competes with the opposite emotional impulse and/or learned attitudes. The question is: why? Is it all a matter of cultural indoctrination. I doubt it.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 6:34 PM

Evidence please or is this just projection?

What evidence do you want? Are you denying that many, even most, heterosexuals find all homosexual advances unwelcome? I may present one person who finds all homosexual advances unwelcome?

I have known straight men who were flattered that an other man showed some interest.

Sure. I'm flattered that other men show an interest, especially if the feeling is mutual, but are you suggesting that most men react this way? I find that hard to believe. Do you have any evidence?

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 6:39 PM

I'm not surprised someone who spends so much time talking out his ass is afraid of having something poked up it.

What makes you think I'm afraid of having something poked up my ass? This assumption is hilarious. You obviously don't know me very well.

I haven't written a single word here suggesting any hostility toward homosexuality, but you have me so pigeon-holed already that you imagine yourself an authority on my ass.

Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2009 6:40 PM

Martin, lack of "acceptance of homosexuality" does not a phobia make.

For that, you need an excessive and irrational fear — hardly a normal condition.

Even if it were, are you suggesting we should indulge in the naturalistic fallacy and cease our lack of acceptance of homophobia?

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 10, 2009 6:41 PM

@ Martin Brock
Oh yeah, I forgot you're maybe-sorta-gay-but-won't-actually-say-it-so-who-really-knows. My bad.

(#303)

The question is: why? Is it all a matter of cultural indoctrination. I doubt it.

Well, why not?

(#305)

I'm flattered that other men show an interest, especially if the feeling is mutual, but are you suggesting that most men react this way? I find that hard to believe. Do you have any evidence?

Oh, nuh uh. First, that's not what she said. Second, you were called to provide evidence for your claim first.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 6:47 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot you're maybe-sorta-gay-but-won't-actually-say-it-so-who-really-knows. My bad.

No. I was very clear about it in 303 and reasonably clear earlier. I'm not sure "gay" is accurate, but I'm homosexually attracted, and I've acted on it. I have no reason to actually say so unless someone leaps to the politically correct, self-congratulatory conclusion that he's somehow more gay-friendly than I am.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 6:50 PM

Yawn, Brock is a boring twit who constantly redefines himself.

No. I define myself. I've been consistent throughout, but I don't fit one of your molds, so you perceive the emerging picture as "redefinition".

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 6:52 PM

What evidence do you want? Are you denying that many, even most, heterosexuals find all homosexual advances unwelcome? I may present one person who finds all homosexual advances unwelcome?

No one is denying that, but what i find funny is you attribute this homophobia to genetics instead of the deeply ingrained cultural taboos and outright hatred.

It's not a genetic zero sum game.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 10, 2009 6:54 PM

Is [homophobia] all a matter of cultural indoctrination. I doubt it.

So, Martin, we have this little program we'd like you to take part in where we cure you of your homosexuality. Care to sign up?

I'm not sure "gay" is accurate, but I'm homosexually attracted, and I've acted on it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 10, 2009 6:55 PM

I've been consistent throughout

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 10, 2009 6:59 PM

Martin Brock (#307)

I haven't written a single word here suggesting any hostility toward homosexuality, but you have me so pigeon-holed already that you imagine yourself an authority on my ass.

That was just a bit of flair which, I notice, you decided to focus on rather than the accusation that you're making shit up and the demand you back up your blathering. Maybe because you know you're out of your depth and can't come up with any evidence for your wild supposition?

(#313)

No. I was very clear about it in 303 and reasonably clear earlier.

Dude, all you said was, "Some people are homosexually aroused, happily so, including me...." Perhaps that's accurate, but it's hardly clear. Or are we using some special Martin-knows-best definition of "clear" for this?

(#315)

I've been consistent throughout, but I don't fit one of your molds, so you perceive the emerging picture as "redefinition".

You sure fit the mold of evasive, self-important moron, though. Or were you going to get around to backing up your whole theory of homophobia at some point?

Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | November 10, 2009 7:03 PM

PZ Myers

Really, when I'm on my deathbed, if my wife wants to keep me going for a little longer, all she has to do is bring in editorials like that by Dani Garavelli

Really, wouldn't one of her smiles just add a blue million miles ?

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 7:06 PM

... in just as many dictionaries I could cite, the term of qualification is disbelief, rather than denial, ...

I know. I've had this debate. Dictionaries also differ on the most common usage of "disbelieve", some equating the word with denial, not simply an absence of belief but the rejection of a particular belief, usually distinguishing a transitive from an intransitive sense of the verb. I once researched half a dozen online dictionaries, and those giving strong atheism as the first definition were in the majority, including dictionaries listing "disbelief in God" and also defining "disbelieve" like "disown" or "dispossess".

I also know that people differ in this usage, and that's why I had the debate, but in common usage, and in the precise, academic usage of Bertrand Russell quoted above, "atheism" denotes the strong sense while "agnostic" denotes the weak sense. I don't have a problem with that myself. They're only words. If you want to use a less common or less precise sense of the word, that's completely O.K. with me.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 10, 2009 7:15 PM

Brock seems to have some problems with precision of his definitions. And when caught out, lies through his teeth. The definition of atheism at this blog is that there is no physical evidence for deities, ergo, they don't exist by parsimony. The same definition used by Dawkins. With scientists, we can't know things absolutely, but we can know if there is evidence available to support an idea or hypothesis. And there is no conclusive physical evidence that supports deities. All other definitions are considered moot.

So, you can have scientists like Nerd, Myers, and Dawkins believe in god with the proper conclusive evidence, equivalent to the eternally burning bush. Deistic gods need not apply, as they are worthless philosophical constructs.

Posted by: Paul | November 10, 2009 7:19 PM

What is the standard definition?

An irrational fear of homosexuals. Not homosexual activity, not being hit on by homosexuals, but a fear of the people themselves. Homophobia is such a powerful, hated thing precisely because it is a form of bigoted thinking against people, not against actions taken towards the homophobe. There is nothing wrong with finding an advance to be unwanted, homo or hetero. Conflating that with homophobia as usually discussed is just plain offensive.

Of course, I think part of the redefinition rap probably stems from people not understanding the point you were making in describing Huxley's or Russel's agnosticism, and took the definitions you gave as redefinitions instead of simply citations of past definitions of agnosticism. And that part is hardly your fault. But you really weren't clear when it comes to the homophobia issue.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 7:29 PM

Brock seems to have some problems with precision of his definitions. And when caught out, lies through his teeth. The definition of atheism at this blog is that there is no physical evidence for deities, ergo, they don't exist by parsimony.

I've never said anything about any definition of "atheism" at this blog, but I can show you dictionaries and polls. Is this blog's definition published somewhere, or are you lying through your teeth?

Here's a post at the website of American Atheists. The post describes a poll finding an increasing number of "Nones" (people who claim no particular religion) but not an increase in the number of self-identified "atheists". If you look at the poll's questions, you'll see that "atheist" is used in strong sense while "agnostic" is also an option.

Here is Myers' post on the same poll.

Of course, dictionaries and polls don't "prove" that one uses of word is "right" and others are "wrong", only that some uses are more common than others, but Myers seems to accept in his post that the number of "atheists" is much smaller than the number of "Nones" (who are mostly theists or deists as it turns out) and also that "agnostics" are not "atheists", so he seems to accept the poll's strong definition, so I'm skeptical of your assertion that this blog officially has some other definition.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 10, 2009 7:39 PM

*offers Patricia a sympathetic bunny hug*

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 7:46 PM

An irrational fear of homosexuals. Not homosexual activity, not being hit on by homosexuals, but a fear of the people themselves.

There's a rational fear of all homosexuals?

Merriam-Webster has "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals".

There is nothing wrong with finding an advance to be unwanted, homo or hetero.

I never say there is anything wrong with it.

Conflating that with homophobia as usually discussed is just plain offensive.

I say that a homophobe wants to avert his eyes or walk way at the sight of homosexuality, not that he simply doesn't want to participate. He doesn't want to be around it at all. He dislikes the idea of it as well as the act. I identify this emotional response with "fear". You might choose not to skydive too, but if you don't even want to watch or think about skydiving, you're more than disinterested.

I haven't conflated simple heterosexuality with homophobia, and I have no problem with homophobes either as long as they don't bother me. If someone finds homosexuality repulsive, if they have an "irrational aversion" to it as well as simple disinterest, they can avoid it altogether. That's fine with me.

Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | November 10, 2009 7:48 PM

I'm well aware that the term "disbelief" can similarly be defined in multiple ways, and refrained from bringing the point up myself, because quibbling over specific interpretations of words isn't really the point here. The basic issue is that no schism exists to divide various atheists when there was nothing intrinsically to group or unite them in the first place, beyond a common lack of credulity in non-existent deities.

Perhaps if you were able to prove the existence of a deity, now *that* might cause an atheistic split, but I'd still beg to differ. Its the lumping together of the disparate group in the first place that is bereft of meaning, like the example in terms of English football of "Anyone But [Manchester] United". In my "neck of the woods" the equivalent would be "Anyone But Collingwood" - but even that isn't right, because the group of non-Collingwood supporters would also include people that actually don't give a damn about the idea who wins at Australian Rules Football at all.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 7:58 PM

It doesn't have any official definition.

Well, when someone speaks of "the definition of atheism at this blog", he seems to speak with authority. How does anyone know the definition of "atheism" at this blog? Has Myers declared it? Has there been a poll?

I've agreed from the outset and repeatedly that people use "atheism" in both strong and weak senses, to positively deny some God or gods and also to refrain from affirming God without affirming non-existence. I only say that the strong sense is more common. I'm not sure it's more common among self-describe atheists themselves, but they're only a few percent of the population, so a dictionary doesn't necessarily list their most common usage first.

I don't care how you label yourself, but if you're an "agnostic" by the conventional definition, you can avoid the ambiguity by using this label.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 8:02 PM

And despite your protestations, I consider you a homophobe. Show me hard physical evidence otherwise.

If you'll show me your hard physical evidence, I might respond with the physical evidence you want, but I can't promise. Maybe you could hire me a porn star.

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 10, 2009 8:06 PM

Martin Brock (#341)

How does anyone know the definition of "atheism" at this blog?

I thought that was covered in my post at 338, but I guess I did specify smart people. "Anyone" can always resort to asking.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 10, 2009 8:09 PM

Patricia, I'll take your word for it. ;)

Welcome back, all of us missed you.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | November 10, 2009 8:20 PM

I'm not one to start up a poll
And to stir shit is never my goal
But I think Martin Brock
Has delivered a crock
And my vote is, the man is a troll

More importantly... Patricia, OM, my thoughts are with you; I wish I had anything close to the words that would make it all better. I know that no such words exist.

34 years is an eternity, and is also the blink of an eye; there is never a time when love says "Ok, that's enough." The only way we live on is through memory, through our friends, family, students... through love. Love always outlives us.

The cuttlefamily just this Sunday lost a friend of some 17 years... someone we have known since he was 3 years old. A friend of both cuttlekids, and someone I got to watch grow from a toddler to a man. I am crying now, typing this, but he deserves tears. Twenty years is too young. Thirty-four years are too few; I cannot possibly have loved this kid as much as you loved, and love, your husband.

One life. All we get, and never enough. And the damnedest thing is, if we do it right, we leave people in tears, missing us.

Patricia, I raise my glass to you, and to your husband, and to your love. Some time, if and when you feel like it, I would love to hear about him. Whatever you want to say.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 10, 2009 8:33 PM

... I think Martin Brock ...

I am Martin Brock, and I have no idea who you are, so you clearly reach conclusions quickly and with little information.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 10, 2009 8:36 PM

Martin Brock, when are you going to stop flopping about?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 10, 2009 8:39 PM

Thank you Cuttlefish. Gosh I'm sorry to hear of your loss. It's always hard to loose the young. While I was staying at the veterans hospital with my husband I watched several families loose young soldiers, it is gut wrenching. This will take us both a good long while to get through.

I think I'll have a glass of wine too.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 10, 2009 8:47 PM

The broad sense of the word that you prefer, and that Russell associates with "the ordinary man in the street" is ambiguous.

All the words relating to the issue - atheism, agnosticism, belief, non-belief, knowledge and so forth - are ambiguous; you've illustrated that yourself since everything you've presented here as 'argument' has been trying to make us accept that, because what the majority of posters here see as atheism isn't what someone whose opinion you consider authoritative defines atheism, we're somehow schismatic.

What you've illustrated is that language in general (and hard-and-fast 'definitions' in particular) can sometimes be inadequate when dealing with complex issues - and that says nothing whatsoever about how atheists process information.

Posted by: Carlie | November 10, 2009 8:49 PM

Oh no, Cuttlefish, you too? So much sadness this week. I wrote to Patricia on the other thread - it's a random place of pointed debate here, but there's also a soft landing for people in need of whatever solace a bunch of rowdy internet comrades can provide. Many condolences.

Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2009 8:52 PM

Patricia, you have my condolence and my best wishes. I'm in a 32-year partnership myself, dunno where'd I'd be without my other half, my mind shies away from the concept.

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 10, 2009 9:21 PM

Martin Brock (#351)

I am Martin Brock, and I have no idea who you are, so you clearly reach conclusions quickly and with little information.

You've left "information" all over this thread like my cat just left post-enema exudations all over her carrier. Only she couldn't help herself.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 10, 2009 9:35 PM

My condolences to both Patricia and Cuttlefish.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 10, 2009 10:25 PM

Hi Anri,

If you ask someone a question in a post (#139) it's not very fair to accuse them of shying away from answering in THAT VERY SAME post. (#139)

You will find me very happy to take part in questions and answers here. I love being invited to comment. Thank you!

One of your questions was - would I explain something to a person you refer to as "our friend" (???) named Martin.
My answer is - YES.

One of your questions was based on the false assertion that atheism could be cataloged into one single group of statements. It cannot especially statements which contradict one another such as the examples I posted (#100) Atheism has many types.
Atheists do not agree on whether one CAN BE an atheist AND ALSO believe in the soul, the afterlife, UFO’s, metaphysics, etc.

You asked if I agree with Martin that atheism is a single belief system.
My answer is – NO.

You asked me (by inference) if I thought you were actually an atheist based on the fact that you were willing to engage in an exchange of Q&A.
My answer is - NO

Of course you can call yourself whatever you like. And atheists can disagree on whatever they like. If Michel Omfray says you cannot be an atheist if you “…blah blah blah…” tell him to pull his head in. If someone calls themselves a REAL atheist because they don’t embrace morality/good/evil – tell them THEY are the fake atheist. If someone like Richard Dawkins asks you to follow their Atheist 10 Commandments tell them you cannot be a REAL atheist unless you are an anarchist. Atheist Manifesto? What a joke!

Wanna get rid of “deep rift” accusations? Tell all the other atheists to “agree with me or remain silent” – Right Janine?

Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 10, 2009 10:32 PM

kitten, you still don't get it.

where there is no dogma, there cannot be a rift. everything else is simply different people having different opinions.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 10, 2009 10:55 PM

Lyin' Lion, we're still waiting for the physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Time to put up or shut up like a man of honesty, honor and integrity. Which includes most scientists and most atheists, but very few theists.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 10, 2009 11:22 PM

Hi Jadehawk,
If there was no dogma you would be spot on.
The thing you are missing however in your "...simply different people having different opinions" is as follows;
The "people" are vocal atheists who claim to be experts speaking out with lines like…”you cannot be an atheist if you…blah blah blah”
The "opinions" are ABOUT atheism and what distinguishes atheist doctrine from non-atheist doctrine.
We know that atheism has a first principle. But atheism is evolving and it is not ME writing books extrapolating Manifestos and Commandments.
I actually don’t think there are deep rifts in the atheist movement. A deep rift would be a clear and obvious. All you have at the moment is a fragmented disorganized rabble - enjoy!
I stand by my findings that real atheists look at me dumbfounded when asked if they want to discuss atheism.
They seriously say - "what's to discuss?" No God - That’s it. End of discussion. When you look closely at the "deep rifts" you will find an underlying cause and someone with an ulterior motive using New Atheism as a disguise to push their agenda. Wait till things really get going.
You will increasingly find people trying to hijack New Atheism. The double-plus ungood “deep rifts” will EVEN be used by “the inner party” as a justification for O’Brien to issue more atheist dogma statements. Poor old Winston, just trying to be a simple atheist.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: kopd | November 10, 2009 11:34 PM

Lion, that was hilarious. I don't know if that was your intent, but thank you.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 11, 2009 12:32 AM

Lyin' Jirc

I would love to give you scientific evidence but science also makes mistakes based on evidence it thought was conclusive.

So, science revises itself based on new data. Is sticking stubbornly to an answer regardless of the evidence against it somehow a virtue?

Someone voted and made a rule that if it’s about God – only one side bears the burden of proof. I think that is an illogical rule.

No, you got it backwards. You would use that rule if someone claimed the existence of unicorns, gravitons, flying spaghetti monster, etc. It's only when we start discussing your God that the rules of logic change.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 11, 2009 12:46 AM

Someone voted and made a rule that if it’s about God – only one side bears the burden of proof.

It isn't picking on God, it's just applying the same scepticism to God that is applied to most other claims for existence. That is to say that it could be God, it could be a dragon, it could be alien abductions, it could be cold fusion - positive claims require positive evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If there's no evidence to support any given conjecture, then why should it be considered at all? Should we take the notion that life was seeded by two modern bacteria caught in a time rift just because we can't prove that it didn't happen? Of course not, the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 11, 2009 1:16 AM

I await PZ Myers' invitation for theists to use his website as a forum to submit their evidence for God (the evidence you find unpersuasive.)

If there was a proof for a deity, it can be found independent of this blog. People have been trying to do it for thousands of years before this blog and many will attempt to to it long after this blog is gone. Besides, you hard need to have PZ give in to your demands. You can start your own blog and invite theists to the forum. Of find these forum already running.

Feel free to keep waiting.

All I have so far is you baiting me to say something which would draw me closer to the trapdoor above the dungeon.

You have committed insipidity, stupidity, wanking and slagging. Godbotting is the least to your actions.

I would love to give you scientific evidence but science also makes mistakes based on evidence it thought was conclusive.

That is the strength of science, that through new evidence and the reevaluation of old evidence, corrections can be make. The fact that you think this is a flaw show the irrational root of your beliefs.

So you will have to “weigh up” all the balance of evidence. Circumstantial, eyewitness, hearsay, etc.

People who investigate eyewitness accounts find that people get many details wrong. Circumstantial accounts and hearsay are even less reliable. Also a big tell that you would make use of unreliable sources.

I think you should also have a look at the evidence vacuum on your own side.

Russell's Teapot and the fairies at the bottom of Adam's pond.

Yes, yes, I know. Someone voted and made a rule that if it’s about God – only one side bears the burden of proof.

You make the claim, you provide the proof. It is ridiculous for other people to life by your undisputed and unproven claims.

I think that is an illogical rule.

Bullshit! You revel in the illogical. Circumstantial, eyewitness, hearsay, etc. You bring that in, you are asking for the illogical.

I also think its an illogical rule to limit evidence to that which 100% of people accept as empirically true.

Not 100% of the people accept that gravity is real. This is typical of the rest of the drivel you have slobbered up.

They can't achieve that success rate with perception of Magic Eye embedded images and they can't with percention of divinity either.

And it ends with a final collapse of incoherence.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 5:21 AM

Crap. Stalin [b]was[/b] the god.

Right. The word "god" (like the word "lord") denotes a ruler historically and doesn't necessarily imply anything supernatural. I rule myself, so I am the "god" of myself similarly, but the word conventionally describes a person ruling other persons.

Obama is similarly the god of his subjects. His authority is only a bit more limited than Stalin's, apparently.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 5:29 AM

You asked if I agree with Martin that atheism is a single belief system.

I never suggest that atheism is a single belief system. "Atheism" in the strong sense describes an assertion like "God does not exist." That's all. Countless, irreconcilable systems contain this assertion. Atheism in isolation amounts to practically nothing, just as theism in isolation amounts to practically nothing, because "God" is extremely ambiguous.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2009 5:34 AM

No.

Well I do not believe you. You have no understanding of the concept here at all.

So I think you are just saying no to cover up your profound ignorance.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 5:40 AM

Well I do not believe you.

O.K.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 6:04 AM

I thought that was covered in my post at 338, but I guess I did specify smart people. "Anyone" can always resort to asking.

You assert a "convention" in 338, but "convention" suggests common usage, so I'll ask the question again. Has there been a poll? Have you performed some lexical analysis of posts here?

I have asked. I have consistently and repeatedly acknowledged divergent usage. I'm not the one asserting that the word has some definite, unassailable usage. I am content for you and anyone else in this forum to use the word however you like. I use it as Thomas Huxley and Bertrand Russell used it, because their usage is less ambiguous and because dictionaries report their usage common.

If their usage is not most common in this forum, if people here name themselves unconventionally, relative to a larger population including Huxley and Russell, then we seem to have a denominational schism. That's fine. Schism is not a sin any more than it's unique to theistic associations.

Posted by: echidna | November 11, 2009 7:08 AM

...just as theism in isolation amounts to practically nothing, because "God" is extremely ambiguous.

How can a notion for which there is no evidence be anything but ambiguous?

"Atheism" in the strong sense describes an assertion like "God does not exist." That's all.

On this science blog, the key idea is that assertions of any sort should have evidence to back them up, therefore atheism is a natural default position. It is simply not necessary to assert that gods don't exist: there isn't even a hole in our understanding that the existence of a god could possibly help with.

Many people believe in a god of some sort, this is true, but belief does not imply existence. Take ghosts and elves as examples of belief in non-existent entities.

Theists tend to assert that theism is the default condition, but there is no evidence for this or for any god.

Most pharyngula readers are scientifically minded, at a minimum. If a theist can produce evidence supporting the existence of a god, then you would see many people here spin on a sixpence.

But spout empty rhetoric, in Trollish? Then you would be kindly advised to get lost. Or unkindly advised, as the case may be.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 11, 2009 7:23 AM

Cowardly Lyin' Lion. You are allowed at any time to present evidence for your deity, your holy book not being mythical/fictional, and your dogma being intelligent. But, you must realize this must be done in order. Show evidence for your god first, as if your deity doesn't exist there can be no holy book or dogma. Just as there cannot be any dogma until the holy book is proven.

The problem you have is that you attempt fallaciously to use the holy book and dogma to prove your god. The proof for your deity must be independent of the holy book and dogma, otherwise you have fallacious circular reasoning going on. Also, being a science blog, we demand physical, not philosophical, evidence. Your failure to even show anything tells us you know you have nothing but circular reasoning. In that case, if you have honesty, honor, and integrity, you should just fade into the bandwidth.

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | November 11, 2009 7:32 AM

Patricia

My condolences at your loss.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 11, 2009 7:38 AM

Do you also feel the same about Leprechauns?

Reductio ad absurdum WIN.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 7:49 AM

Martin Brock, your only evidence appears to be philosophers.

No. I've also linked dictionaries and polls and posts at the American Atheists' web site and other posts at this site. Huxley and Russell are most persuasive to me, and I adopted my own usage after reading Russell's Unpopular Essays thirty years ago. If these authorities don't persuade you, so be it. Amen.

Which is why science and evidence rules the day, especially at this blog.

This assertion is laughable. I've hardly seen a scintilla of science here in the last week. Sophistry is 99.44% of what you're doing here, while you self-righteously declare yourself above it all.

Hence our antagonism toward you. Get to your point with evidence, or go home.

Our antagonism? Who is us? The blog has a linguistic purity committee?

What evidence do you want specifically? Evidence of what?

I tell someone that I've sucked cock, and he demands evidence too, like I have all of these reasons to pretend that I've sucked cock when really I haven't. What am I supposed to do? Link a picture of my mouth full of cock? He'd only deny that it's me anyway.

I tell someone else that I understand his "political religion", and he also refuses to believe me, like the notion is some kind of rarefied mathematics.

People believe whatever they like, regardless of "evidence", and atheistic people are hardly exceptional, but if you want some kind of "evidence", tell me what it is, and I'll tell if I can provide it.

Your word play is juvenile.

If you want to say that Thomas Huxley and Bertrand Russell are juvenile, I won't dispute you.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 11, 2009 7:59 AM

Huxley and Russell are most persuasive to me, and I adopted my own usage after reading Russell's Unpopular Essays thirty years ago. If these authorities don't persuade you, so be it. Amen.

Appeal to authority,literally.See it a fair bit around here.

This assertion is laughable. I've hardly seen a scintilla of science here in the last week.Sophistry is 99.44% of what you're doing here, while you self-righteously declare yourself above it all.

Muddled thinkers everywhere.For the science on Pharyngula, feel free to peruse the " A taste of Pharyngula" link top left for a taste, in case you missed it.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 8:09 AM

It is not necessary to make a strong assertion that gods do not exist to be atheist in a strong sense.

So we have another sense of "strong sense".

On this science blog, the key idea is that assertions of any sort should have evidence to back them up, therefore atheism is a natural default position.

According to Bertrand Russell, you want "agnosticism" rather than "atheism" here, if only to avoid the ambiguity, but you're obviously free to use these words however you like.

... there isn't even a hole in our understanding that the existence of a god could possibly help with.

The word "god" historically denotes a ruler of some sort, so the god of the sun rules the sun and the god of the moon rules the moon and so on. The word "lord" has similar etymology. So does the word "governor". Ancient allegories represent various "gods" in personal terms, but none of these words necessarily imply anything either personal or supernatural. We may say. "Laws of physics govern particle interactions," for example, without implying that "laws of physics" are persons like Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi.

Theists tend to assert that theism is the default condition, but there is no evidence for this or for any god.

Which theists? Theists I know think their theism is some remarkable leap they've made and not any sort of default condition.

But spout empty rhetoric, in Trollish? Then you would be kindly advised to get lost. Or unkindly advised, as the case may be.

What a laugh. This website is all about trolling. Myers is an atheistic shock jock, in a category with Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh. His scientific vocation is a coincidental sideshow.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 9:21 AM

No doubt when you stop, which we all hope will be very soon, the level will no doubt decrease.

Don't hold your breath.

However since you are happy to judge this blog (not website, different things) ...

A blog is not a web site? And I'm all about semantics while you're a dispassionate, skeptical empiricist? It's just hilarious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website

I've built and administered web sites myself, from the server up, both Apache and IIS, by the way.

Yeah, I'm happy to judge this web site. Practically every word here judges one thing or another. Why would my words be different?

... you have come across as a smug, pompous git with an over-inflated sense of your own learning and importance.

I'm terribly judgmental too, while you simply describe objectively.

The fact you cannot understand that it is for the person making the affirmative claim to provide evidence ...

I've never suggested otherwise. You don't quote me suggesting otherwise, and you won't, because you can't. You simply choose to believe that I don't understand, just as you choose to believe that I don't understand your "political religion". You can choose to believe that Jesus rose from the dead too. It's no skin off my back.

You seem to refer to Russell quite a bit, ...

I quoted him once and then repeated the quotation and referred back to it several times, because people here repeatedly assert a "correct" usage of "atheism" that Russell rejects in the quotation. If you don't like Russell's usage, do as you please. That's no skin off my back either.

... which is odd since you clearly have not read much of him.

Really? Tell me everything I haven't read of Russell's, and while you're at it, tell me how you know, Mr. Scientist.

No doubt you think there really is a teapot out there orbiting the sun.

How would I know anything about Russell's teapot, having read so little of him?

You clearly must think they exist since you cannot prove they do not.

I don't understand your sense of "clarity". That's for sure. I've never suggested that anything exists on the grounds that I can't prove its nonexistence, and Russell never says anything similar either. You're just making this stuff up. Where is your glorious evidence that I believe anything?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2009 9:36 AM

A blog is not a web site? And I'm all about semantics while you're a dispassionate, skeptical empiricist? It's just hilarious.

This website is ScienceBlogs.

PZ only has a blog on this website. It is not his website.

Learn the difference.

I've never suggested otherwise. You don't quote me suggesting otherwise, and you won't, because you can't. You simply choose to believe that I don't understand, just as you choose to believe that I don't understand your "political religion". You can choose to believe that Jesus rose from the dead too. It's no skin off my back.

Now that is a lie. Remember please you said this:

"So you will have to “weigh up” all the balance of evidence. Circumstantial, eyewitness, hearsay, etc. I think you should also have a look at the evidence vacuum on your own side. Yes, yes, I know. Someone voted and made a rule that if it’s about God – only one side bears the burden of proof. I think that is an illogical rule."

The claim that god exists is the affirmative claim. The default position is that there is no god. Thus the burden of proof is on the person claiming that god exists. Russell explains this very well. Go an read him.

Really? Tell me everything I haven't read of Russell's, and while you're at it, tell me how you know, Mr. Scientist.

You clearly have not read anything he had to say on the burden of proof. How do I know ? The fact you show no awareness of the concept as put forward by him.

I don't understand your sense of "clarity". That's for sure. I've never suggested that anything exists on the grounds that I can't prove its nonexistence, and Russell never says anything similar either. You're just making this stuff up. Where is your glorious evidence that I believe anything?

We already covered that, we I showed you lied about who had the burden of proof.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2009 11:53 AM

Don,

Thanks. Yes I did quote Lion. I can only apologise.

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 11, 2009 12:53 PM

Matt Penfold (#411)

Thanks. Yes I did quote Lion. I can only apologise.

Eh, make it half an apology. Martin's the one who tried to avoid admitting he had no evidence for the homophobia thing by saying Janine should give evidence of something she didn't say. So I wouldn't say he understands burden of proof either. And he fails and fails to give evidence of this supposed schism despite reiterating every so often that it exists.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 5:53 PM

There is no schism because we do not reject the conventions other people use for themselves.

Oh, why, how generous of Your Highness to allow us our own usage. Surely, you are most benevolent.

If you choose a particular convention, I suppose you do "reject" the other conventions in some sense. Methodists don't go around shooting Episcopalians either, but Methodism is a schism from Anglicanism, even though John Wesley himself never left the Church of England.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 6:13 PM

Says the guy who couldn't produce a shred of scientific support for his theory of homophobia. Don't you realize that plenty of people here would have engaged you in a scientific discussion right then and there if you hadn't just been making shit up that you thought sounded good?

Again, I have no study to cite in defense of the idea that homophobia seems to be genetic, only the observation that natural selection favors stable reproductive strategies while homosexuality, on the face of it, seems to spend mating opportunities unwisely. The preponderance of homophobia in the world is an empirical observation, but I don't claim to have any more scientific support than that.

Again, I also have no study supporting my other suggestion, that homosexuality itself has a genetic component, but I do see how homosexual progeny might be an evolutionarily stable strategy given kin selection. Both of these strategies (aversion to homosexuality and homosexuality itself) could evolve simultaneously, of course.

I don't have scientific support for the theoretical accounting, within the theory of natural selection, for the roughly equal number of males and females at birth, but it's a very interesting explanation regardless.

And I do make up all of the shit I write here, except the words I explicitly quote. I'm hardly unique in this way, but thanks for noticing.

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 11, 2009 6:28 PM

Martin Brock (#415)

If you choose a particular convention, I suppose you do "reject" the other conventions in some sense.

In some completely trivial, pedantic and non schismatic sense, perhaps. If this was a bicycling blog and people were using the term "biker" to refer to bicycle riders rather than motorcycle riders, would it be indicative of a schism among those who ride two-wheeled conveyances? Would we automatically be "rejecting" the convention motorcycle riders use by our use of "biker," or would we simply be indulging in a convention handy for the blog in question?

Methodists don't go around shooting Episcopalians either, but Methodism is a schism [blah blah blah]

Burden is still on you to show that this is in any way analogous of atheists.

(#417)
*snore*

Posted by: Carlie | November 11, 2009 6:41 PM

Nerd, my brain has been offline for a couple of weeks now and I have nothing to contribute, but I have to tell you that "evidence rulez, opinion droolz" has just been added to my standard list of phrases used while grading student papers. It will come in quite handy.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 11, 2009 6:55 PM

It is bad enough when teens and people in their twenties use z in the place of s. It is frightening when middle aged people use it. Speaking as a middle aged person in perpetual arrested development.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 11, 2009 7:12 PM

It is bad enough when teens and people in their twenties use z in the place of s. It is frightening when middle aged people use it.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 11, 2009 7:22 PM

my brain has been offline for a couple of weeks now and I have nothing to contribute

Linking the former to the latter is one of the things that separates us from the trolls.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 11, 2009 7:31 PM

Martin Brock, it doesn't matter if people are homophobic, or if homosexuals are being born. Either nature or god made them homosexual and/or homophobic. They exist. Those of us who are smart enough recognize the fact and respond appropriately. You can either deal with it rationally, like we do at this blog, or you can be homophobic, by not dealing with it rationally. It's your choice to rational or a bigot. Make your choice and live with the consequences. Your attempt to discuss the issue is both inane and tiresome.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 7:37 PM

Would we automatically be "rejecting" the convention motorcycle riders use by our use of "biker," or would we simply be indulging in a convention handy for the blog in question?

Well, yes, you would. You'd reject the motorcyclist's convention in favor of the bicyclist's convention because you're a bicyclist and not a motorcyclist. What's the problem?

Burden is still on you to show that this is in any way analogous of atheists.

The specific example I gave involves Paul Kurtz' departure, along with others, from the American Humanist Association to form the Council for Secular Humanism in 1980. Kurtz himself wrote the second Humanist Manifesto with E. O. Wilson for the AHA in 1972, and his new organization preserved this statement of principles with only slight modification, to make it more explicitly atheistic, so this division of one organization into two is a "schism" in every sense of the word. The two organizations have since reunited under the umbrella of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, a sort of secular ecumenical group, like the Worldwide Council of Churches.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 11, 2009 7:45 PM

The specific example I gave involves Paul Kurtz' departure, along with others, from the American Humanist Association to form the Council for Secular Humanism in 1980. Kurtz himself wrote the second Humanist Manifesto with E. O. Wilson for the AHA in 1972, and his new organization preserved this statement of principles with only slight modification, to make it more explicitly atheistic, so this division of one organization into two is a "schism" in every sense of the word.

You do realise that humanism ≠ atheism, don't you?

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 7:55 PM

It's not even wrong. One isn't bigoted to fear sexual partners of a given gender. It's not something to not tolerate. You're arguing with a different dictionary than he uses.

You're right. I call it a "vice" above, but a visceral emotion is not a vice in my way of thinking. Expressing the emotion harmfully is a vice, but if people experience emotions unlike mine, why would I care?

My dictionary defines homophobia with "fear of homosexuals or homosexuality". That's just the plain meaning of the word. I don't know what dictionary you use.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 11, 2009 8:01 PM

Martin, Paul's advice notwithstanding, your comment #434 did not address what else, besides homophobia (by either your incoherent definition or the standard definition), you were talking about in #426 when you said "I subjectively experience both emotions myself". What other emotion were you speaking of?

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 11, 2009 8:05 PM

Martin Brock (#426)

That's the kin selection I asserted. I've asserted it all along.

And assertions mean absolutely squat. That's the point.

But a small amount of homosexuality is hardly inconsistent with a large amount of homophobia, and a large amount of homophobia is also an empirical observation. Why deny it? Why suppose one to involve genetics and not the other? You don't address these questions at all.

Oh, gee, did Nerd deny it? Somehow I missed that part. Perhaps you can point me to the post number and paragraph. Or are we working from your bizarre personal dictionary where "deny" means "decline to address"? Just because the two are linked in your unsupported chimera of a theory doesn't mean anyone is required to confront the whole pack of assertions at once.

(#431)

Well, yes, you would. You'd reject the motorcyclist's convention in favor of the bicyclist's convention because you're a bicyclist and not a motorcyclist. What's the problem?

The problem is you can't ever admit you're wrong, so you cling to (and redefine) words till they're made utterly meaningless ("reject," in this case). Moreover, you're assuming rejection in my hypothetical example, just like you're assuming rejection here in regards to atheists. One can simply not use a different convention without rejecting it. Such is the nature of jargon. (You might look up the concept.) The bicycle riders could be perfectly happy to let motorcycle riders use "biker" as their default term outside of the blog. Just like we can acknowledge that "atheist" is used differently elsewhere, but has a particular default meaning on this blog.

And I could hardly improve on wowbagger's response to the rest of your wankery.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 11, 2009 8:10 PM

Martin, I didn't see your comment that you were a homosexual, but I can't do anything about homophobia in society other than fight it when it shows up. Which, if you have been on this blog long enough, you will notice where most of the regulars are not homophobic, and some are openly lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered. There is a nice generational thing going where old bigots of my age will die out, and the younger generation will be much more accepting. Until things change in society, all you can do is change your response to the bigotry.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 8:32 PM

... there's a distinction between 'homophobia,' and what's been called the "ick" factor (or "Ewwewwww....homosexuals").

Well, the "ick" factor seems closely related to homophobia at least. Whether it rises to the level of "fear" is a matter of degree, I suppose, but it's a visceral emotion regardless, and emotions are hormonal, and hormones are one step removed from DNA.

... this might have some sort of genetic factor ...

We're discussing non-procreative sex here. If a genetic explanation weren't politically incorrect, it wouldn't seem the least bit odd. I don't even understand why it's politically incorrect. I may say that rapists are poisoned by their testosterone, but I may not say that homophobes are poisoned similarly. Why is that?

Religion is often used to rationally justify intuitive likes or dislikes as being part of the natural order, the way things are meant to be.

This is just the "religion is the root of all evil" meme. Explaining standards of virtue naturalistically while attributing every vice to religion makes no sense. Both nature and nurture are involved in homophobia, but homophobia didn't simply spring from religion. Religious authorities were homophobic first.

Without that kind of rational justification, all you've got is a matter of taste -- and that seldom leads to actual hatred.

I just can't agree with that at all. Hatred is also a visceral emotion. It hardly seems a matter of rational justification. Lions don't battle for territory because their religions differ.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 8:47 PM

Real homophobia, i.e. the violent reaction (of fear, hatred, etc.) to the existence of homosexuals, ...

I don't limit "homophobia" to "violence" or "hatred", and common usage is not limited this way either. On the face of it, the word denotes only fear of homosexuals and homosexuality, and Merriam-Webster stops there. If you want to insist that only people with a violent hatred of homosexuals are "homophobes", you can limit your own usage this way. If you prefer another, less politically charged word for a visceral aversion to homosexuality with a genetic predisposition, that's fine with me too. I have no fetish for this particular word. What other word to you prefer?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 11, 2009 8:49 PM

And the Council for Secular Humanism is a schism from the American Humanist Association as a matter of historical fact.

And it's just as irrelevant to this discussion as most of the rest of what you have posted, since humanism (as you yourself admitted) ≠ atheism. You want to say that there are schisms in humanism then knock yourself out; you'll get no argument from me, or (most likely) anyone else, for that matter.

But it's nothing to do with atheism.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 11, 2009 9:07 PM

But it's nothing to do with atheism.

Atheism itself is practically nothing. I don't dispute that. Theism itself is also practically nothing, because "god" is extremely ambiguous and means many different things within many different systems. In this sense, theism never schisms either.

Only particular theistic systems schism, and only particular atheistic systems schism. Hindu is not a schism from Judaism, because the two systems apparently evolved independently, but both the AHA and the CSH are secular or atheistic systems, and one did develop out of the other in fact.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 11, 2009 9:29 PM

Atheism itself is practically nothing. I don't dispute that. Theism itself is also practically nothing, because "god" is extremely ambiguous and means many different things within many different systems.

But you're missing the key difference between atheism and theism - if theism is true, and there is/are god/s, then there is a 'true' belief; therefore, one interpretation will be correct and the schisms (and other religions) shown to be incorrect - i.e. Greek Orthodox is correct and all other forms of Christianity will be wrong, or Hinduism is correct and all other forms of theism will be wrong.

Atheism, on the other hand, is either entirely correct or entirely wrong; either there are gods or there aren't. There's no in-between.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 11, 2009 9:48 PM

If you prefer another, less politically charged word for a visceral aversion to homosexuality with a genetic predisposition, that's fine with me too.

also, you don't know what "violent reaction to" means, do you. hint: when someone "violently reacts to" penicillin, they're not trying to beat it up.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 7:49 AM

An atheist could, without contradiction, belong to virtually all the atheist organizations: American Atheist, Atheist Alliance International, etc.

Well, an atheist couldn't be a Marxist and an Objectivist without contradiction, yet both systems accept atheism as a fundamental assumption. The ideological differences between AHA and CSH members may seem trivial to you, and they certainly seem trivial to me, but they aren't nonexistent, so "without contradiction" is factually incorrect.

In fact, if you're as familiar with the organizations as I am, you probably already know that there's a lot of cross-membership.

My mother was essentially a Methodist and a Baptist simultaneously for years, and the denominational contradictions never seemed to bother her either. She might not have been happy as a Baptist and a Rastafarian.

Those who say they are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan -- oh, they belong to all the religions! -- are usually well-meaning, but hopelessly vague and confused.

Well, I still respect Mohandas Ghandi, warts and all, and a significant interfaith movement seeks harmony between widely divergent theological allegories. As an exercise in literary analysis, I don't have a problem with that.

You seem to construct a double standard, throwing all "theists" into the same hat and laughing at their dazed confusion. You don't also toss Marxists and Objectivists into the same hat, even though both are atheists. As a small "l" libertarian (and not an Objectivist) myself, I've had many conversations with both, and both are very sincere atheists with countless, thoroughly irreconcilable, ideological differences as a matter of fact.

Randians also detest Rothbardians, and they're all atheists too, and they differ little more than Methodists and Baptists.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 7:58 AM

... you still haven't proven that such a thing exists, so arguing about what to call it is pointless.

Homophobia exists. I observe it, and I don't only observe it in people who commit acts of violent hatred toward homosexuals. Why would homophobia exist only in these wildly extreme cases? Do you have some empirical evidence supporting your assertion of a homophobia limited exclusively to violent hatred, or do you only make this assumption to defend your linguistic preference for a "homophobia" defined this way? Does homophobia exists only on the evening news?

I want some hard physical evidence an agoraphobe exists, other than the ones I seen reported. I've never actually met one.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 12, 2009 8:04 AM

As a small "l" libertarian (and not an Objectivist) myself... -Martin Brock

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 8:10 AM

Still not getting to a point. You must be a philosoph or just plain troll. They can't seem to find points either.

And your point is ... simply that I don't have a point? Anything else?

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 12, 2009 8:25 AM

Maybe you're a self-hating sophistic who can only project.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 9:00 AM

An L-worder. Gee, who would have guessed? It explains how you can throw out common usage of words in favor of your own meanings and leanings.

In every semantic dispute, I present dictionaries and other evidence of common or academic usage. The posts are still up there. You then claim that I favor my "own meanings and leanings" because I don't favor yours. Of course, I favor my own leanings, but the trivial assertion is laughable.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 9:14 AM

I linked this definition at Merriam-Webster ages ago. It's the first link Google returns for "homophobia definition". The definition is "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". My use of the word is completely consistent with this definition, which says nothing at all about hatred or violence.

Of course, you can show evidence of other usage describing violence and hatred, but this evidence doesn't contradict my assertion of common usage at all.

I've repeatedly asked for some other word passing the tests of political correctness here, but I still don't see another option, so I'll stick with "homophobia" until I do.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 9:43 AM

So what are you doing here?

I happen to enjoy Howard Stern, also South Park and The Family Guy. I had never seen Mr. Deity before this week, but I'm happy to make his acquaintance too.

I wasn't invited. I crashed the party. What's your excuse?

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 11:41 AM

And if you openly peer down your nose at us Pharyngulites and sniff about how pointless our discussions are, then what do you hope to accomplish by wasting your time here?

If a "Pharyngulite" follows this blog and comments, I fit the description myself. Do I peer down my nose and sniff at myself.

I didn't raise the "relevance" issue. I responded to it. I was asked for my "point", and my only point is a recreational pastime, just like yours. So what's the problem? Why wouldn't I waste my time here?

Posted by: Vicki | November 12, 2009 11:59 AM

Come on.

Etymology is not current meaning. "Ecology" is not the study of houses, a bus is not required to be "of, by, for, with, or from everybody," and "homophobia" is not fear of sameness.

(I doubt anyone here misunderstands my first sentence; I defy you to explain what it means on the basis of the root words.)

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 12, 2009 12:49 PM

Homosexual attraction can also be genetic. -Martin Brock

Posted by: Rick R | November 12, 2009 12:55 PM

"The gut feeling of repulsion seems genetic."

I like "Star Wars". Watching it gives me mixed feelings of happiness and nostalgia. I experience these feelings in my gut.

Therefore, liking "Star Wars" is genetic.

Posted by: CJO | November 12, 2009 1:23 PM

The entire blog, from the blogger on down, is laughably pointless, mental masturbation, no more valuable to the commonweal than a typical porn site or an hour with Howard Stern.

But an extraordinary porn site, or a whole afternoon with Howard Stern? Dynamite! commonwealific.

You're a nattering nabob, Brock.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 12, 2009 3:54 PM

*of course, there's always been the "man-eater" thing where a certain type of woman scares the fuck out of certain men... is that genetic, too? that men are afraid of women who are more assertive than the average?

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 5:22 PM

Are you putting homophobia on par with sexual orientation?

I'm suggesting that both could be influenced by genetics. I don't know what "on par" means here, but I'm not make any sort of moral judgment of anything.

Was the second "emotion" you spoke of having above (#426) "homosexuality"?

The second emotion was homosexual attraction. I said that I've experienced both homosexual attraction and a visceral fear of homosexuality. I ignored the fear and eventually enjoyed homosexual experiences. I also ignored fear of skydiving and eventually enjoyed that too. I suppose fear of heights also has a genetic basis.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 12, 2009 5:44 PM

Martin, you stilled tied up with homophobia? Did you even look at any of the Google Scholar papers? Have you organized your thoughts? It looks like negative to all of the above. Just a pointless troll. Your inane attempts to force a discussion of homophobia should get you plonked for insipidity. You aren't all there, and probably need professional help. This isn't a forum for that.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 5:47 PM

You're a nattering nabob, Brock.

I feel right at home with the rest of the nattering nabobs.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 12, 2009 5:52 PM

I also note that you are completely silent as to the possibility that women are genetically predisposed to be heterophobic in the same way you think men are genetically predisposed to be homophobic.

Also, do you think that being squicked out at the thought that your parents may have had sex is a sign of parento-phobia?

you're really fucking clueless about how attitudes towards sex, gender, and people in general are created and become ingrained in people.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 6:02 PM

... the "gut feeling" but in no way explains the actual discrimination (part of your now stated dictionary definition) ...

The definition refers to "fear" or "aversion" or "discrimination". The conjunction is "or", not "and". I never suggest that a visceral emotion "explains" or in any way justifies any discrimination, unless the "discrimination" is choosing a heterosexual partner instead of homosexual partner.

... that is also part and parcel of homophobia in common use.

I have never denied broader usage of the word. I've only said that the narrower usage also exists, and I don't have another word denoting only the narrower sense. If you have this word, tell me what it is. I've asked for a less politically charged term four or five times now. If the term exists, why don't you provide it?

Claiming "homophobia is genetic" while ignoring common use (even according to your own definition) is rightly seen as a dishonest dodge.

No. I've gone out of my way to disassociate my usage from "hate" and "violence", and I've never said anything about "discrimination". I've explicitly narrowed my focus to "visceral fear or aversion" over and over and over again. It's all still up there. Other people discuss more extreme "homophobia", but I haven't, and I've not encouraged any confusion either. You encourage the confusion.

Posted by: Paul | November 12, 2009 6:18 PM

...and I've never said anything about "discrimination"

And yet this does not bother you when you state "homophobia is/could be genetic". Your lack of treating discrimination means you are redefining homophobia in the proposition being made that it is genetic. You can either pick a new word (instead of trying to make people using it as defined pick a new word for their own usage) to describe the limited scope you are discussing, or accept the criticism that you are redefining homophobia to fit in the argument you want to make (homophobia is/could be genetic). And if you are doing the latter, please at least be honest and admit it. We're not changing the definition of the word (not even the one you provided for your own use), you are.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 12, 2009 6:57 PM

Yawn, Martin the unwanted troll still here? Boring insipid idjit.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 12, 2009 7:07 PM

Typo: "lust can overcome" not "overcame".

But I agree with the above commenters, Martin. You communicate your ideas poorly (and it appears willful) and are trolling really hard. It is an ugly sight to behold.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 12, 2009 8:30 PM

I'm almost becoming wistful for the long Walton-oriented threads.

I know what you mean. At least Walton can write intelligibly.

Posted by: Don't Panic | November 13, 2009 1:40 AM

Patricia, Cuttlefish,
It took me two days to get to the end of this thread, but I feel compelled to add my condolences to you both.

An L-worder. Gee, who would have guessed? It explains how you can throw out common usage of words in favor of your own meanings and leanings.

Therefore, liking "Star Wars" is genetic.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 12:20 PM

But I agree with the above commenters, Martin. You communicate your ideas poorly (and it appears willful) and are trolling really hard. It is an ugly sight to behold.

You need to be more specific here. I can't reply to accusations of "ideological poverty" and "ugliness", because they're too vague.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 1:11 PM

Re: 503, I didn't intend to blockquote the whole thing. The second paragraph is my reply.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 2:04 PM

Based on that logic we could say that Marxists and Objectivists both (using lay terms) 'breathe oxygen'; does that mean it's valid and relevant to describe them in terms of being oxygen schismatics?

It's as meaningful as the "schism" between Hindus and Catholics that someone suggested earlier. Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, and Anglicanism and Methodism, illustrate schisms, but neither illustrate a schism from Theism. There is no central Theism from which a schism could occur.

No, because that'd just be stupid - though no more stupid than what you've been saying all along.

Well, it's your stupidity and not mine. More specifically, it's your straw man's stupidity, but he exists in your head, not mine, so it's still essentially your stupidity.

It's fair to say that Marxism and Objectivism don't illustrate a schism, but I don't say they do anyway.

My illustration of a schism among atheists, or non-theists at least, is the American Humanist Assocation and the Council for Secular Humanism.

Besides, there are such things as Christian Communists, which kind of throws a spanner into the 'fundamental assumption' works.

It has no bearing on my assertions. It only shows that communists can be either Christians or Marxists, just as atheists can be either Marxists or Objectivists (or any number of other things). I never say that atheism is a fundamental assumption of Communism. Marxism does not exhaust Communism. Just ask one of these Christian Communists if he's a Marxist.

I don't know about religious objectivists, but I'm hardly going to be surprised if someone has managed to overcome the cognitive dissonance to consider it workable.

Well, Objectivism is practically a trademark owned by Ayn Rand's estate. Wouldn't surprise me if it actually is a trademark owned by her estate. Rand was very big on intellectual property and notoriously intolerant of dissent among people espousing "her ideas", and atheism is a fundamental principle of her system. It all begins with "existence exists", which essentially mocks "God exists".

So if some group calling themselves "religious Objectivists" appears, while some Objectivist officialdom disclaims them, I'd definitely call that a schism among Objectivists.

A theistic atheist, on the other hand...

That's your oxymoron, of course, not mine.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 14, 2009 2:49 PM

Martin Brock, we are not here to be your personal psychologists.

Posted by: pov | November 14, 2009 4:20 PM

Deciding to be an atheist is one thing. However many of them seem so threatened that they take another step and become "anti-religionists" or "anti-spiriualists" In other words they begin to decry those with different convictions and, much like those they often decry, begin the attempt to foist their way of thinking onto other individuals and institutions.

Posted by: Steve_C | November 14, 2009 4:40 PM

Cmarrou. The chances there is intelligent life in the universe other than our own is likely because of the odds. Billions of stars and billions of planets. It would be stupid to think we're the only intelligent life. All it takes is one civilization to have a hundred thousand years jump in technology for them to seem vastly more advanced. That's almost expected.

God? Creator of everything, who knows your thoughts and judges you? Still not believable.

Pov. Being anti-theist isn't a fundamentalist action, It's in response to the delusion and apologetics. We're tired of "what's the big deal?" because we're tired of the religious dominating the discussion and telling us to quit complaining. Once you become enlightened all the woo and superstition seems absurd.

Posted by: chas | November 14, 2009 8:15 PM

Wow 514 comments so far. I will add one more observation: The night before my 11 year old son died while riding in a car he got up at 3:00 am, woke me and my wife up, and gave us a hug and kiss and told us that he just wanted to say he loved us. He never woke like this before, he never did anything even similar to this before. Then he told his siblings that something was going to happen, he didn't know what, but something was going to happen. He was sleeping, seat belted in when the car he was riding in went off one side, over correction, roll, he was banged around too much and died. After hearing the news, and after I got to a mental state where I could even function, I secretly asked my son to do a particular physical manifestation if he could hear me. He did, and even better, he put a unique spin on the manifestation that I was not expecting which made it even that much more impressive. You folks can all argue about this stuff the rest of your lives, but I KNOW what happened to me and that is why I have faith.

Posted by: Publius | November 14, 2009 8:32 PM

What religious people have trouble with is the idea that "atheism is what I'm not". I.e., I am not religious.

It says absolutely nothing else about me. Well, it might say that I try to live by reason and reject superstition. But it might not even say that as some people simply substitute some sort of secular superstition (e.g., socialism and the state) for the traditional deities.

Posted by: John Morales | November 14, 2009 8:43 PM

chas,

The night before my 11 year old son died while riding in a car he got up at 3:00 am, woke me and my wife up, and gave us a hug and kiss and told us that he just wanted to say he loved us. He never woke like this before, he never did anything even similar to this before. Then he told his siblings that something was going to happen, he didn't know what, but something was going to happen.
[...]
You folks can all argue about this stuff the rest of your lives, but I KNOW what happened to me and that is why I have faith.

You have my sympathy for this tragic event. The world can be cruel.

Thing is, your purported knowledge can only be personal — I think you're inferring it based on a post-hoc interpretation of the significance of a traumatic event.

I also note that you haven't stated what it is you have faith in, based on that anecdote. I can only take it that you refer to the supernatural, unless you clarify.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 14, 2009 8:52 PM

CMT, anytime someone mentions metaphysics, I never believe another word they say, and grab and hold onto my wallet to keep it from being picked. Usually unintelligible and unrational woo follows.

Posted by: John Morales | November 14, 2009 9:12 PM

Ridahoan, welcome to Pharyngula!

Posted by: A case for Christ | November 14, 2009 11:12 PM

For all that doubt Jesus, please watch/read a case for Christ; Your future depends on it.

Without Jesus proven that he arose from the dead then there wouldn't be anything to believe in.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 14, 2009 11:25 PM

A case for Christ on a cracker #525,

Without Jesus proven that he arose from the dead then there wouldn't be anything to believe in.

Gotta love these Christ-o-bots.

Posted by: Elizabeth | November 14, 2009 11:51 PM

I believe in a loving God who created all things (over millions of years) and who gave us humans free will. I believe that this God sent His Son Jesus to show us the way to love and care for one another, as we humans are all one family. When we fail to do this, we have wars, murders, and other traumas. When we follow Jesus'(Buddha's, Ghandi's and other's) examples of loving, healing, and nurturing our fellow humans, and all of creation, we fulfill our purpose in life, which is to make our world a better place.

When we use our free will to reject this purpose, we create wars and other disasters that wreak terrible damage on the human community. When my brothers and sisters who deny or reject the God in whom I believe work with me to make this world a better place, I am happy to join them in that effort. I feel no need to convert them to my beliefs, and I have no interest in them trying to convert me to their lack of belief (or to their conviction that there is no reason to "believe"). I just want us to all work together to make our world a better place for those who will come after us.

I ask only that we put aside our philosophical/theological differences and work together to eliminate hunger, preventable and curable medical conditions, environmental disasters, and other human problems that all of us together could solve if we put our minds, hearts, and resources to doing so. I think a lot of energy is put into arguing (both within our faith and non-faith communities or between them) that could be put to much better use in solving the problems rampant in our world.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 15, 2009 12:11 AM

Elizabeth #529,

I believe in a loving God who created all things (over millions of years) and who gave us humans free will. I believe that this God sent His Son Jesus to show us the way to love and care for one another, as we humans are all one family.

When we use our free will...

I ask only that we put aside our philosophical/theological differences and work together to eliminate hunger, preventable and curable medical conditions, environmental disasters, and other human problems that all of us together could solve if we put our minds, hearts, and resources to doing so. I think a lot of energy is put into arguing (both within our faith and non-faith communities or between them) that could be put to much better use in solving the problems rampant in our world.

Posted by: John Morales | November 15, 2009 12:34 AM

LouAz,

I have no idea how to describe what an athiest thinks. I truely do not know what "is", but I am damn sure I know what "isn't".

Well said!

I think that's the nub of it.