Richard Dawkins defends the Out Campaign. I really have to stress to everyone who complains that they don't like the design, that it's too bold, that it's too timid, that they don't believe in joining anything, etc., that this is not about conformity — you don't have to wear the big red "A" t-shirt, and no one is going to draft you into the Atheist Army. This is a plea for everyone to get loud and make your beliefs known. Atheists generally are not joiners or conformists or big fans public displays of unity, but we have to start forming some kind of loose interessengemeinschaft — a fellowship of interests — if we want to stop being marginalized. This is nothing but a start.
It's not as if you're being asked to join the Atheist Alliance or American Atheists, although those are good organizations — the only thing you have to do to join this particular movement is to be vigorous in asserting your godlessness, in whatever way you choose. Here in the US, we must make it clear that there is a significant slice of the electorate that wants our government kept entirely secular.
And if you don't like the scarlet letter, Dawkins points to the CafePress site where you can pick from 9,430 atheist designs. Pick one or design your own. It's not dogmatic adherence the campaign is looking for, it's independence and some slight measure of dedication to increasing secularism.
- Log in to post comments
Our local "Atheist & Freethinkers" group is considering a name change that would dump the term Atheist all together. I'm not a happy camper about that one.
It's most amusing that some seek to identify with a group espousing an ideology based vehemently upon that which does not exist.
salt, you've just described religion.
So you're easily amused. What do you want, a cookie?
I absolutely agree: it's about being open with your views and demanding to stop being marginalized. I think that has been one of the problems for science and Democrats, alike: before election time, there's no doubt I see at least a 3:1 difference between the theist/Republican bumper stickers and their science/Democrat counterparts. As many psychological studies have shown, people tend to side with whichever side has more people and is more outspoken; thus, it's not as surprising as first thought when Bush was horribly reelected.
If we don't speak up, we don't have anyone to blame but ourselves.
It's not dogmatic adherence the campaign is looking for, it's independence and some slight measure of dedication to increasing secularism.
The problem is that adopting a uniform symbol for an idea is a step away from independence.
A while back I was watching one of Dawkins lecture from his web site. During it, he rattled off the usual list of gods that most people don't believe in, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This got a laugh from the audience, as it always does.
The camera operator also laughed audibly and started hollering "Arrrr!" -- the pirate-inspired cry of the Pastafarian. He continued to cry "Arrrr!" periodically throughout the talk, including over the applause given to Dawkins at the end of his speech, and into the quiet moment that followed before the video ended.
This was not a person thinking for himself. This was a member of a club, doing his best to prove that his club was better than anyone else's club.
I'm quite sure that this guy is already wearing the scarlet A shirt.
I really get peeved with morons who claim atheism is based on that which does not exist. That's wrong. It's completely backwards. Atheism is about the entire freaking universe, all the matter and energy and information within it, leaving religion with nothing but the vacuous maunderings of old dogmatists about nothing at all.
I really get peeved with morons who claim atheism is based on that which does not exist. That's wrong. It's completely backwards. Atheism is about the entire freaking universe...
Science is about the entire universe and all that is contained within it. Atheism is a human reaction to a human social construct: religion. Atheism is not equal to science.
I get your point, I do, but I don't want to be hassled everytime I wear an Atheist shirt. I really enjoy being left the hell alone. I'm not a people person. I don't like strangers coming up and starting conversation. I can't very well say, "Mind your own business," when I'm wearing a shirt meant to antagonize and start up a dialog. That would be hypocritical and I save that bad behavior for christians who really really excel at it.
This whole thing reminds me of the South Park episode where Cartman freezes himself and wakes up in the future to find three warring atheist factions fighting over "The Great Question," which, it turns out, is "What should we call ourselves?"
So Jim I assume you'll stop posting in English soon? After all, that's the same set of communicative symbols that everyone else here uses. It really keeps you from thinking for yourself and expressing yourself individually. Be sure not to post in any other language already shared by other social primates, you'll have to create your own.
Unless of course it is sometimes useful to have common shared symbols for efficient communication. And unless you think you can share common sign sets with people around you and still develop your own thoughts then articulate and elaborate them with those sign sets.
This is going to sound really bad, and I'm surely going to take a lot of heat for it, but... frankly, I'm a little afraid to "come out." Though I live in a blue state, it is surprisingly conservative; I am nervous at the thought of announcing my atheism in, say, my neighborhood, because I imagine I would be an instant target for vandalism (I've already experienced this once, during the last election when I had a Kerry/Edwards sign on my lawn - and people tend to take their religion a lot more seriously than their politics).
I realize that this is exactly the sort of thing you all are trying to combat, but for some of us it's just a little to risky. I fully admit I'm a spineless coward. :(
I rather like that "Smile: There Is No Hell!" T-shirt.
We more radical queers woulda called you a "closet case."
I suppose I like to publicly brand myself an atheist on occasion for reasons of willful exclusion from the throngs of crazies here in the midwest U.S. It's not like the shirt has the power to change my identity to whatever misunderstanding people can throw at it. Anyway, if I'm just out for casual midwestern occasions, there is hardly a need to wear anything besides whatever I find lying around.
My T-shirt slogan would read: "Just another brick in Jefferson's Wall"
LM,
I totally agree. I am in the bluest of blue states right now but my family is centered in the Bible Belt (where I'll eventually end up). There's no way I can "come clean."
I really get peeved with morons who claim atheism is based on that which does not exist.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 31, 2007 09:37 AM
Then why such energy expended concerning God's non existence?
Go a few posts down and look at all the the Atheist books you tout referring to God;
The God Delusion
god is not GREAT
The End of Faith
PZ, you'd do well to wear a tee shirt proclaiming I'M AN IRRATIONAL ATHEIST.
LM, (if that's your real name), I understand your hesitation. There are days I just want to move unimpeded through the world and other days when I wear my black commie t-shirt with the big red star and my CIA ballcap.
I enjoy injecting contrariness into conversations, especially when I hear self satisfied gaggles of folx who are all muttering about libruls (and gays and blacks and so on). They need to know that real people hold contrary values and that we're not just evil doers hiding behind the constitution.
But I do understand not wanting to play with these people; I mean, really, ewww.
While true, this comment avoids the issue that LM raises: there is a very real threat to personal safety in many areas. We need some people at the forefront of the movement, vocally supporting the cause in whatever way they can, but there will always be some people for whom coming out is very dangerous.
Case in point: Even though we're much less likely to see negative reactions against gays and lesbians than we were in the past, and even though social attitudes have become more accepting of homosexuality, there are still people being killed, or kicked out of their homes by unaccepting parents, or discriminated in the workplace for being gay.
Atheism is much farther behind on the social acceptance curve. We need to respect the choice to remain closeted for those who believe their personal safety may be at risk.
So Jim I assume you'll stop posting in English soon? After all, that's the same set of communicative symbols that everyone else here uses.
Polyglot: The alphabet, dictionary, and the rules of grammar do not constitute a uniform symbol for a single idea. Nor do individual words count as symbols. Word carry meaning, but they are not (for the most part) stand-ins for entire sets of ideas.
The scarlet A is such a stand-in.
"In business news, straw prices are reaching an all time high. Economists blame increased demand caused by the religious backlash against the so-called "New Atheism". Prices may rise as high as $80/bale before the end of the year..."
You know what else I just thought of? If I bought an Atheist shirt, I'd have to be careful when to wear it. I could be thrown out of malls or told to wear my shirt inside out so it wouldn't offend anyone. I'd definitely be tossed out of Disney because the shirt would be considered offensive. I don't want to spend my time suing people OR rethinking what I'm going to wear so I don't get punished and have to sue.
Or admitting that an Atheist can be thrown out of the mall or Disney just for admitting to being an Atheist? Afterall, we can't use the freedom of religion argument.
And I can see the rest of you, I see you. If something like that happened to me, would ANY of you be willing to show up in Atheist shirts to protest? I heard about a bunch of nursing mothers protesting at a Toys R Us because they didn't allow nursing. What would any of you people do? Nothing, and you know it. "Oh, it costs too much to fly to Orlando to do a sit-in at Disney." "I don't want to be thrown in jail for trespassing."
Brian F.,
believe my I know. I've often mentioned that, for me, being an out atheist would get me more strange looks and comments than being an out queer when I lived in Mankato, MN.
But, I also know that the fear is more often greater than the actual threat. That's one of the reasons that LGBT movements adopted coming out as a political strategy. The more who do it, the safer it becomes for others. But, at some point, you just gotta fucking do it.
Some recent polling had around (or over) 90% of self-identified gay and lesbian people (these pollsters can never quite figure out what to do with bisexuals or transfolk) declaring that they were out in most aspects of their daily lives; over 40% of Americans now have someone who is openly gay or lesbian among their close friends or relatives. At the time of the Stonewall uprising in 1969, there were fewer than 50 openly gay organizations in the nation.
Quite a bit of change in less than 40 years. (heck, we may be even entering a post-closet world in some parts of the country...a LOT of change) And coming out, collectively and individually, has always been a step in that change.
As PZ says, bang your own drum. A t-shirt isn't going to fit everyone, if you'll pardon the expression. Personally, I use a 'fortune cookie' email extension that adds a random quote from a text file to the end of all my emails (by default, though I can remove it with a single click). I created the text file by browsing the Internet for quotes, and I'm always adding more to it - atheist quotes, pro-science and anti-pseudoscience quotes, quotes defending the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and the separation of church and state, etc.
After the past six years, I really felt that I needed to take a public stand. I don't post inappropriate statements in email groups, and I don't argue politics and religion with everyone I contact, but that fortune cookie quote at the end of each email makes my basic stance quite clear. Admittedly, it's only my personal, not business, email, but I'm definitely out of the atheist closet. And I get a lot of comments from strangers who approve of the quotes (and from a few who don't, though they've been polite enough).
I'll "out" myself if someone asks, or if church-folks come to the door-- no sweat. My atheism is just as normal and unremarkable to me as my continued ability to sweat this summer.
Still, the whole "open display" thing rubs me the wrong way. My main problem with religious folks is their prowess at filling my life with what should be contained in their own head-- little jesus fish stickers, tracts, apparel, porchstep visits, legal wrangling, congressional involvement, etc...
Frankly, I couldn't care less what these morons think or pray to in their free time as long as they keep it to themselves. I don't see as how that's any more bothersome than someone appreciating different television shows than I do.
But lately, you've been exhorting us to chase these religious folks down their asinine road-- destroying texts, harassing bookstore employees, organizing letter-writing campaigns to protest niggling categorization flaws, and now to be just as obvious and elephantine as the very morons we all seem to detest.
None of this bodes well with me. Wearing some dumb "atheist advertisement" shirt in public is like being one of those people who knits in public, or those authors who can only write in coffeeshops-- its some pathetic crutch towards conversation with anyone foolish enough to approach. Its reducing otherwise productive, interesting activities to simple shilling, and I hope we're all above this.
If it was just me, I'd be a lot less hesitant (I'm a pretty combative, outspoken individual). However, I do worry about my family, especially the unborn child whom I'll be welcoming into the world this December. :/
It's not like someone is making this compulsory. It's being offered to people who might like to buy it. Those who like the look of it, and the message it conveys, can buy and wear one ... while the rest do whatever they want.
As far as I know, this is still Liberty Hall - you can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard. I'm sure PZ will correct me if I'm wrong.
DaveX: That's precisely the reason I refuse to put bumper stickers on my car (well, that and the fact that the glue on those things will NEVER come off). I don't feel the need to advertise my personal beliefs (religious, political, or whatever) to anyone else. It's my business... if someone wants to know, I'll tell them, but I'm not painting a big ol' target on my ass. I'm highly annoyed by jesus fish and yellow (or camo!) magnetized "ribbons," and I just can't see myself turning around and doing the same thing. It isn't that I don't care... it just doesn't feel right to me.
I'm glad we're finally getting political. PZ, are you going to the Atheist Alliance International conference in September?
k
I highly doubt that. I wore a "Viva Evolucion" shirt to Disneyland last year and received absolutely no hassle. A few fellow visitors even told me they liked the shirt. Something like "F*ck Religion", sure, that might galvanize the mousketeer gestapo into action, but a tasteful t-shirt? Been there, done that--no problems.
Stay blue, Ponyboy. Stay blue.
I agree, and must point out that this has nothing to do with atheism. Those who fight against secular public institutions do not believe in the principles upon which this country was founded, and are radicals who would rewrite the Constitution if they could. My wish? That Christians of every stripe, those who accept the claim that America is a Christian Nation without question or complaint, would realize this.
Oh? Are you sure? This about freedom of, and from, religion. Freedom from. From. FROM.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
I do like that someone is making a concerted effort to make a group movement out of atheism, but "coming out" in all aspects of life is not feasible for some. My family would disown me. Now, I know the argument can be made that they are not much of a family if they would disown me over religion, but I still would prefer to hang on to them. So I can wear the shirt at home, or out at the movies, but not at christmas dinner with the grandparents(one of whom is a minster). Hopefully, this makes sense. I will fully admit that I am a coward when it comes to familial confrontation.
I do find it interesting that there is some assumption that all atheists are democrats/liberals (or should be)...
... I happen to be quite conservative in my views... I am one of many conservative atheists (just in my small circle of friends & family)...
... even within my family there is a wide range of evangelical christians / athesists from liberal democrats through right wing conservative republicans...
... it should also be noted that within even the political party lines there are disagreements on issues such as abortion... for example, all the liberal democrats are staunchly against abortion due to their religious leanings... on the other hand, some on the conservative side support the right to abortion...
... if we ever hope to separate church & state, we might have to start by not assuming all theists/atheists can be lumped into one political party or the other...
... don't forget, we are not all democrat or republican... some are libertarian, or independant or ??... possibly, like me, not even U.S. citizens & so, the division is meaningless...
I'm very much the same way, except for a clever t-shirt or two, but I did print out the yellow ribbon with "Empty Gesture" on it and put it up in my cube at work. Plus, it's right next to a picture of my wife and me where I'm wearing my Marine dress blues, so I love watching the triple and quadruple-takes that combination of messages and symbols causes.
Because the only requirement for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing?
Just a thought.
I wouldn't mind the A as a bumper sticker, and I'm always looking for something clever to stick on the van. One of these days I'll just start painting my own stuff all over it. (BTW, you can indeed get bumper stickers off. Use a hair dryer to warm up the goo. Peel it off. Goo that is still left can be removed with an application of petroleum jelly, or rubbed off with goo gone or rubbing alcohol, depending on the type of goo.) I peruse the atheist cafepress offerings regularly, but rarely find things I'd want on my car. I am in New Jersey, after all, where cars are regularly used as weapons. My bumper stickers need to promote thought and conversation, without being accusatory or confrontational. Passionate provocation belongs on the internet or in a safe personal setting, not on the Garden State Parkway.
Fox1: you should see the looks my 'Paratrooper against Bush' sign inspires... Empty Gesture ribbon--brilliant. A bunch of people slapping little stickers on their pick-ups always makes ME feel 'supported' I tell ya.
My main complaint over the t-shirts is the pimping of richarddawkins.net as if Dawkins was some kind of official atheist spokesperson. "I'm an atheist!!!...and also visit this website."
the only thing you have to do to join this particular movement is to be vigorous in asserting your godlessness
I really get peeved with morons who claim atheism is based on that which does not exist.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 31, 2007 09:37 AM
Most amusing. A true popcorn moment.
I like the yellow ribbon magnet that says "I support the yellow magnet ribbon industry."
Because the only requirement for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing?
And the other shoe drops.
Evil? An entire population of people declared evil? For holding an incorrect belief?
Wrong-headed, certainly. Pernicious, perhaps. Dangerous, arguably. But evil?
So... we have a reluctant leader, a rallying symbol, and a declaration that those who disagree with us are evil.
Interesting.
I'm not coming out. Not yet, anyway. I value my parents' peace of mind and my job too much.
My elderly parents keep their religion to themselves, but they are devout. I put them through a lot of pain when I was younger, and although they know I don't subscribe to their brand of religion, they would be pained to learn I'm an atheist. They won't live much longer, and these days I focus a lot of energy on communicating my love for them. It's much more effective to communcate love in a way that the recipient perceives as loving. So I avoid religious topics and show my love and gratitude in thoroughly secular ways.
My job is precarious. Many of my colleagues have lost their jobs already. My boss has expressed how much he admires our CEO's leadership and clarity of purpose. He attributes this to the CEO's outspoken born-again Christainity.
I have my priorities. I value my parents' serenity and my ability to support my family more than I value my potential usefulness as a revolutionary digit in the atheist movement. So I'm "out" to my friends who have no contact with my parents or job, but mostly I keep it to myself.
Jenni: I feel for you, though I have made my political and religious views quite visible to my family. I made quite the statement by getting married on the steps of my state's capitol building, much to the shock and horror of my largely Catholic family (and hey, it was free!). I'm also not having my kid baptized (would make absolutely NO SENSE)... I'm eager to see how THAT one will go over!
Clever, but you missed the subtleties. You're confusing assertion with basis in this instance. Assert your godlessness, but godlessness doesn't define your beliefs. Do you catch that difference? You've got a worldview that excludes the existence of a god based on a rational appraisal of the universe. So atheism is not based upon that which does not exist... it's just a consequence of the rational mind. On the other hand, asserting that godlessness is important for political reasons, civil rights reasons, personal reasons, etc. The asserting of belief is far removed from the basis of that belief in the first place.
On the topic of ribbons, my sister bought me one as a joke when they were becoming popular because she knew I hated them. Oddly enough, it was made in China. (And, even more funny, I have noticed the American made ones tend to fade while foreign-made ones don't. Hilarious.)
I proudly display an FSM emblem on my car and regularly wear FSM shirts (FSM logo in the middle of my chest). In fact, I was wearing one last night as Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door (I was nice, though, and just opened the door, smiled and said "no thanks" and shut the door. I hope they caught a glimpse of my shirt.).
I do worry somewhat about vandalism, being in a part red and part blue state (Missouri). But I figure if someone like PZ gets by just fine, I will, too. There are certainly better targets than little ole me.
LM,
I understand your hesitation and "cowardice." I live in south Louisiana and have a nearly four year old (in December, no less) who I would worry about if I was as out as I would like to be. Where I live, the religionists carry guns. If it was just me (and when it was just me) I would be/was more outspoken.
I have a friend whose wife (with four kids in the car) was harrassed on the highway because of a damn Kerry/edwards sticker.
It absolutely infuriates me that those kind of assholes can have this kind of effect on people of logic and reason. It almost makes me want to retaliate first.
Mr Royal, do you intentionally distort what you read or is your reading comprehension that poor?
PZ,
you say :
"Here in the US, we must make it clear that there is a significant slice of the electorate that wants our government kept entirely secular."
I really doubt that the Out Campaign is the best way to achieve that honourable goal, quite the contrary. This is just going to polarize people even more.
Wake up !
I intend on purchasing one of the golf shirts from one of those links...
... I look forward to wearing it to work...
... I anticipate HR approaching me with their dress code violation for espousing a religious view... the ensuing discussion on why atheism is not a religion should be interesting...
... BTW... the church & religious retreat logo'd shirts are worn regularly with no repercussions... however, I did point out to a fellow today that by adding a small line joining the top of the H in his church groups acronym would turn CRHP into CRAP... oddly, he was actually amused...
... just a few years ago (in my evangelical christian days) I wore church logo'd shirts a lot... made me feel like I was actually doing the lord's work...
Assert your godlessness, but godlessness doesn't define your beliefs. Do you catch that difference?
Posted by: Mike P | July 31, 2007 10:52 AM
So in defining your beliefs (worldview that excludes the existence of a god based on a rational appraisal of the universe) you find need to entrench yourself in proclaiming an irrelevancy (godlessness)?
[makes more popcorn]
I do like that someone is making a concerted effort to make a group movement out of atheism, but "coming out" in all aspects of life is not feasible for some. My family would disown me.
My family practically already has. Be careful what you say. I informed my family of my disbelief years ago, and although I wouldn't change that decision, it has caused me no end of grief and continues to do so. I'm an outcast, and becoming more so, as they drift further and further into the wacky right (now they're into all this Israel and armageddon crap). It's scary. Like invasion of the body snatchers, or something.
Come on, PZ, just start your own church. You've got the choir boys, the symbols, the organizations. Dawkins is certainly the atheist equivalent to Billy Graham and you can be Pat Robertson or someone like that. He's not quite as loud and nasty as you, but he's certainly in the running.
So, there you go! You're officially a "congregation" of atheists.
ps...I like the big A. At least I'll know who I'm talking to and understand why they seem so illogical.
Many of my aquaintances (thiests & atheists alike) have been almost run off the road for their Bush/Cheney bumper stickers... works both ways...
... my difficulty would be getting my evangelical christian wife to agree on the content of an bumper sticker... she had trouble a few years ago understanding why I wouldn't put a "descending dove" plate on the front bumper...
... she did however understand why a door knocker stating "As for me and my house, we will serve the lord." needed to be removed once I "came out"...
How is atheism less relevant than any other world view? Or, to put it another way, how is any other world view less irrelevant than atheism?
And FTK, how is atheism ILlogical???
Mr Royal, do you intentionally distort what you read or is your reading comprehension that poor?
Not at all:
- Dawkins said in an interview on the BBC just in the last week that he's aware that this is a social movement in search of a leader, that he is seen as such, but that he doesn't want to take that role.
- The scarlet A is not a corporate symbol or an organizational symbol such as the logo of the Council for Secular Humanism. It is a rallying point intended to embolden people to become proselytizing.
- This is hardly the first time I've heard religious people in general referred to as evil in forums such as this one.
Negentropyeater is correct: Polarization is the only outcome of this movement.
we must make it clear that there is a significant slice of the electorate that wants our government kept entirely secular.
... not all of which slice is entirely godless, you know. (I hope you know; Kseniya does!)
Negentropyeater: PZ doesn't polarise me. And I hope there are a lot of others like me. Though I sometimes wish I were, I'm simply not an atheist. So I won't be wearing a scarlet letter t-shirt. But good on PZ if he does; nobody should let himself be intimidated by a crowd of rabid sheep.
And remember: religion has no place in government, regardless of what you do (or don't) believe. Écrasez l'infame!
Nor do individual words count as symbols.
Introductory course in semiotics, STAT!
Of course words are symbols. They certainly aren't the thing, are they?
negentropyeater:
So, people are going to see these shirts and start going to church again? Infidels will queue for public baptism, and biologists will join the Discovery Institute?
Or will some people buy a shirt and others not, while some stick a logo on their website and others not. This is hardly the stuff of a Sunni/Shi'ite schism.
Hey, we all like to argue. Sometimes, that argument can move towards a productive choice of action; if not, there'll always be a new argument tomorrow.
To quote Dawkins' latest essay on this campaign, "Chill OUT."
Responding to the suggestion to "design your own" t-shirt, here's what I think is a much better: WWRTD? To be fair, it's a much more esoteric reference (Russell's Teapot, to answer the question), but it's not like people are going to recognize the appropriately-fonted A without help.
Nope. No discrimination against atheists here. Move along. Nothing to see. Go on home now. That's it.
Atheism is but a counterpoise to belief in god(s). Atheism and god are inexorably linked. Should there be, worldwide, absolutely no belief in god(s) in any form whatsoever what would the term 'atheism' point to but to that which does not exist? To be otherwise the non-scientific term 'atheism' would have no meaning and should not appear in any lexicon.
But the phonemes have no inherent meaning outside a broader system and particular instance of use.
@ k #23
What would any of you people do? Nothing, and you know it.
Although many atheists are the furthest thing from activists, many of us are willing to stand up and be heard. I for one, would be there.
If you feel alone in Orlando, check out the Orlando Atheist & Freethinkers group social this Sunday. I'll be there.
One side of this equation is already polarized, and has been setting up groups as 'evil' for many years now. In doing so, these people have attacked basic human rights, attempted to quash education, and marginalize those who don't believe as they do.
What would you suggest we do about that?
Atheism: there is no god.
Science: we can explain the universe.
Religion: poopie for morons.
Salt,
Yes, for the reasons I listed below what you blockquoted. Political, civil, personal. I proclaim it because that "irrelevancy" is hardly irrelevant in real-world matters. Like it or not, people give a damn about what I think about sky fairies. In some cases, the wrong answer carries repercussions. So the only way to correct that problem is by getting the word out.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 31, 2007 09:37 AM
Little touchy today, PZ? Geez...
I'm another one of those "morons" who knows the difference between atheism and science. Atheism by definition is about the non-belief in god, the word would have no meaning if no one ever beleived in god. I think you are just wrong on this one.
Salt #62, that's hysterical. If we didn't use stamps to post mail, not collecting them would still be a hobby?
FTK...I am amused that you consider US illogical...we aren't the ones who worship the figment of someone's imagination.
I don't like the Dawkins shirt, not because of the A but because of the internet address below it. I'd happily wear the Scarlet Letter without the advertising. But I plan on checking on the site PZ referred to for other atheist shirts. I just don't like shirts with what I consider advertising. (I won't wear Izod, Donna Karan, anyone who puts logos on their clothing.) I'd wear one anywhere.
I rarely put stuff on my car since I grew up in Detroit with leased cars and you didn't DARE put anything on them; old habits are hard to break. So no bumperstickers, even though I think Darwin's fish is cool. (I have weakened enough to put the logo for my daughter's college on my car, though.)
well, in a world with no gods, the word "theism" becomes meaningless, and thusly, so does "a-theism." There are many groups around the world whose members have little more in common than a disbelief in something else.
To those of you who think you can't come out because you live in a red state / has a deeply religious family etc I can strongly recommend Reed Braden's blog, http://unorthodoxatheism.blogspot.com/ .
This 18-year old lives in the heart of intolerant Jesusland and was raised fundie. Now, he's not only come out of the closet as an atheist - he's come out as being gay as well. One might think he could just as well have burned the American flag in the school yard while chanting Chomsky slogans, but he obviously hasn't been lynched yet.
No one's going to force you guys out of the closet (I, for one, know it can be kinda pesky - my father is a fundie minister), but it might at least serve as some inspiration to take further steps in that direction.
One side of this equation is already polarized... [snip] What would you suggest we do about that?
The reason that these lunatics have the power to do these things is because so few people in your country vote. Only one quarter of the voting population in the USA cast a ballot for Bush in your last election. Get people to vote. That will solve an enormous part of the problem right there.
Decisions are made by those who show up.
How to do this? Well, announcing that you're an atheist won't do it. It will make you feel better, but it won't change the power in Washington. Pick a hot issue related to science: Stem cell research, environmentalism, whatever -- and run with it. Campaign about what matters to people.
OK, so I've been an atheist most of my life. If it comes up I have no problem telling people I don't believe, or, if they push it, that I regard their religion as a bunch of hooey.
But I am very resistant to this campaign. Why? Because I regard religion as a problem, but as a more or less secondary problem--secondary to just the sort of clannishness and longing to belong that this campaign seems to appeal.
I am also highly skeptical of the supposed benefits of a what seems to me to be a pretty vaguely defined grievance campaign.
I might be more interested if some particular goals were attached to it. I really have no idea what it means for the government to be "entirely secular." By most definitions, it would seem to me that this goal has absolutely nothing to do with atheism itself, so why muddy the waters?
It would seem to me that mixing and matching secularism and atheism you run some very real risks: you definitely feed the propaganda machine that equates secularism with state-sponsored atheism.
On the other hand, if we were interested in protecting the civil rights and social status of atheists, I think you'd best take a pretty narrow approach to the secular government deal.
But, anyhow, personally I feel tribalism is the enemy, religion is one of its many manifestations. But I'd be willing to play along if it seemed as if there were some goals driving this thing beyond togetherness for togetherness' sake.
So are people offended by the fact that the condition of not believing in a god has a name? I don't get it. It's not like people say, "I'm going to join Atheism!" They simply stop believing (or don't believe to begin with).
In the queer community you see three prevalent symbols: A lambda, a rainbow flag and a pink triangle. Of the tree the triangle has the most interesting history; it was originally a symbol used by he Nazis to designate homosexuals in concentration camps.
However, the symbols are instantly recognizable to anyone in the "in-group" circle, and to quite a few outside of it, and they serve to show commonality of idea and cause at least in one area of life. They are -- or can be -- profoundly intimidating to those outside the group.
I submit that those atheists who argue against proclaiming their atheism might be more than a little like closeted gays or lesbians. Maybe they'd be better off looking at themselves instead of criticizing others.
The only possible outcome? Really. You could be right, but how do you know?
I will say this: Anything that further promotes the equivalence of atheism and secularism in the public mind will not aid the cause of secularism. Sad - but true. This is important. There is some degree of intersection between atheism and secularism, of course, but that is irrelevant to the importance of secularism. Part of the problem we have here is that the Xtian right is continuing and will continue its relentless campaign of disinformation, and is succeeding in promoting the false Secularism=Atheism equation.
If you want to "come out" by all means come out. If you want to promote secularism, promote secularism. If you want to promote atheism, promote atheism. I caution against trying to do both, at the same time, as if there was no difference. The clear distinction between the two should also be promoted, and doing so will be in the best interest of secularism: not because atheism is "bad" (regardless of what countless idiot theists believe) but because accuracy and honesty demand it. File under: Knowledge Is Good.
Jim Royal, you know that might work a bit. I can pick up a sign, walk around knocking on doors, telling people about the issues and why they're important. But it would only me doing that.
If only I had a group of like-minded people that I could work with, who had similar goals and stances on these issues, we could get so much more done together.
Now where am I going to find such a group?
I'd love those shirts, it just irritates me that there's a big ol' address plastered on the bottom of it, I don't care who's site it is.
Warren: I for one am not criticizing anyone. I appreciate the people who have the balls to boldly proclaim their beliefs for all to see. I just don't have the guts to do it myself. In case you haven't noticed, people are NUTS.
Twist again and you just might get there.
Non belief in a god is not a belief. Not any more than not stamp collecting is a hobby.
Kseniya,
totally agree with you.
But look at PZ's post about the Out Campaign:
"Here in the US, we must make it clear that there is a significant slice of the electorate that wants our government kept entirely secular."
So, is the Out Campaign going to promote secularism or atheism ?
I like PZ and I like his blog, but this time he got it wrong.
Sheesh. Reading all the folks coming out of the woodwork and shitting their pants* over the very idea of having an atheist T-shirt just makes me want to wear one more.
"This is just going to polarize people even more."
Oh boo hoo. Better than having a unipolar society. Read MAJeff's comment #24. The best that we can do is show people that atheists are real people, and that they're your friends and neighbors. That they don't skulk around in the dark underbelly of society (well, not all of them anyway), and they can be generous, law-abiding, and other-good-adjective people.
The way I see it, people who advocate for getting religion out of government are going to have their religious identity impugned by the theocrats anyway. You might as well come clean as an atheist, because if they think they can hurt you by tarring you with that label, they won't hesitate.
And to those who think we're being such vile hypocrites, remember: we don't have any official credo that says we should be humble. Guess who does?
Maybe I'll make my own shirt some day, and adapt one of my favorite quotes from Tim Kreider's "The Pain": "I'm a secular humanist. It rocks."
* To be clear, I'm not referring to the ones who are honestly afraid of retaliation from the mouth-breathers.
At #56
- This is hardly the first time I've heard religious people in general referred to as evil in forums such as this one.
Um, I really think you misunderstood post 36. But I can't quite tell if you meant to.
T-shirts and such are all very well but shouldn't there be a brand of FSM spaghetti and meatballs (or "genuine" IPU burgers or picture ham) on the market by now? It didn't take long for there to be merchandise based on other fictional beings, such as all the fake religious relics and special Communion wine and wafers as well as product spin-offs from more modern icons, eg the Teletubbies, Barney etc.
Ah, Oran Kelly (#74) beat me to the punch while I was (slowly) typing...
Hmmm, interesting, last week I was involved in a discussion about this on another blog. Tribalism and associated phenomena (xenophobia, etc.) correlates with and causes many social ills, but what is it that promotes tribalism (aside from the inherent limits of human brain physiology, which are hardly trivial)? Religion? Nationalism? Or are they simply manifestations of tribalism? Gah... I'm looping. Help. I cry out to the great god Tylenol to relieve me of my burder!
the only way to correct that problem is by getting the word out.
Posted by: Mike P | July 31, 2007 11:27 AM
By proclaiming your godlessness you validate atheism being based upon that which does not exist. Without such proclamation would the term have any meaning?
You've got a worldview that excludes the existence of a god based on a rational appraisal of the universe.
Then why do atheists continually discuss god(s)? Why discuss that which one excludes? Why proclaim what PZ stated - to be vigorous in asserting your godlessness - where such atheist worldview excludes that which is vigorously asserted?
The answer is simple. Without god(s) you'd have nothing to clamor about. Atheism is but the clamoring GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
Exactly right! The most common reaction I get when a believer learns that I'm an Atheist / Secular Humanist is something like, "Surely you're not, you're such a nice person!"
Atheists have an image problem - but they had a lot of help in getting that poor image. "Coming out" is a way to combat that.
It's most depressing that so many are addicted to a fantasy that a group is needed to point out that it is only a fantasy.
The ultimate aim of atheist groups is to make themselves unnecessary. In the USA that point is a long way away.
Hey Salt? Outside of this board (where the topic IS atheism/religion) I generally don't discuss either. I bet a lot of others don't. There is no "clamoring." I am what I am, a non-believer... that incidentally makes me an atheist.
If only I had a group of like-minded people that I could work with, who had similar goals and stances on these issues, we could get so much more done together.
Now where am I going to find such a group?
Such a group would have a broader constituency than atheists. Such a group must be broader than atheists. Places to start:
- ScienceBlogs
- University faculty and students
- Humanist groups
- Your local United church (do you have United churches in the USA?)
Start a campaign in your home town on a science-related issue that affects your locality. Tell the press that it comprises church-goers, scientists, lay people, and atheists. That will make eyes pop. You'll get press just for being inclusive.
I thought if a troll was expossed to the sun, they turned to stone. Apparently they turn into salt.
Hear hear! Excellent post PZ.
Also if those organizations are not to your taste I highly recommend The Freedom From Religion Foundation. They are very active, have an excellent newsletter and podcast and do a lot of work promoting separation of church and state and other atheist issues.
They have some great T-shirts too:
http://ffrf.org/shop/products/#tshirts
My favorite is the "Friendly Neighborhood Atheist"
Is that the same as Unitarian Universalists?
It's more biblical that way, Lot's wife and all. Pity Salt's daughters.
>My family would disown me.
So what? If they're so petty or closed-minded that you can't be yourself around them, then you should disown them. The whole "blood is thicker than water" thing is so tired.
So is all the bullshit about people who don't want to "join" anything. Whine, whine, whine. You sound like a bunch of frakking babies. You complain because you're discriminated against, but whenever anyone has a suggestion about how to improve things, you whine and complain about that too. Shut up or put up already.
Donna
Jesus, Donna. Calm down. I personally like all my appendages right where they are, thanks much.
Things would be so much easier if I lived elsewhere. Damn you, grad school! Awww, I'm sorry, I didn't mean it. There, there...
Outside of this board ... There is no "clamoring."
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 12:01 PM
Outside of this board. Oh, ok.
But PZ is asking for clamoring -
be vigorous in asserting your godlessness
and I take exception to being called a moron for pointing out that PZ asserted exactly what he called me 'moron' for pointing out.
PZ really blew this one.
But Salt, you're missing the point. How is what PZ et al. are proposing any different AT ALL from the multitudes of Xtians that clamor about their religious beliefs every day? Why is it okay for them to be so open (and not have to worry about being persecuted or vandalized!) but not for atheists? What makes one system of belief more valid than the next? Hm?
I'm sorry Jim Royal, but it really sounds as if you're arguing on "our" side of the fence without even realizing it. Pharyngula does have church-goers who are willing to align with us non-believers in order to combat fundamentalism here in the USA.
There are many groups forming in the US around a core skeptical non-belief in the supernatural that have attracted liberal and moderate believers who are tired of watching attacks on basic human rights, or the espousing of ignorance as science.
But these groups are finding out that whenever they identify an issue based upon science and basic human rights, we're immediately branded as "secular", "Atheist" and other "evil" terms. The makeup of our membership is ignored for a quick sound byte by Bill O'Reilly and friends.
There are many groups here in the USA with a broad affiliation - but they are all called "Evil Secularists" in dismissal.
It's easy to de-humanize people when you don't know anyone with the trait you're attacking. Maybe we should "come out" to try to change that.
At the risk of further encouraging Salt to post more on this topic, I feel the need to point that Salt is mistaken on a very important point. Atheist do not clamor about there not being a god. Atheists clamor about the foolishness of the various believers and about how the godly expects the unbelievers (atheists and otherwise) to respect and live by their beliefs. Big difference.
Religion and the rejection thereof remains a huge issue with many of us atheists for the simple reason, we have to deal with it all of the time. No religion, there would be so many other things to talk about. In fact, most of us would rather talk about other issues, they are more interesting.
For example, learning more about how evolution works is much more interesting than creationism. There are so many things to learn and figure out. With ID, it is just a 'just so' story. The answer is already there, just accept it.
[re: United churches] Is that the same as Unitarian Universalists?
Not the same organization, but there do appear to be similarities. Such churches would seem to be to be the best places to start building coalitions between atheists and believers.
And such coalitions are the only way to rescue your country from the lunatics who want to drive it back into the sixteenth century.
LM,
you're right, Atheists should be as proud of their convictions as Theists.
But its not by promoting atheism that you'll promote secularism.
If you want to promote secularism, promote secularism.
Or did I get it wrong withall these ism-words.
Salt, you're an idiot. There is no other explanation. You're just run-of-the-mill plain stupid. You're asking why we discuss religion if we don't believe in it? Because it affects us.
You've continually ignored that facet of the discussion. Phlogiston turned out not to be the explanation for combustion, but we still discuss it in the history of science because it represents an important piece of the puzzle. You can't just ignore something because you don't believe in it; the gods, the myths, the traditions, they're all hooey, but the followers are flesh and blood. And when they come a-persecutin', somebody damn well better clamor. Of course, it's far more subtle than that, but you get the drift (or perhaps you don't... you're stupid, after all). What you call clamoring is speaking up for ourselves.
Honestly, that's within the cognitive grasp of a five-year-old. I think you can manage that one. Try it. I don't care if you do take exception to someone calling you a moron; LM hit the nail on the head. If your best arguments consist of selective quoting, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "La La La," then the "moron" label suits you.
How is what PZ et al. are proposing any different AT ALL from the multitudes of Xtians that clamor about their religious beliefs every day? Why is it okay for them to be so open (and not have to worry about being persecuted or vandalized!) but not for atheists? What makes one system of belief more valid than the next? Hm?
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 12:16 PM
I have no problem with atheists clamoring about their beliefs / non-beliefs. I enjoy it. It makes for good sport. Nor do I see atheists as being persecuted or threatened. None of the atheists I know personally are persecuted or threatened.
But to claim atheism is not based on 'that which does not exist' is absurd.
Hey Neg, obviously we're on the same page here, but at the risk of nit-picking, I wouldn't say PZ got it wrong - I'd say his statements up top werfe at worst incomplete. The mere mention of secularism raises the level of discussion beyond Mere Atheism. That's worthwhile in and of itself, and has sparked a discussion of the relationship between atheism and secularism.
Promoting acceptance of atheism is a part of the larger campaign to promote and protect secularism, though I believe it's important to note that the success of the former ultimately proceeds from the success of the latter, not the other way around. This is particularly noteworthy in light of the many aforementioned attempts to dishonestly synonymize the two terms.
Re: "Clamoring." I once again refer all y'all back to Glenn's post. His story is hardly new or unique. Clearly there are discrimination issues that need to be addressed, and the "sit down and shut up" approach ain't working.
Those who feel the need to stay in the closet for personal reasons have the right to do so. Others will be willing to take up the cause on behalf of those who are unready or unable to do so themselves. "Rough men," and all. Is that a problem? I don't think so.
It's not ideal, but hey. Blame the freakin' Designer. :-p
Atheist do not clamor about there not being a god.
Posted by: Janine | July 31, 2007 12:21 PM
the only thing you have to do to join this particular movement is to be vigorous in asserting your godlessness - PZ Myers
Such fine sport here.
I'm sorry Jim Royal, but it really sounds as if you're arguing on "our" side of the fence without even realizing it. Pharyngula does have church-goers who are willing to align with us non-believers in order to combat fundamentalism here in the USA.
[snip]
...Whenever they identify an issue based upon science and basic human rights, we're immediately branded as "secular", "Atheist" and other "evil" terms.
[snip]
Maybe we should "come out" to try to change that.
I'm not arguing sides. I'm arguing effective tactics.
The scarlet A campaign is the politics of boundaries. The Republicans figured out that creating single-issue voters is a nearly unbeatable election strategy, but it is destroying your country. I believe that this campaign may simply turn out to be an exercise in marginalization. It is playing their game.
It is time to change the rules. What Michael J Fox did during the last US election was brilliant, because it cut across party lines, religions, and other affiliations. And he still holds his Canadian citizenship!
Change the rules. Don't fight at the level of identity politics when the house is burning down.
"Nor do I see atheists as being persecuted or threatened. None of the atheists I know personally are persecuted or threatened."
Oh, I see. So because you haven't witnessed it personally, it doesn't happen? Salt, I am a very nice, very fair, very even tempered person, but that is really very insulting. I HAVE been persecuted and threatened. And it SUCKS.
I thought if a troll was expossed to the sun, they turned to stone. Apparently they turn into salt.
Posted by: Bob | July 31, 2007 12:03 PM
Does this make Salt Lot's wife?
If that is the case, Salt did not follow Big Sky Daddy's orders to not look back.
Yeah, I know I am using bad logic here. But I hope it is funnier than Salt's use of bad logic.
Salt, try your lame arguments but insert "racism" for "theism", "religion", "god" etc...
... it is often necessary to expose, attack & condemn ideas... if we could erase racism, that word & the word anti-racism would not be necessary...
... we long for the day that the word atheist is no longer necessary... but as long as ideas like yours exist, the definitions are necessary...
... BTW... we are also anti-ignorance...
So much confusion...
-- a vocal fellowship of atheist interests represents a distinct force for advocating secularism. It does not mean that religious people cannot also be advocates for secularism. If I could draw a Venn diagram here, you'd see atheists as a region contained almost entirely within the region of secularists.
-- an atheist community could have a fair amount of influence in specific ways even if our numbers aren't huge. We are going to be greatly over-represented in the scientific and engineering communities. Right now, we don't have much leverage, though, because we don't have a focus.
-- apparently, communists are all people who live on communes, christians are just people who believe jesus existed, and unionists are just people who like to stick stuff together. This naive view that one word literally encapsulates the whole of an idea is ridiculous -- the label is a handle to a whole complex and diverse set of beliefs, cultural implications, conventions, and attitudes. People who say "atheism" just means no belief in god and nothing more are willfully ignoring the historical and social correlates of the word as well as the broader ideas within the concept. People do not just drop a belief in god like an excised wart -- we have reasons founded in a naturalistic/materialistic/scientific worldview. Pretend that doesn't exist, and you'll get deservedly labeled as a moron.
Oh, I see. So because you haven't witnessed it personally, it doesn't happen?
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 12:36 PM
I do not see such on the news. I also pay close attention to court cases and I have not seen any concerning persecution relating to atheisism.
Atheist do not clamor about there not being a god.
Posted by: Janine | July 31, 2007 12:21 PM
the only thing you have to do to join this particular movement is to be vigorous in asserting your godlessness - PZ Myers
Such fine sport here.
Posted by: Salt | July 31, 2007 12:34 PM
What is that buzzing noise.
Oh. It is just a mite.
Nothing serious here.
Wait! Was that an attempted smackdown by Salt?
Nice try.
Wait. That was rather sad.
"I do not see such on the news. I also pay close attention to court cases and I have not seen any concerning persecution relating to atheisism."
You can't possibly be THAT naive.
Salt, Your proctologist called, he believes he's found your head.
Salt is quickly nominating himself...
Atheist do not clamor about there not being a god.
Posted by: Janine | July 31, 2007 12:21 PM
the only thing you have to do to join this particular movement is to be vigorous in asserting your godlessness - PZ Myers
Such fine sport here. - Salt
Quote mining noted. Go mine some salt instead.
To Salt, who appears to be our new troll...
Although atheism is principally defined by a lack of belief in God(s), atheists are invariably strong proponents of the use of reason and evidence. In all cases that I know of, atheism is just a natural offshoot of the rational outlook on life that a person has chosen to adopt, and it is generally this rational viewpoint that people are promoting when they advertise "atheism", rather than merely a lack of belief in God(s). It's promoting the fact that there are other ways of thinking that do not involve the mindless acceptance of dogma.
However, as religion is by far the most popularly held irrational belief, it is the most obvious target. Most atheists could just as easily label themselves ateapotists (cf. Bertrand Russell), but no one seriously believes in orbiting teapots so there's not really much point.
Also, since there is a lot of prejudice against those who lack a belief in God (at least, in America), it makes sense for rational people to make a common stand on that ground.
[When I speak of rational I mean somewhere between the rationalist/empiricist schools of thought]
You cannot mean that windy. Salt would be doing something usefull than.
Salt, you've added nothing to this discussion. You don't seem to have a position other than to take potshots. You're willfully ignorant and your smug self-satisfaction is unwarranted.
You're not worth my bother. Killfiled.
Note to self: learn to write posts more quickly so that you don't end up repeating a million other people.
That is fine DrFrank. Salt has made himself such an inviting target. All of us has been firing away.
It does you any good, I though you had a fine post.
People who say "atheism" just means no belief in god and nothing more are willfully ignoring the historical and social correlates of the word as well as the broader ideas within the concept.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 31, 2007 12:43 PM
Ok Pz, question -
Should there never have been, worldwide, any belief in god(s) in any form whatsoever, would the term and associative description of 'atheist' still exist within some context?
But that would reduce the number of entertaining million-person pile-ons.
Agnostics are non-believers. Atheists are believers: they believe there is no god.
It does you any good, I though you had a fine post.
Aw thanks :)
But that would reduce the number of entertaining million-person pile-ons.
Right, everyone back on the pile! ;) [/sp]
You mean if all people had been and were believers in the sufficiency and power of the natural world? No. But then in your fevered fantasy, there wouldn't be any word or concept "theist" either.
@mijnheer
Agnostics are non-believers. Atheists are believers: they believe there is no god.
I'm pretty sure most agnostics aren't genuinely agnostic about Bertrand's teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so I would suggest that they make an unwarranted special case out of God ;)
To Salt, who appears to be our new troll...
Although atheism is principally defined by a lack of belief in God(s)...
Posted by: DrFrank | July 31, 2007 12:56 PM
Why, thank you DrFrank. I take it the rest of your post is pure apologetics, the inevitable 'but ...'
My point wasn't that religious people can't advocate secularism, but rather a) that atheistic identity issues and secularism issues really ought to be kept distinct, not arbitrarily mixed. The two don't necessarily have much to do with one another. As you point out many religious folks advocate state secularism, and some here would seem to support governmental encouragement of atheism; and b) that your whole program has a kind of vagueness to it that makes me think that we're really talking about moving "atheistic kumbaya" off the web and onto the streets and that the attendant issues are nothing but ruses.
Frankly, I don't see what gain there is in putting the sort of monomaniacal, frothing-at-the-mouth atheism often seen here more to the fore. Ecstatic atheism is best left on the web, I think.
But, anyhow, the question is, for what particular reasons do we want an atheistic community? What would it seek to accomplish? What would organized atheism do with whatever leverage it had?
Ummm. Mij. That's wrong.
Atheists do not believe in gods. Agnostics claims neither faith nor disbeief in god.
I always thought agnostics were just too chicken to admit that they are atheists!
/I keeeeed, I keeeed! :)
Salt.
Do you believe there is a Satan? Demons? Angels?
Agnostics are non-believers. Atheists are believers: they believe there is no god.
Posted by: mijnheer
Wrong. Yet an other variation of 'atheism is a religion'. Are ther atheist who are sure there is no god? Yes. But there are many other who do not see enough prove and are unwilling or unable to make that leap of faith to belive in a deity.
The Million-Person Pile-On! Everyone, meet up on the Mall at the The Reflecting Pool afterwards! We'll all hang together!
It's not fair to underestimate Salt, or his capacity for usefulness. He did a good job rooting for The Physicist over on Topical Octagon.
I always thought that too. They never seem to be agnostic about Zeus or Wotan.
All the attacks against me...
as Gandhi said
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win.
I enjoy your site PZ. It's a target rich environment.
[Salt] did a good job rooting for The Physicist over on Topical Octagon.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 31, 2007 01:13 PM
I had hopes for him, but he got what he deserved.
Salt, you've just admitted that you are only here to stir things up and be offensive to decent people. I think it's time for you to move on, unless you plan on contributing something productive to this discussion.
Indeed.
Salt.
Do you believe there is a Satan? Demons? Angels?
Posted by: Steve_C | July 31, 2007 01:12 PM
Yes.
Maybe the go to the same bible study meetings.
Oops. Broken context.
Indeed.
hehe.
Now we can really laugh our asses off.
Ah yes, the troll enters, makes crazy statements, gets called on said statements, calles it persecution & claims victory... love to hear how he retells this whole episode at his next bible study...
"I enjoy your site PZ. It's a target rich environment."
*watches the arrows whiz by in the distance*
Why, thank you DrFrank. I take it the rest of your post is pure apologetics, the inevitable 'but ...'
Too long, didn't read, eh?
Next he'll be telling us he believes in Adam and Even and Noahs Ark.
Salt, you've just admitted that you are only here to stir things up and be offensive to decent people.
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 01:18 PM
How so? I have engaged in debate as to the term atheist and its applicability to either non-belief in god(s) or 'god does not exist'. I have shown repeatedly many here whose own statements support my contention.
To whom have I been pejorative?
Most agnostics are a-teapotists: i.e., they positively believe that there is no teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars. That's because they think they have good reasons to disbelieve in such a teapot -- reasons having to do with how teapots come into existence, gravity, rocketry, and the history of space programs. (So they're not agnostic about Russell's teapot.) But they don't think they have analogous good reasons to disbelieve in a Creator. They simply don't believe in a Creator, because they have no good reasons to believe in one. Atheists, on the other hand, think they have good reasons to disbelieve in a Creator. (That's a different kettle of fish.)
Some who are agnostic about whether the cosmos is ultimately underpinned by an intelligence, may nonetheless disbelieve in a personal god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic type, and in that sense are atheists.
I have shown repeatedly many here whose own statements support my contention.
You're no different from a Creationist that quotes the first part of Darwin's sentence about how unlikely the eye appears ;)
Can I be an atheist & an agnostic? It seems there's a lot of things I beieve don't exist (Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, etc.) but, I don't claim to know for sure they don't. Nor would I refuse to accept evidences they do.
You also sat there and said that atheists are not persecuted or threatened, which is absolutely false, as I can tell you from personal experience. I found that highly offensive. Then you sit there and say that this blog is full of "targets," and that this is "good sport." Admit it, you're just here trolling because you have nothing better to do.
Mij. That was pretty convoluted.
I was pretty clear. Atheist see no evidence for any gods whatsoever and there forhold a disbelief in all gods.
Agnostics are fence sitters.
They simply don't believe in a Creator, because they have no good reasons to believe in one.
Um, you realize you're describing atheists here, right?
mijnheer,
They simply don't believe in a Creator, because they have no good reasons to believe in one. Atheists, on the other hand, think they have good reasons to disbelieve in a Creator. (That's a different kettle of fish.)
Interesting comment :) I think the practical difference between the kind of agnosticism you describe and most atheism is barely a different fish in the same kettle, never mind a whole different kettle ;D
As you seem to imply, an agnostic should really be agnostic about the existence of any possible God out of the infinite possible number of Gods, which has always seemed to make it an untenable position for me. Anything else and you're making a statement about the non-existence of God(s) X that is equivalent to the claims of atheism.
Then you sit there and say that this blog is full of "targets," and that this is "good sport."
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 01:32 PM
Massive contradictions make for quite a target; good sport.
As to "You ... said that atheists are not persecuted or threatened", I said "Nor do I see atheists as being persecuted or threatened"; I see no evidence but your claim as to yourself.
your personal experience, it is but an unsupported assertion.
I agree with Steve... I always thought agnostics refused to claim they believed or disbelieved either way because they lack evidence. It's a way for them to remain open-minded, which is admirable, I suppose... however, most agnostics I know also seem to think they are superior to both theists and atheists. I think they just need to make up their minds.
You're right, Salt. I must have imagined the whole thing.
You're disgusting.
mijnheer, sure there are Atheists who disbelieve in Gods, there are also Atheists who merely lack a belief in Gods. The two positions are not the same, and the definition of Atheist suggests the latter.
Personally, I lack a belief in gods in general, and I find it easy to disbelieve in any god or gods that people have described to me. (Generally those descriptions are contradictory or fallacious.)
Practically, I'm ignostic. I think the question of whether or not god(s) exist is a fundamentally meaningless question that should be "unasked".
Asking if gods exist, in my opinion, applies to the real world as much as asking who is stronger, Superman or The Hulk. It's entertaining and interesting for those of us who enjoy fiction and mythology, but ultimately useless in understanding the world around us.
Bill (#25) - I love your idea of adding special quotes (atheist, pro-science, anti-pseudoscience, etc) on your e-mails. After reading your suggestion, I plan to do that too. Now I'm off to find some wonderful quotes.
You're right, Salt. I must have imagined the whole thing.
You're disgusting.
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 01:45 PM
How so? If you were subject to such persecution did you not do something about it?
If at work... did you file a complaint, or if need be a lawsuit?
If you were threatened in public did you file an information with the district attorney so as to commence an investigation towards possible criminal charges?
Seems to me all you are doing is whining.
Odonata, try the Positive Atheism web site. Lots of good Atheistic quotes there.
PZ said:
How is that relevant to the point he was making?
Of course there wouldn't be a concept for "theist" if there was never belief in god. Ummmm....so?
The point was that the word "atheist" has no meaning if there was never belief in god. Which, if true, seems to refute your position that people are stupid if they think that atheism "is based on that which does not exist". In what way does mentioning whether theist would have meaning advance your position, other than just being something thrown out there to confuse and distract?
I'm really disappointed in where you are taking this, PZ. I'm generally quite a fan of your blog. I completely consider myself an atheist. I'm 100% with you on the position that belief in god is silly. I also consider myself to have a naturalistic/mechanistic/materialistic/physicalistic worldview, and to have a high appreciation of evidence based knowledge.....all of these being consistant with, but NOT synonymous with, atheism.
But here you are calling me and others morons for taking the position that atheism is about non-belief in god? WTF?
Sport hunting? You're a mosquito that feeds on trifling inconsistencies and semantic arguments. Whoop de doo. Have a nice day, and watch out for demons.
Well, here is my entry in the alternative symbol sweepstake for the non-atheists.
Salt, no I didn't, because the outright abuse I received was in high school. I didn't go to anybody. I doubt many kids in my situation would.
Since then I've had run-ins with people that have, for the most part, made me keep my mouth shut about my lack of religion, but those never came to physical punishment.
I hope you feel like an ass now. Ass.
DrFrank and Calladus: Thanks for the comments.
RE: atheist/theist in a fantasy land where no gods have ever been posited....
The concept would not exist, so of course the words would not exist.... However, the point is that atheist means so much more than simply "don't believe in god" -
it implies a rational approach to understanding the world (evidence is necessary)
it implies a willingness to change ones mind (openness and flexibility)
it implies a lack of 'respect' for 'silliness' (such as belief in woo)
So -- all of these things are indeed synonymous with atheism - at least for me and for many folks who hear the word atheist....
Or are you (Rob, Salt) saying that theist *simply* means a believer in god and nothing else???
I'll be impressed with "agnosticism" when I meet somebody who claims to be agnostic about Zeus, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy as well as the Abrahamic God. When somebody claims the jury is out only with respect to the fantasy being about whom they happen to have been indoctrinated in their youth, I just find that laughable.
I am gay and I live in Spain. We didn't get equal rights by :
- being vigourous about the atheist convictions of many of us
- calling religion foolish (although many religious fundamentalists kept saying we were mentally deranged)
We got our rights by fighting on the basic principle that a governement should not grant rights based on any beleef system.
Salt, no I didn't, because the outright abuse I received was in high school. I didn't go to anybody. I doubt many kids in my situation would.
Since then I've had run-ins with people that have, for the most part, made me keep my mouth shut about my lack of religion, but those never came to physical punishment.
I hope you feel like an ass now. Ass.
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 02:01 PM
Many kids in high school are subject to abuse. I was too.
As to people making you keep your mouth shut, well, .... do you always do as others demand?
And no, I do not feel like an ass.
Salt, are you claiming that LM was not subject to discrimination unless he or she is/was willing to be physically abused and lose his or her job?
Wow. I guess we can all tell that you're not, for instance, an employment law attorney.
the point is that atheist means so much more than simply "don't believe in god" -
it implies a rational approach to understanding the world (evidence is necessary)
This explains the physical world. It says nothing about God though.
it implies a willingness to change ones mind (openness and flexibility)
Disprove ~Christianity and you'll change a lot of minds
it implies a lack of 'respect' for 'silliness' (such as belief in woo)
lack of...
I agree.
So -- all of these things are indeed synonymous with atheism - at least for me and for many folks who hear the word atheist....
Or are you (Rob, Salt) saying that theist *simply* means a believer in god and nothing else???
Posted by: tony | July 31, 2007 02:03 PM
I'd say that could be acceptable Tony. A believer in god(s).
Can't you feel the love and empathy flowing from the god and satan fearing christian?
Puh. See, if an atheist is discriminated against/persecuted, it isn't really persecution. It's divine justice, isn't it?
Salt, are you claiming that LM was not subject to discrimination unless he or she is/was willing to be physically abused and lose his or her job?
Posted by: kmarissa | July 31, 2007 02:16 PM
Has LM said that such was job related? Or are you pulling a rabbit out of your hat?
Sheesh, you guys are being too hard on Salt who has done you all a big favour by expressing his view about what Atheism means, and one which I think a lot of religious people have as their default view. But instead of making a reasoned counter argument, which could also be used on the religious, Salt gets called names.
Instead of getting 'peeved' at someone who interprets the word atheist literally, pick an additional motto or subtitle, or even another word, which captures what you are trying to do...
And just to make another point, there are some atheists (like myself) who are not bothered about the separation of church and state - because they live in countries such as the UK where the 'established religion' has very little impact on the government.
Lets see - the UK has an established religion, yet a population which claims to be 65% secular, whereas the USA has a secular government and a population which is overwhelmingly religious. Go figure. Perhaps the Law of Unintended Consequences is in action?
Then you try to reason with him.
If I do recall our nation fought yours for financial and religious reasons.
Your country is the reason for our little thing called Secular Government.
I like it that way too,
Actually Bunjo has a point...it appears there is a good bit of self-righteousness and name-calling on both sides. Probably *reasoning* with Salt won't work (sorry Salt, but it isn't as though there is no self-righteousness coming from *your* keyboard) but giving up and resorting to name-calling strikes me as going for lower-hanging fruit than we should be.
#64, thanks for the link.
I will take a baby step and I will buy and wear a pin.
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/pins.html
The IPU is so much prettier and graceful than the old timey 1950s Atheist symbol though. And I can wear a pin with my nice clothes when my husband has to play bagpipes in a church (Rosie O'Grady's Highland Band). But is the IPU enough? Meh, not many people would recognize the Atheist symbol either, I can't even remember what exactly the open bottom and all that represents. I remember I didn't agree with it, whatever it was so most likely it's one of those Agnostic cop-outs of, "we don't know and you don't either," silliness.
Quick, if anyone knows of any other pretty jewelry, let me know before I settle for the IPU pin.
Salt, that was a reference to post 43. You claimed that you haven't seen ANY discrimination against atheists. LM is only one of several examples of the discrimination described on this blog.
I'm not particularly crazy about wearing a target here in the Bible Belt. Although I really like the Darwin fish car stick-ons I don't put one on my vehicle because i have too many clients that see any form of nontheism/evolution pushing as threatening. They will tolerate tthose who work for them even if they don't agree with their religion as long as they believe in a god but the godless are intolerable. The only thing they fear worse than atheists are wiccans.
All anti-religious displays incite these self righteous, zealous bastards here in the Lone Star State. One of the most valuable lessons I've learned is never bait a drunk or a religious believer. They don't have the capacity to reason and you will only piss everyone else off around them.
The bottom line for me is, will it affect my bottom line?
Before there was religious societies were was no religion, and when religious societies disappear, there will again be no religion. Yet the observable world will move on.
But atheism isn't simply identifying free thinking in a confused world or a reaction to a social construct. It is foremost a rejection of former world views and superstition that was inconsistent with observation at worst and descriptive at best.
Atheism is embracing empirical methods where predictive theories have debunked descriptive fantasies. It is constructive where religion is destructive. And it is a valid world view.
Btw, seeing Salt's antics, it is appalling when people criticizes atheism from such simple minded perspectives as the impowerished philosophical description. :-P
But really, agnosticism, neither belief nor disbelief in gods, is but one option. Atheists have no good reasons to not reject unnecessary belief in unobserved things or ideas in general or specially here, and often good reasons for disbelief. So the toothless philosophical gods concept is as inadequate to capture all of atheism as it is to capture all of theism.
No wonder - we don't live in a world of decoupled ideas, we live in a world of observable facts.
Then you try to reason with him.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 31, 2007 02:31 PM
What is there to reason? Atheism explicitly encompasses a world view sans god. sans god is inextricably linked to the atheist world view.
This requires god be a part of the discussion.
So sorry. Get over it.
So, I've been thinking. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a deity. But I also don't believe in angels, or heaven or hell, or the devil, or psychics, or ghosts, or souls, or mind-over-matter, or a whole bunch of other fantastical ideas (and ironically, I am a huge sci-fi/fantasy fan! Go fig). So how do I let people know that I'm not *just* an atheist? That there is so much MORE that I don't believe? I don't think "skeptic" is strong enough a word...
Salt, that was a reference to post 43. You claimed that you haven't seen ANY discrimination against atheists. LM is only one of several examples of the discrimination described on this blog.
Posted by: kmarissa | July 31, 2007 02:37 PM
Discrimination in the workplace (or government) is cognizable under law. Unfortunately one cannot chose one's relatives, but one can chose one's friends.
Discrimination in the workplace (or government) is cognizable under law.
Yes. What's your point?
Oh come on, Salt...you have to know the spirit of the point LM was making. Fine...don't call it discrimination. You would have been happier if the word used had been persecuted?
Yes salt, because the people who've treated me poorly for no reason other than that I am an atheist were close, personal friends of mine. Get real.
Josh: Actually, the word I used initially WAS persecution.
Discrimination in the workplace (or government) is cognizable under law.
Yes. What's your point?
Posted by: kmarissa | July 31, 2007 02:50 PM
That any discrimination LM suffered that was not cognizable under law is but cheese and whine. If cognizable under law, stop whining and sue the bastard(s).
Yes salt, because the people who've treated me poorly for no reason other than that I am an atheist were close, personal friends of mine. Get real.
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 02:52 PM
Get better friends.
So persecution is only persecution if some law is being broken. Your logic is crystalline like a pure mountain stream.
Salt, are you really that out of touch with reality? Perhaps you are in the lucky position of being able to simply stop working for months AND and pay thousands of dollars in legal fees at a moment's notice, but many of us are not. If we are fired, we have things like making the rent to worry about, much less than being able to afford an attorney or having the free time to devote to a lawsuit. And all of this is assuming that you can actually win the lawsuit. Most employers tend not to send around memos outlining why they have chosen to break the law by firing someone for his atheism.
"Get better friends."
They WEREN'T... oh, christ, NEVERMIND.
I've had more productive conversations with the cement wall in my office!
LM wrote:
Josh: Actually, the word I used initially WAS persecution.
Salt wrote: Get better friends.
Steve, I recant my earlier admonishment regarding name-calling. I still think it is juvenile, but that seems to be the headspace we're in.
Salt...you're a truly an example for your peers...I am sure Jesus would be proud.
So persecution is only persecution if some law is being broken.
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 02:59 PM
No, but if you have no recourse - deal with it.
"Get better friends."
They WEREN'T... oh, christ, NEVERMIND.
I've had more productive conversations with the cement wall in my office!
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 03:01 PM
Not my fault you are not clear.
No, but if you have no recourse - deal with it.
Has it occured to you that much of what goes on on this website IS dealing with it, this post included?
"No, but if you have no recourse - deal with it."
FINALLY. We are back to the point of this entire debacle! PZ et al. ARE DEALING WITH IT.
Salt obviously does not understand sarcasm.
Salt, obviously, does not understand a lot of things!
Torbjörn, atheism is informed by science -- in many ways it is informed primary by the theory of evolution by natural selection -- but it is not identical to science. PZ is making an equivalence between the two that is simply incorrect, and surprising coming from a scientist and educator.
The idea of a god creating the mechanism of evolution is probably wrong, but not provably wrong. Therefore, it should be tolerated as long as it does not interfere with day-to-day scientific investigation.
It's okay, LM. I can say with a fair degree of confidence that everyone else understood you.
If we are fired, we have things like making the rent to worry about, much less than being able to afford an attorney or having the free time to devote to a lawsuit. And all of this is assuming that you can actually win the lawsuit. Most employers tend not to send around memos outlining why they have chosen to break the law by firing someone for his atheism.
Posted by: kmarissa | July 31, 2007 03:01 PM
I understand your position. I also understand the legal system and associated costs. It's all one has. Sucks, but I can post court cases where people have won against such odds. Kinda like David versus Goliath.
What we have had here is not discussion concerning the discrimination involved, or even how to handle it, but whining about it. Whining solves nothing.
Your fight may be different than mine or others, but welcome to the fight anyhow, if you chose to fight that is.
Salt, are you really that out of touch with reality?
Not at all.
Salt,
It's GODS not just a god. non-belief in all of them. Not just your favorite and his winged dominions and their fallen brethren.
Who is whining?
Me: Atheists have been/are being persecuted.
Salt: No they are not. I haven't witnessed it, therefore they are not.
Me: Well, I have. It's happened to me.
Salt: You're a whiner!
...
I used* to go by agnostic, because one can never actually know, right? Well, also because it's more palatable to the general public and I'm a big wuss.
HOWEVER, now I say atheist, because every god offered up is downright preposterous. There isn't even a common definition for god, so discussion starts with confusion and only diverges from there.
Is the universe a creation? No one knows, and it's an irrelevant question. One thing I am positive is that there is no anthropomorphic judge god wating to slap down or raise up his creations, for doing what he arranged for them to do.
No gods, no monsters.
*looong time ago
Salt: I have no trouble believing that you are a hard-core theist... because you have an incredible ability to miscomprehend normal english. From the fundie-posters I get the impresssion that is a requirement to actually believe what your book tells you!
LM: I understood your many statements to indicate your position -- personally I'm more 'out-there' (at least, now) but I understand because I've not always been 'out-there'
Steve_C: when a theist like Salt sees 'GODS' he assumes you're talking about his trinity... he.just.doesn't.get.it!
Who is whining?
Me: Atheists have been/are being persecuted.
Salt: No they are not. I haven't witnessed it, therefore they are not.
Me: Well, I have. It's happened to me.
Salt: You're a whiner!
...
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 03:19 PM
If it happened to you at work - you have recourse.
Why have you not availed yourself of it?
I'll take a lead from this -
If we are fired, we have things like making the rent to worry about, much less than being able to afford an attorney or having the free time to devote to a lawsuit. And all of this is assuming that you can actually win the lawsuit. Most employers tend not to send around memos outlining why they have chosen to break the law by firing someone for his atheism.
No one said it's easy.
Who is whining?
You, that's who.
I like the simple shirts that just say "Heretic", are there any that say apostate?
Damn straight. I'm sick of hearing genocide victims whine on and on. They don't have any recourse, and should just deal with it. Instead they have to whine on and on about being imprisoned, not having any food, being raped, and being slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands. Bunch of crybabies.
And don't even get me started on that "Boo hoo hoo, I can't vote or go to college or get a job" sobbing that women and blacks did up until a half-century ago. Seriously. You didn't hear white men crying like that, did you? Of course not -- they knew how to suck that shit up.
You and me, Salt, we're the only manly ones here.
As is the idea that lightning is the work of Zeus. Your point?
Steve_C: when a theist like Salt sees 'GODS' he assumes you're talking about his trinity... he.just.doesn't.get.it!
Posted by: tony | July 31, 2007 03:25 PM
Wrong boyo! There are many many gods.
I mean to be funny we could just say... "I'm not superstitious."
That's a subtle or not so subtle way of saying you're of the atheist persuasion.
My myspace page shows that I'm an atheist.
I don't have a quote in my personal email sign off. Maybe I should.
None of my friends are religious so it actually rarely comes up in day to day life for me.
The advantage of living in the godless city of New York.
Salt, I don't like calling people names, but arguing with you is pointless because you're so damned stupid.
Back on the "Come Out" post, I posted a link to what I am looking for as far as a logo of sorts for secular humanism.
What we have had here is not discussion concerning the discrimination involved, or even how to handle it, but whining about it. Whining solves nothing. Your fight may be different than mine or others, but welcome to the fight anyhow, if you chose to fight that is.
Again, you're not making any sense. Many acts of discrimination which are illegal are not challenged in court for a number of reasons, including those that I listed. This doesn't mean that they aren't discrimination. We recognize that often lawsuits are impossible, impractical, or ineffective. Therefore, we find non-legal ways of influencing society. Making ourselves visible, the subject this post being one example, is one of the best ways to do so. How is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?
Gah. Enforcing legal rights in the courts is not the only way, and is often not even the best way, to effect social change.
Ahhh.. we seem to be getting somewhere.
So, Salt: Can you please tell us to which particular gods YOU subscribe? And why? And why byou don;t subscribe to any others?
Enforcing legal rights in the courts is not the only way, and is often not even the best way, to effect social change.
Posted by: kmarissa | July 31, 2007 03:32 PM
Social change, I agree. Personal injury, i.e. discrimination at the workplace being injurious, not quite unless one wishes to be a martyr.
Litigation has its place.
I, like Salt, have been a long-time believer in Mictecacihuatl, and that's something that you amictecacihuatlists really need to stop whining about. Sissies.
Dustin: That's Aztec, isn't it??? <3
/studied axolotls
Social change, I agree. Personal injury, i.e. discrimination at the workplace being injurious, not quite unless one wishes to be a martyr.
Litigation has its place.
Salt, I officially give up. Your position changes about every 3 posts. My apologies to everyone for feeding the troll.
@223, Yeah, it is. And you knew that. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MICTECACIHUATL!!1! Why is it that you amictecacihuatlists have to talk about her so much, anyway? You've based your whole ideology on the nonexistence of Mictecacihuatl -- YOU'RE AN IRRATIONAL BASKET CASE!!!
P.S: Quit whining so much.
Dustin: Xolotl is, as the god of the underworld, dead, resurrected, games, twins and monstrosities (AND brother of Quetzalcoatl) CLEARLY far superior to your Mictecacihuatl. I mean, the guy transformed into an axolotl, was killed, and used to nourish the sun and moon. Doesn't get much better than that. My choice in deity is far better than yours.
Prove me wrong! Just try!
So, Salt: Can you please tell us to which particular gods YOU subscribe? And why? And why byou don;t subscribe to any others?
Posted by: tony | July 31, 2007 03:34 PM
I believe in many many gods but I worship only one, the one to which Jesus referred when He spoke of "He who sent Me", the Creator, the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
The others? Meh!
Xolotl >>> Jesus' dad
"I enjoy your site PZ. It's a target rich environment."
*watches the arrows whiz by in the distance*
Rey: I've always preferred to fight in the shade.
I'm not entirely sure where Salt is going with his argument. The term Atheist is an entirely made up word, created specifically by the religious to persecute the non-religious. There are no words for the non-belief in ghosts, ESP, UFOs, angels, demons, &ct. Why should there be an exception for gods?
That said, the word exists, and if northern US-ians can make Yankee work for them, I have no objection to us making atheist work for us.
I would like to see a T-shirt with the word: "unphilatelist." on it.
Social change, I agree. Personal injury, i.e. discrimination at the workplace being injurious, not quite unless one wishes to be a martyr.
Litigation has its place.
Salt, I officially give up. Your position changes about every 3 posts. My apologies to everyone for feeding the troll.
Posted by: kmarissa | July 31, 2007 03:44 PM
Yes, and whining will get you your job back, feed and cloth you. LM was referring to direct discrimination at the workplace which LM suffered it appears.
Please do try and keep up.
Again, you're not making any sense. Many acts of discrimination which are illegal are not challenged in court for a number of reasons, including those that I listed. This doesn't mean that they aren't discrimination. We recognize that often lawsuits are impossible, impractical, or ineffective. Therefore, we find non-legal ways of influencing society. Making ourselves visible, the subject this post being one example, is one of the best ways to do so. How is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?
I do hope this discussion puts food on your table.
Xolotl may be associated with the axolotls, but Xochipilli knows how to party.
I believe in Xochipilli now, he's cooler than the queen of the dead. Yaweh? Meh! Xochipilli says I get to trip balls on shrooms and LSA.
"Yes, and whining will get you your job back, feed and cloth you. LM was referring to direct discrimination at the workplace which LM suffered it appears."
Don't put words in my mouth, you miserable turd. I said no such thing. The persecution I experienced was not on the job. I didn't even HAVE a job then.
Reading. It's what's for dinner. Try some.
Dustin: You're alright, man. You're alright.
No, LM wasn't, which is why you're not making any sense.
Really, though, it probably won't. But appeasing Tláloc with a child sacrifice will! Tláloc be praised!
So you're a polytheist?
Nope. I believe you may have made a correlation/causation error.
What you describe is evidence in support of The Theory of Propogation and Subsequent Perpetuation of Marginally Literate and Profoundly Un-Enlightened Frontier Christianity, which is primarily a New World phenomenon.
I avoid displaying athiest paraphernalia simply to avoid inane conversations with xians like Salt...
You mean if all people had been and were believers in the sufficiency and power of the natural world? No. But then in your fevered fantasy, there wouldn't be any word or concept "theist" either.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 31, 2007 01:05 PM
Exactly! Which is why the two are linked and you cannot decouple them.
I believe in many many gods but I worship only one
So you're a polytheist?
Posted by: Tulse | July 31, 2007 04:08 PM
Appears so.
No, LM wasn't, which is why you're not making any sense.
Posted by: kmarissa | July 31, 2007 04:02 PM
LM has not been specific so I have entertained other suggested possibilities (i.e.workplace), even LM's sarcastic one.
LM, I agree. I'm trying to come to terms with that myself. To me, "Atheism" only states my non-belief in gods, and to some extent in the supernatural. It is a statement of absence, not (to me) a philosophical position.
The labels I tend to apply to myself include Skeptic, Rational Thinker, Freethinker, Secular Humanist. No one label covers my philosophical position and world view, but together they come close.
Perhaps the best label is the derogatory one placed upon us, "Reality - Based Community".
Yea, that works for me.
Guys leave Salt alon. Remember: Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes time and annoys the pig.
Salt, it's very easy. You're stating something, a god or gods, exist. Prove it or at least show evidence beyond anecdote and circular reasoning.
Like Raelians?
Like some followers of Ayn Rand?
Now we're back to Raelians...
If those are all qualities of the atheists you encounter, then you will develop the assumption that these are qualities which adhere to atheism itself -- but that's the sort of thinking that causes people to assume that "criminal" adheres to blackness, or "greed" adheres to Jewishness. Those are much more negative examples than what you describe, of course, but it's the same type of thinking.
That's exactly the case. Polytheists, monotheists, pantheists, pantheists... all they share in common is belief in at least one god of some sort. Attributing particularist Christian attitudes and beliefs to "theism" simply because one only encounters Christian-type theists would be an error.
PZ is wrong above. Yes, many people in America adopt atheism for particular reasons associated with science, naturalism, etc., but none of that is part of atheism itself. There is nothing about atheism which necessarily means that a person is scientific, skeptical, a naturalist, a materialist, etc. There are correlations between the two, but that doesn't indicate anything more than cultural and social forces at work.
There is also a correlation between atheism and anti-religious critique, but this doesn't indicate that atheism is the same as irreligion -- many people in the world are atheists and religious at the same time. Please, people, take off your cultural blinders and wake up to the fact that the way atheists do things in America is not be-all and end-all of atheism itself.
I used to put Darwin Fish on my truck bumper. I've since been cured of doing that.
Now I only place Atheist identification in places that I can watch. I had Atheist buttons on my backpack in college, and sometimes I'll wear a pin. I'm thinking of making or purchasing some Atheist T-shirts too.
But I won't put another thing on my car. Maybe I'll do it someday if I get an old clunker that I don't mind getting keyed.
You're stating something, a god or gods, exist. Prove it or at least show evidence beyond anecdote and circular reasoning.
Posted by: Jsn | July 31, 2007 04:26 PM
That has not been the subject of the discussion here, so why should I?
Thank you, Austin, for that useful suggestion. If only more people could be as useful as you, I'm sure we'd get much more self-serving pedandic bullshit accomplished.
Interesting post and experience, Calladus. Funny how Christians will pry off a Darwin or FSM fish (as I have on my car but has not been broken) and not think it's hypocritical while they'll put a Jesus fish on a Lexus and not thing anything of their hypocrisy.
"Please do try and keep up."
Oh... HAHA....oh that's rich. Fine sport, indeed! Salt arrogantly slapping down someone who DOES know what's being discussed! That's right up there with DaveScot banning InoculatedMind from UhDuh for a misspelling his handle.
Dustin, man, whereya been? Your return makes me realize that I missed you, even if you do diss mah homeboy Cal with a little too much exuberance. Anyway, I love it when you speak of Teh Xochipilli... Ah do declare, it gives me the vapors, suh.
(Hey, I paid a lot for these idioms and accents, and I've gotta use'em up before they get stale. "Too late," you say? Aw, crumb.)
Fool! You and your pathetic barbarian deity will serve Cyric eventually. The Dark Sun, The Prince of Lies, Lord of the Supreme Throne will rule until the ending of the world.
I just don't see how 'Reality-Based Community" is an insult. I mean, buh? Why is that a bad thing?
I've been graduating, moving, and looking for a new job (they said I couldn't keep my teaching fellowship after I'd finished the degree -- the nerve!). Actually, I'm not usually on the internet much during the summer months even in normal circumstances since I'm usually too busy doting over my cacti and my tomatoes.
The t-shirt I wear is here:
http://www.ffrf.org/shop/products/details.php?cat=sweatshirts&ID=SS9
I have both a t-shirt and a sweatshirt. :-)
Cheers.
Reality Based Community was used dismissively by a Bush aide, and embraced by bloggers. It's a tagline of the Skeptical Inquirer advertise on the Point of Inquiry podcast.
I like the design, but it reminds of me of the University of Alabama. Coincidence?
www.rolltide.com
I'm hoping the out campaign works, because I live in a VERY red state and if my naturalist philosphy were known, I could lose my career.
Actually, Austin, I consider myself an "atheistic pantheist" of sorts. That is, I believe that all creatures are equal (or "sacred," if you will) because all creatures share a common ancestor, and all extant creatures have survived the same ups and downs to arrive at this precise point in time! Isn't that a nice way to think about life? I think so.
But I still don't believe in a deity.
No, no, I understand that it was used dismissively. I just can't understand why it was used dismissively. I mean, I try to think like them, but then I get the urge to self-lobotomize because there gets to be too much of the stupid there and it has to go.
I can't reach the mental state of Wingnuttia, because my brain wants to live.
I think the closest US equivalent to United Church of Canada is United Church of Christ. The left tail of former (and probably the latter) do overlap into UU territory.
Wow. Not for the first time am I glad I live in Canada. Oh sure, there's always some jerk who'll try to take a swing at you for an outright expression of atheism, but they're usually the type who'll do the same if you don't support the conservative party. Fortunately, they're usually hicks who fold like a tipped cow if you stand up to them.
Here, atheism is mostly considered rude, which is why I don't take the sit-down-and-shut-up approach. I'm happy to take advantage of my 6', 200 lb stature and proclaim my athiesm loudly and forcefully if it helps those atheists and agnostics who have more to lose than I by coming out.
I experienced something closer to "cognizable" (what an asshole)discrimination in the workplace as an evangelical Christian. The people in my workplace are very accepting of my atheism--even my New Age and Lutheran coworkers. Fully a third of my colleagues are atheists (or strongly lean that direction), a fact I would not have learned by keeping quiet myself.
Having said that, I do run into BIGOTRY in response to my atheism, when it is apparent (through something I say or write or wear). The most blatant example was when I was in a debate with a theist and the nice old church couple sitting behind my child talked about how much they wanted a gun to shoot me. That's not persecution--but come on, it's at least bigotry. I was a guest in their fucking church.
I think Salt may be the very first Christian Monolatrist Polytheist I've encountered.
Gotta catch 'em all!
He's certainly bringing his own special brand of incomprehensibility to the thread ("If you were really bullied at school you'd have sued for workplace discrimination"- What?).
"If you were really bullied at school you'd have sued for workplace discrimination"- What?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 31, 2007 05:19 PM
Public education at its finest.
If you're going to believe in Angels, Demons and Satan you might as well accept the other gods exist too...
His is just extraspecial and can beat the others in a wrestling match.
One good thing about too much salt... it make me thirsty (for knowledge, and for alcohol to dull the pain of the excessive stupidity)
I'd heard tell coming here is like being in the lions den. Well it is like being with some sort of cat, but lions?
Hardly.
There's so little meat for us to rip into.
We are a bit like kittens swatting a mouse about. It's true.
I don't get a lot of bigotry in response to my own Atheism - at least not in person. My line of work has people of many religions, and my friends are accepting. I get bigots in my blog, but they are usually easily dealt with.
I do often get "The Courtier's Reply" in response when people find out I'm a nonbeliever.
"If you haven't read (and refuted) CS Lewis, (or Josh McDowell, or Lee Strobel, or .. or..) then you simply can't say you don't believe!"
Feh.
Yeah, it's only a flesh wound.
We are a bit like kittens swatting a mouse about. It's true.
Thanks for the acknowledgment.
Calladus: I've been at a large (big 10) university for the last five years, and haven't had any problems, probably because the student body and faculty are so incredibly diverse. My undergraduate institution was considerably smaller, and I *did* have some troubles there, but nothing like what I experienced in high school (my home town is tiny, tiny, tiny).
Still, I don't live on campus. If I did, I might more eagerly grasp at the idea of making a statement on either myself or my vehicle, and while the university is pretty progressive, the surrounding city sure isn't.
"Heard tell..." Hmmm. Seems to me somebody came looking for a fight. Tsk, tsk.
I'm grateful to both Salt and David, for the next time atheists get accused of pretension, I'll happily point a few of Salt's "the silly atheists amuse me" comments, or, well, pretty well anything David writes.
Hey, I'm a moron too!
"Heard tell..." Hmmm. Seems to me somebody came looking for a fight. Tsk, tsk.
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 05:52 PM
Actually, no. But some of you demand the repertoires, such as Brownian above who improperly quotes. I never said "the silly atheists amuse me". Perhaps the Topical Octagon is in your future.
Paraphrasing is not improper quotation. It's not quotation at all.
On this blog, I usually use blockquotes to quote previous comments.
dullard wrote:
'"Heard tell..." Hmmm. Seems to me somebody came looking for a fight. Tsk, tsk.
Posted by: LM | July 31, 2007 05:52 PM
Actually, no. '
Actually, yes. You cannot know what something seems to someone else. You can claim that you didn't come to troll or fight, despite all appearances to the contrary, but you cannot deny someone else's perception.
Dustin: Graduated? Congratulations, sir! And you have cacti? Awesome. We (ok, my brother) has two young geckos. This morning we noticed something new in the terrarium: a gecko egg! If your cacti get lonely for desert fauna, let me know. ;-)
Brownian: You're Canadian? Oh dear. Now I have to discount the value of all your excellent posts by five and one-half percent. (That comes out to nearly sixth sense on the dullard, for all of you keeping score at home.)
Salt: You just can't admit your error, can you? You prefer to be intransigent and obtuse in your interpretation of Stephen Wells' gibe. This compounds the error. How much more graceful it would have been for you to say, "Ah, I see I have inadvertently confused or conflated Glenn's story with LM's - how foolish of me to have dismissed kmarissa's point so rudely, when in fact she was correct and I was mistaken."
This statment: "LM has not been specific" from comment #240 is in direct conflict with this one, from post #172, in which you acknowledged LM's very specific disclosure that he was in high school when he suffered the abuse to which he referred: "Many kids in high school are subject to abuse. I was too." This was well before your dismissal of kmarissa in #230.
(Oh, I see you're a public school basher, too - how utterly predictable.)
You are right about this, though: There are no lions here. Just people.
Actually, yes. You cannot know what something seems to someone else. You can claim that you didn't come to troll or fight, despite all appearances to the contrary, but you cannot deny someone else's perception.
Posted by: Bob | July 31, 2007 06:14 PM
True.
Do you deny PZ's first use of the term 'moron' as anything but inflammatory?
"Do you deny PZ's first use of the term 'moron' as anything but inflammatory?"
Of course not! It's PZ! That's why we adore him. :)
Kseniya... thank you for the support. But you should know that I don't have a penis. ;)
Salt, if I believe in your god(s), will I live forever?
Would you like mine, LM? I'm not currently using it for anything.
Seriously though, they mostly just get in the way.
LM, I went to Fresno State, and yes, they're a bit bigoted against Atheists (and others) there.
When I founded the Campus FreeThought Society there it was interesting setting up an information table in the public areas. The Campus Crusaders for Christ were, ah, not very Christian.
And the local preacher, Mr. Munoz, who would preach in the free speech area was an equal opportunity bigot. From what I could tell, he dissed most Christians as equally as he dissed the nonbelievers.
Still, the majority of the students were cool. The Freethought Society got help from (and made friends with) the United Student Pride group. Actually, they were the only other organization on campus willing to help us out.
That was really "Christian" of them.
Kseniya re:Post 276-
LM seemed to infer a bit beyond high school (post 172). If not, my mistake and my apology.
Salt, if I believe in your god(s), will I live forever?
Posted by: Joe Bob | July 31, 2007 06:27 PM
John 3:16
[well, you asked.]
Salt, please, I need to know -- can I be sure that there's a better life waiting for me after death if I believe in your gods and tote line? What is your line, by the way? Times a-waistin'.
"John 3:16" Is that a.m. or p.m.? Is that all I need to know to live forever? Will there be little chubby angels flitting around? Will I be proficient at the harp? Will I get 36 virgins? Detail, please.
Echoing Joe Bob's question in #284, Salt, what do you believe and why do you believe it? What reasons can you offer for believing as you do?
Joe Bob and Ken, such weak taunts.
I just want to know how those who make it to Heaven will deal with their loved ones who will be burning forever.
I mean, that's kinda a downer for those in Heaven, isn't it?
What weak? This is very important to me. Should I just try to get along with everybody and have as good a life as possible, or can I count on living forever if I believe like you? Should I kill people who don't believe in our stuff? What are the rules that will get me into heaven? Shit, I'd do anything to get there...
Joe Bob and Ken, such weak taunts.
How is what I wrote in any way a taunt? I thought mine was a very simple and straightforward question. You've made some confusing claims; you cite John 3:16 but also claim to believe in the existence of multiple gods.
What do you believe, and why do you believe it? What reasons can you offer for believing as you do?
"John 3:16" Is that a.m. or p.m.? Is that all I need to know to live forever? Will there be little chubby angels flitting around? Will I be proficient at the harp? Will I get 36 virgins? Detail, please. - Joe Bob
and you expect an answer?
I thought mine was a very simple and straightforward question. - Joe Bob
In Junior High perhaps.
My understanding is that agnosticism is about the ability to know if god can exist or not, rather than being unsure on the issue. Here I disagree with Dawkins' and PZ somewhat becuase I consider myself an agnostic, in that I cannot see how we can know if a god exists or not (or at least not the type of god that approaches that which Spinoza talks about. For some claims about god it is clear science refutes those claims). However since I do not think the question of god's existence can be answered I see no point in believing such a god exists. I am also an atheist because such a god did exist it would seem to be silly to worship it.
As I understand it this is much the position taken by Thomas Huxley.
You've made some confusing claims; you cite John 3:16 but also claim to believe in the existence of multiple gods. - Joe Bob
Exodus 20:3
Not confusing at all.
You've made some confusing claims; you cite John 3:16 but also claim to believe in the existence of multiple gods. - Joe Bob
Sorry, Ken.
I thought mine was a very simple and straightforward question. - Joe Bob
In Junior High perhaps.
My apologies again Ken. I'm getting tired.
Salt, yes I expect an answer. You're here trashing people for not believing in gods and such, but you don't have the balls to say what you really believe. Do you believe that homo-sapiens live forever? Do you believe that mollusks do? Put up or shut up.
If your arguments are convincing, I'll believe you. I really would like to live forever, up there floating around with the seraphim and the cherubim, with Bach playing all the time, with all my pals and relatives (well, not all of them).
LM:
Gah! *facepalm* I shoulda known from the name...
:-) ... and LOL @ Brownian's offer.
Sorry about the assumption, I (of all people, who's often been mistaken for a male, usually African) should know better. It must be cuz I know a guy named LJ and your prose styles have similar tone...
Speaking of tone, I love it when people can apologize without having to have their arms twisted. It can change the tone of a heated argument in an instant. And then there's all the hugging and crying and stuff. It's so cool. (Especially on Pharyngula. Heh.)
You appear to be confusing my question with Joe Bob's. I am somebody else. While I am not in Junior High, people who are in Junior High do read this blog. Do you think my question, if asked by somebody in Junior High, deserves a proper answer, or more of what you have offered so far?
Again. You've made some confusing claims; you cite John 3:16 but also claim to believe in the existence of multiple gods.
What do you believe, and why do you believe it? What reasons can you offer for believing as you do?
Sorry Ken for my above errors.
What do you believe, and why do you believe it? What reasons can you offer for believing as you do?
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 31, 2007 07:00 PM
What I believe and why is best left for another day, though I am perfectly willing to discuss it. I'm tired and my eyes hurt.
No shit? It isn't like you've been at this for 10 hours running.
Now, some funny:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg
I don't think Salt is trashing people for not believing in God. He's trashing people for, I think, having the temerity to organize under that banner and wear T-shirts. I don't know, I lost track of his point about 200 comments ago.
Salt said:
"I'm tired and my eyes hurt."
It is just your eyes that hurt ?
Are blues-harps allowed in Heaven? Or are all the good bluesmen, you know... down there?
Salt, yes I expect an answer. You're here trashing people for not believing in gods and such, but you don't have the balls to say what you really believe.
Posted by: Joe Bob | July 31, 2007 07:15 PM
Oh really? Trashing people?
Care to show the evidence to back up your assertion?
Break time!
Salt... get off the computer right now, and go rest your weary everythings. Or I'm tellin mom.
I don't really have a body for t-shirts anymore, though, I would put an "A" on my car. It would like really nice next to the Darwin-fish humping the Jesus-fish magnet. People might mistake me for a Hawthorne enthusiast, but I've been called worse things.
Well, I've had fun running around with y'all. But if interested -
What do you believe, and why do you believe it? What reasons can you offer for believing as you do?
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 31, 2007 07:00 PM
I'm game, but another time.
Salt: "Exodus 20:3"
That's the first time I've seen an Abrahamic God worshipper actually use that verse to support polytheism. Indeed, that verse makes me believe the ancient Hebrews were once polytheists who believed in/worhipped one uberGod.
All the other people are apologists for that verse, saying it doesn't admit that other Gods exist. Salt, I agree with you (on this particular point).
Also, I might as well say that Salt has a point about atheism being about a belief in the non-existence of Gods (and his uberGod in particular). Of course, I don't know why he cares so much unless he wants to use the old, heavily refuted argument about strident belief in non-existence implies existence.
Glad that got cleared up.
Now me, I wouldn't have gone for Exodus 20:3 being a claim that there are multiple gods that make the one from John 3:16 jealous. People are told not to make up representations of gods and worship them. There is actually an analogous idea in Buddhism, that it is a bad idea to worship the idea of what you imagine god to be, because that won't be god, but an abstraction. Other people (the iconoclasts among them) took it to mean that any art was right out -- big chunks of the Hagia Sophia was trashed due to this interpretation, among countless art treasures of the early Christian world.
Since you appear to think that this stuff is pretty important, perhaps you'll get back later on what you believe, and what reasons you have for believing.
All the other people are apologists for that verse, saying it doesn't admit that other Gods exist. Salt, I agree with you (on this particular point).
Posted by: JP | July 31, 2007 07:50 PM
Can't resist.
I believe the problem here is a matter of degree. Yahweh is God. The lesser gods, being lesser, have influence though they too are creations by God. It is possible that i.e. Thor, Zeus, Molech etc. refer to these [fallen] gods.
I mentioned earlier that I'm a sci-fi/fantasy nut. You know what is an excellent and fascinating read? American Gods by Neil Gaiman. Give a look if you haven't already.
My gods have fallen and they can't get up...
You are aware that lightning is a form of electrical discharge, not actually the great hammer Mjolnir?
Now me, I wouldn't have gone for Exodus 20:3 being a claim that there are multiple gods that make the one from John 3:16 jealous. People are told not to make up representations of gods and worship them.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 31, 2007 07:57 PM
When Satan offered Jesus the whole World if only Jesus would worship him, what but a god could make such an offer?
People are told not to make up representations of gods and worship them.
Correct. Idolatry. Some gods are fallen angels, and some idols are man made like money.
Exodus 3:20 is not the only reference to other gods.
Exodus 3:20 is not the only reference to other gods.
Exodus 20:3. I am getting tired, but I have enjoyed myself.
Also, I might as well say that Salt has a point about atheism being about a belief in the non-existence of Gods (and his uberGod in particular). Of course, I don't know why he cares so much unless he wants to use the old, heavily refuted argument about strident belief in non-existence implies existence.
Posted by: JP | July 31, 2007 07:50 PM
I only cared as so many deny the fact you simply put, in essence that the core of atheism is based on that which does not exist which PZ took issue with concerning my first post -
I really get peeved with morons who claim atheism is based on that which does not exist.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 31, 2007 09:37 AM
That's all there was to it.
@ Salt:
PZ is taking issue with the idea that atheism is based on gods. I agree with him in this. Atheism is not *based* on gods, it is a denial of the existence of gods.
Only in an extremely limited fashion can one say that atheism is in any way based on gods. Naturally, without the idea of gods, atheism needs not even a word, as everyone does not believe in gods. To even have the word atheism, the idea of gods must exist, although the gods themselves do not exist.
So, we come to the important point: one could say that atheism is based on the *idea of gods*, but not based on *gods* in general. And that, I trust, clarifies the matter. (Corrections, anyone?)
And that is why I don't like the word "atheism" or the word "atheist" as a noun. Atheist should be an adjective, emphasis on the first syllable. See, I am atheist, without a theology. Now it only describes me and is independent of anyone else's belief.
Yes indeed, not the usual generic troll we get around here. He must be awful lonely, since he hates the atheists, and I imagine most theists wouldn't like him (or at least his beliefs).
I do wonder, however, why he privileges the Bible if he is indeed a polytheist -- why is that particular version of the word of (a) god special?
Yawn.
hehe. God believed in gods.
WTF?
Why do we have such ignorant fools that repeatedly call themselves atheists when it is an indefensible position (one cannot disprove the existence of anything); this is especially true and empty of the clods who have no evolutionary background. I suggest for those people to
go away and read a book.
Even Dawkins is not an atheist; atheism is an incredibly limp & weak position of argument.
Religion, I welcome with open arms. In the general sense, it makes communities safer and more habitable. Sure, if I lived in the Middle East my opinion would be different, but besides taking my shoes off at the airport, I have no problem with it.
I don't care about other's religious opinions unless there is a discussion and I don't care to publish mine and get in stupid fights.
Bertrand Russell tried it in the past and failed; take your so-called revolution and shove it.
Dawkins and PZ don't care. They're just rowdying the crowd of dummies to buy more of their books and visit their websites and making millions; I won't buy PZ's though when it comes out, which by the way is tentatively titled, Natural Revelation - due out in stores soon!; his science is unimpressive, his writing is not poetry but bad, boring poetry at that and his personality? - quite the prick.
Weaned too early.
- A 6.8 Agnostic
I've jotted all of those points down for handy reference.
Thanks for coming out, philos.
No, no, no, philos. The onus is on you to show us that your Magic Friend Jesus exists. With evidence.
Since there isn't any, the default position should be 'no gods can be shown to exist', rather than 'The Jebus friends say they have evidence, but it's fake, and the atheists say that the Jebus evidence is fake, so I'll chose to sit on the fence'.
"I don't care about other's religious opinions unless there is a discussion and I don't care to publish mine and get in stupid fights."
Then why did you post?
"Why do we have such ignorant fools that repeatedly call themselves atheists when it is an indefensible position (one cannot disprove the existence of anything)"
Congrats philos, you win the award for starting off by displaying your utter ignorance of what Dawkins, PZ, and most other atheists mean by atheism.
It's a pretty common misunderstanding you have, but no less inexcusable and silly.
Fer Cryin' out loud! What a bunch of whiny, supercilious and may I add sanctimonious justifications for not buying a freakin' shirt! It's a shirt with a letter, and yes, a website. Oh, my! The fucking cows are going to stop giving milk if I buy a shirt that has the name of a website on it!
I can seriously understand the people that have much to lose by exposing their lack of belief to the world. Even as an "out atheist" I still have a closet or two that I will not leave for similar reasons.
Listen, I don't have the responsibility to the atheists that have real reasons to not share their position, but I am willing to do them a favor and let it be known that I am an atheist, to let people know that we are here, we aren't merely "backsliding" and that we aren't going away. I don't face rejection for it, so I am grateful to be in the position that I am in, and if future generations of atheists stand to benefit from living in a truly secular society (as opposed to the nominal one we have in the United States) then it's okey-dokey with me to sing songs, wear shirts and not go to church on Sunday.
Nobody has to buy the shirt, nobody has to add the logo to their site. Nobody is being told they have to do something that they don't want to do in order to show that they are a True Atheist.
How about this, Jim. Do more than vote and campaign on issues. Pick a party you agree at least partially with. Go to the rallies, support candidates, get invited to or organize fundraisers. And then, when they trust you and like you, tell them that you are an atheist. And call them when something stupid comes before the legislature. Show them a copy of Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance. Make resolutions and get them on the party platform. It's a democratic process in a republic. While you are at it, vote against the stupid resolutions (I wish more of the Republican Atheists in Texas would stand up to the religious assholes who have destroyed that party.)
You can't fix anything by hiding behind moderation and fearing conflict. The people here who can't come out need some help, so that their children don't have the same fears that they have. If you fear polarization, and so keep quiet, then the wrong pole gains ascendancy.
So there.
That's okay philos, a lot of people with weak reasoning skills are always making that mistake.
The concept of burden of proof being on the positive has been well covered, so I will raise an eyebrow at the other line that really caught my eye.
Religion, I welcome with open arms. In the general sense, it makes communities safer and more habitable.
Say what? Is there any support for this claim? Perhaps massively higher crime rates in America outside the Bible Belt? Perhaps pervasive and out of control criminal violence throughout Europe? Maybe the utter lack of religious folk inside institutes of incarceration?
Is athiesm becoming a religion? You act like atheists are persecuted, a considerable amount of people are atheist. But their shouldnt be some sort of anti-religious movement in the name of no proof. People are entitled to thier beliefs, so athiesm is not a problem. It never will be and people can believe in what they want its cool. Why shouldnt they, but do not act like athiests are persecuted and silenced and sent to a gulag when they do not believe in God.
Salt is only doing this crap because he was born to a nasty, stinking, pus-oozing whore and doesn't know who his father is. This also explains his racism and homophobia. He won't deny any of this.
THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE ATHIESM IS SAFE. WHY IS THIER SOME SORT OF MOVEMENT. ATHIESTS ARE NOT CONDEMNED! MAKING THIS IN ALL CAPS DOESNT HELP!
Very cool. I followed the link and discovered that one of my own designs shows up on the second page. I hadn't even realized that I had activated that store, and it is in the top 40 for popularity.
And I don't know who designed this 'GODBLESS AMERICAN shirt, but I want it on a bumper sticker. Actually I'm okay with the scarlet 'A' design as well.
A good troll livens things up every now and then. If nothing else, it helps one sharpen and expand on one's own arguments. Anyways, I like the post. Perfect atheism thought process: 1)Here's a symbol for atheism, 2)You can use this one or these 9000 others or create your own, 3)But please, it's bullshit to be thought of as a second class citizen, also, religion motivates people to do dumb things, and if you want to help change this, do/say something about it, it doesn't have to be a lot, just something.
What's to get upset about? Anyways, atheism is a scientific hypothesis, or least a result of scientific inquiry.
I've been reading your blog for a while now but never really had anything to post before today. I checked out those shirts on Cafepress and to be honest I wasn't very impressed with many of the designs for various reasons, so I decided to make my own. I totally understand the desire expressed here for a non-confrontational design because well, there are some nutty people out there who will do strange things in the name of religion, and I kept that in mind when I made it. Anyway, if anyone would like to check out my shirts, they can be found here. Many thanks for being an interesting daily read.
Ignoring everything that was said, I'd like to add my two cents this to the conversation:
Atheist bookmarks. I'm tired of running into religious bookmarks in every god damned bookstore! I want a selection of godless quotes to choose from. Not that I'd buy 'em, but... you know. Still. We atheists are underrepresented in the bookmark industry. Hehe
Oh, and the design is aesthetically displeasing. I'll do it myself.
@#326
Mike, very well said.
It's always amusing when the token crazy guy (salt) tries to impress people with a bunch of sanctimonious, pathetic garbage.
Don't these people have a life somewhere? How ridiculous. I almost feel sorry for him/her.
I don't know if someone has already said this (because I'm not going to read all 336 posts), so I'll say it again here: I'm commenting on this quote:
"Here in the US, we must make it clear that there is a significant slice of the electorate that wants our government kept entirely secular."
IT'S NOT JUST THE ATHIESTS WHO ARE UP IN ARMS ABOUT THIS! If this is the main issue, then I suggest getting more people involved than just the athiests - you don't have to be scared of believers - they aren't all bad.
So many atheists think they're better than believers. As if there aren't any atheist nuts who do terrible things in the name of science... Some atheists really are just as bad as the fundamentalists on the other side. I know Dawkins has some great retort to that argument, but when it comes down to it you've got to BELIEVE that the universe just happened, because if it did just happen, there's no way to prove it - it's still turtles all the way down no matter how you look at it.
What DaveX said (#26) is exactly how I feel: the religious and athiest nuts should just keep it to themselves. People should focus on issues, such as should we be forced to pray in school? no. should we allow it? yes. should the 10 commandments be in a public courthouse? probably not, but on the other hand, why not? Especially if they've been there for 100 years... you can have the code of hammurabi there too for all I care, as long as it's made clear that it's just a symbol for the rule of law. you can't stop judges from being influenced by their own beliefs anyway (philosophical or religious).
I hate this whole "us against them" stance. I'm tired of being harrassed by the athiests and the religious nuts. Religion should stay out of politics. Religion should stay out of our children's science textbooks. But other than that, just live and let live. Don't come to my house to tell me I'm an idiot for believing in something or tell me about the gospel according to John or John Smith - I'm not interested.
"Don't come to my house to tell me I'm an idiot for believing in something or tell me about the gospel according to John or John Smith - I'm not interested."
Is our rhetoric really so firey that people actually think we're physically coming into their homes?! Is challenging the idea of gods really that shocking still?
I think you'll find, Agnostic, that our views are pretty much the same as yours. Religion in its place. The only difference is that the so-called New Atheists are actually out talking about it. It's not really that radical, nor should it be.
Frankly, whether or not someone has a belief in a supreme being or believes that there is no such thing is of no interest to me in the very same way that a person's sexual orientation does not really concern me. Religion (or lack of it) or Sex (and who you do it with) are private matters. With all the other problems we have to deal with right at present, worrying about sex or religion is like the Captain of the Titanic running around straightning the deck chairs as the ship sinks slowely into the Atlantic. If you don't believe there is a god, fine. Do you really give a rat's behind if someone else thinks there is such a being? - Who gives a sh-t! It makes as much sense as concerning yourself over your neighbors sexual orientation - unless of course you like that kind of thing! Know what I mean?
You know Agnostic, all the individual issues you think we should be focusing on, instead of on religion and faith in general, seem to have a common theme. Religion and faith. What's more, they all seem to share another common theme, which is the faithful attempting to infiltrate their beliefs in to places that they do not belong. It's almost as though there were a common cause here, as though the same patterns of behavior were behind each of these issues. But of course, it's not worth our time to examine, discuss, or criticize that common cause. We might offend someone by questioning their closely held beliefs, or, horror of horrors, by talking about something they don't want to hear about. Nope, best to just muddle along, addressing each problem as it comes up, and ignoring the great churning problem factory that keeps spitting them at us.
I don't have a problem wearing a shirt in public that declares my atheism I just don't particulary like the design of this one. Aren't there any atheist graphic designers out there? When the gay community adopted the pink triangle, it was an interesting symbol and had some historical signifigance. Who came up with this symbol? I'm sure the gay community didn't sit around and think, "yeah pink triangle...That's it!" It was a grass roots thing that got spread by word of mouth. The scarlet "A" idea smacks of branding, it's not even a cool brand at that. You'll have to come up with something better before I'll wear it on my chest. (Preferably an actual symbol not a letter A, not very imaginative) Also, as much as I like Dawkins, I refuse to call myself a "Bright". Someone needs to work on that label as well. (I like the "Darwin Fish" symbol...Not really an atheist symbol per-se but it's cute)
I love how atheists such as lunacrous and rey fox can get so bent out of shape when they feel attacked by someone who has moderate views. Yes, it's the New Athiests brandishing their view that "the faithful" are out to get us.
It's not about atheism against belief - it's about retaining a secular government and keeping religious influences out of the government, science, and schools.
I take the line in the constituion about "Freedom of Religion" to also mean "Freedom FROM Religion" and I think I'm not the only one who interprets it this way. I believe athiests should be respected for there lack of belief in the supernatural. I just hope the New Athiest Movement doesn't turn into a sort of church of radicals who hate religious people.
I can't believe I made a there/their mistake. and I think it's Joseph Smith - I should've listened to those visiting Mormons more closely ;)
Anyway, Kudos to anyone who outs themselves. Just be careful you don't attract some believer who feels the need to "save" you...
Susan,
The pink triangle was what the Nazis forced homosexuals to wear in concentration camps.
-jcr
Susan, the pink triangle is a symbol the gays coopted from Nazi Germany. The Nazis used it point down to identify gays in their prison camps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges
I suppose atheist would fall under enemy of the state or asocial, but I haven't seen any evidence of mistreatment of atheists by the Nazis.
Re: #340, ReyFox--
It's not the firey rhetoric that bothers me. It's my sinking feeling that it's really not much more than pompous blather, and a mirroring of the obnoxious behavior so repugnant and common to religious folks.
Look at it critically-- in the past couple weeks, PZ has written about urinating on the Koran, advocated vandalizing bookstores, and pressed for us all to start wearing atheist apparel to show off our beliefs.
As a rational person, I know full well that this isn't anywhere near depths to which religious folks seem to regularly sink, but I DO see it as a progression towards this point.
I don't think this is inevitable, should we keep our ordinarily-rational wits about us, and steer clear of such nonsense. Otherwise, I don't see it being that long before I hear someone telling me how "on fire" they are for atheism, and wanting me to come to their study group.
Isn't it better to just BE an atheist, and lead by quiet example?
I share the expressed misgivings about the rather unreflective and juvenile nature of the specific acts mentioned in our genial host's recent postings. but the whole "quiet example" approach has been an utter failure. It is only because people like Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, and our own PZ haven't been quiet that atheism is even on the public agenda. When atheists were "quiet examples", they weren't asked on to talk shows, or appeared on bestseller lists, or had their own section in bookstores. I may disagree with the specific tactics suggested by PZ, but the overall strategy of uppity atheism is working.
Personally, I think the scarlet letter symbol is a poor choice, because it doesn't just represent unnecessary persecution based on an imposed religious morality, but rather also an act that I hope most athiests really do consider to be immoral - because otherwise that only supports the extremist view that athiests are basically immoral. When in fact most of our 20th century morals stem from a humanist movement and usually in opposition to religious fanatics.
Poor choice for a symbol and a Dawkin's advertisement on top of it...
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson
True, Mr. Jefferson, but if your other neighbor were to hear you say either, he might just break your leg anyway.
Really? Did PZ write some post that I missed or are you declaring that moving books not related to science from the science section as vandalism. If this is the case you have a very loose interpretation of property damage and defacement.
I know that wearing a shirt with a red A on it is a HUGE step. I mean right now I'm wearing a golf shirt and dockers, which is obviously a serious message about... something. When I get home from work I will probably change into a shirt with the Colt's logo on it thereby proclaiming my undying loyalty to Tony Dungy and the innate superiority of the Colts as well as their fans. That's how it works right?
You're a funny man, Commisarjs... but you're only examining each of these points individually. It's the progression of one thing to another that worries me, not the t-shirt on it's own.
As for re-shuffling books, yeah, I think it's vandalism. They're not your books, have some courtesy and put them back where they go. Otherwise, you're messing up inventory and creating additional work for employees.
And for the record, Dockers are dorky.
Feh! You Dungian infidels soon will again suffer the wrath of the mighty and unknowable Беличик!
Agnostic,
Except the god-botherers are picking our pockets to the tune of billions of dollars a year through faith-based initiatives. Which was already on top of the billions of dollars in tax revenue lost because religious institutions are hiding for-profit endeavors and political lobbying as tax-free activities.
The lobbying efforts of religious institutions are also damaging to people who do not share the beliefs of those groups. Look at what the LDS church did to the ERA. Look at how The Catholic League always seems to get their shills on the news and in the public eye regardless of the bigotry and insanity they espouse. The anti-choice movement is made up almost solely of religious nutcases. Religious groups have infiltrated their minions into the DOJ and are doing their best to ignore the rule of law. The most vocal proponents of war with Iran, who do have the ears of important people, are christian armageddonists. ID proponents are working hard to infiltrate their religious beliefs into school curriculum.
Jefferson's quote was not about group's like these.
1) Yes progression, soon atheism will have it's own Night of Long Knives in which the streets will run red with the blood of agnostics! That's where this will end up right? You can't have a coordinated murder spree without the right t-shirts.
2) If you consider that vandalism and damaging in any way whatsoever you have lived quite a sheltered life.
3) I'm an engineer commenting on a science blog. One of my comments on this thread involved D&D. My geek-core cred is firmly established and inspires no anxiousness in me.
If reshelving books in a bookstore isn't vandalism, I presume you'd allow a stranger to come into your business and randomly refile your business documents?
I wouldn't allow a stranger to come into my business and pick up my documents, or even look at them. Does that mean browsing in a bookstore is vandalism?
That isn't even remotely the same thing. Notice that noone is going into the store managers office and rearranging their business documents.
Their inventory of books are entirely seperate from their business documents.
You probably also wouldn't offer strangers Simpsons calendars or sell them magazines, but that doesn't mean the original analogy doesn't hold. The books aren't yours, and they have been organized in a particular way by their owners. If you want them organized in a different way, ask the owners (nicely) to do so, and provide arguments as to why. Otherwise, yes, it is vandalism, admittedly minor, but vandalism nonetheless.
No, the analogy doesn't hold at all.
Customers rearrange items in stores all the time (and not just bookstores), usually out of laziness. This may be inconsiderate, but it certainly isn't vandalism. Vandalism is destruction or damage of the item. Leaving a book on the wrong shelf, because you can't find where it actually goes, or because you feel that it was in the wrong place originally, is not vandalism.
Tulse, I do not think that word means what you seem to think it means:
van·dal·ism
Pronunciation[van-dl-iz-uhm]
-noun
1. deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property: vandalism of public buildings.
2. the conduct or spirit characteristic of the Vandals.
3. willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures.
4. a vandalic act.
I don't see "rearranging" in that definition. Find a different word, because it IS NOT vandalism. It may seem petty and mischievious, probably annoying, but that's about it.
Bob is correct. Reshelving books is not valdalism. There is no destruction of defacement of property. Depending upon ones point of view, it could be called "sabotage", "mischief", or "a public service". But "vandalism"? Naaah.
The act is certainly damaging to the business, as it costs employees' time to undo the reshelving, and may mean that they can't find books that customers request (and it also may throw off their inventory tracking). In other words, there is a financial impact on the bookstore, and there is certainly an inconvenience. If you don't want to call that "vandalism", that's fine with me, but I think that's mere semantics -- don't pretend that it is an act without negative consequences to the bookstore.
So what was it when that mean kid threatened to 'rearrange' my face back in grade school?
Brownian, I believe that is called "assault". If they follow through, it is "battery". ;)
Tulse, there are many things that are damaging to a bookstore's business, that cost the employees time to deal with, and that create a financial impact and inconvenience, that are not vandalism. It really isn't just semantics. "Vandalism" isn't a catch-all phrase for "stuff that stores don't like."
Feh! You Dungian infidels soon will again suffer the wrath of the mighty and unknowable Беличик!
What's a belichik? Truly there are no gods but Tapio, Ahti, Äinämöinen, Rahkoi, Liekkiö, Ilmarinen, Turisas, Kratti, Tonttu, Kapeet, Kalevanpojat, Ronkoteus, Pellonpekko, Vironkannos, Äkräs, Köntös, Ukko, Rauni, Kekri, Hiisi, Vedenemo, Nyrkäs ja Hittavainen; and Väinämöinen is their prophet.
kmarissa, it is semantics in the sense that, whatever you want to label it, it is a willful act that intentionally disrupts the business. If you choose not to call that vandalism, that's fine -- I'm not arguing whether that specific word applies, but whether the act is in fact damaging. Just for context, the original quote I was responding to was commissarjs's "If you consider that vandalism and damaging in any way whatsoever you have lived quite a sheltered life". I think it is clear that the act is (at least potentially) damaging to the business. That's my only point. If the use of the word "vandalism" in response to the original quote has been confusing, I apologize, but that doesn't change the broader point.
FYI: the term for "stuff that [book]stores don't like" is "browsing"
Re-shelving things so that employees will just have to shelve them back does seem a little dick, but as a tiny prank to make a point, it's not exactly the biggest of deals. Most of those large chains have plenty of re-shelving to do everyday no matter what, just from people reading and leaving books out.
Point of clarification: The word for "stuff that stores do like" is "buying"
No, it's not necessarily a big deal, but it is obnoxious and does potentially cost the bookstore money. And to whom does it "make a point"? Is the goal to change the bookstore's shelving policy? If so, wouldn't it be much more effective to spend 5 minutes to chat with the manager, or even the clerk, or write a letter to the chain?
Probably more effective to campaign in our multitudes against the chain stores. Otherwise the only one getting the point is the staff who reshelves.
Well, say you're doing your "re-arranging" on inventory day, and they go by, scanning bar codes, and don't manage to scan what might normally have been scanned during that time. This creates an anomaly, which could result in more books being ordered when the current number is sufficient. I'm sure that bookstores' business model accounts for reshelving and continually organizing out-of-place items, but I highly doubt it is structured to deal with organized, willful "re-arrangements" from patrons.
Besides, I notice something interesting about the pro-reshelving folks argument-- they're saying its this trifle that makes no difference whatsoever and is harmful and unnoticeable, etc... but then also arguing for what an effective tool this is, and how we should all go try it.
At least I've said it from the beginning-- it's pathetic and stupidly annoying.
Of all the things to get your Dockers in a twist about, Tulse, you pick re-arranging books as your boiling point? Jebus. You must have been a book re-shelver in your previous job. Here's a tip: Get over it.
Good point, T, but speaking for myself, I don't pretend any such thing. I'd still call it "sabotage" before I'd call it "vandalism". There is probably a better word than either, though. Subversion?
Windy, the mighty and unknowable Belichik PWNS all those other diacritically-ostentatious godz you listed.
stogoe:
"Boiling point"? Hardly. But it's rude and not particularly effective, so I thought it was worth commenting on.
No, although my spouse once worked in a library. But generally speaking, I think a Kantian approach to ethics (or, less formally, the Golden Rule) is pretty good, and I sure wouldn't want people doing this if I were a bookseller. I suppose other folks have different views on ethics, however.
I appreciate the heartfelt advice.
Alright, you dingbats who think that reshelving books is High Crime, as long-time veteran of the bookstore meatgrinder (was once the mass-market paperback supervisor for the Books-A-Million flagship store in Hoover, AL)I can assure you that employees having to take the time to reshelve books has only ONE by-product: JOB SECURITY! Those books ain't gonna reshelve themselves and some hourly wage schlub will be staying after the store closes to get everything back in order at the end of the day. DARN!
FFS, Tulse, OCD much??
Nah, but unnecessary rudeness annoys me, and reshelving books is unnecessarily rude -- not a High Crime, of course, but still rude (and silly, and ineffectual, and inconveniences innocent third parties). If folks feel otherwise, that's their prerogative.
I know some folks don't believe me about the progression of all these ideas towards something truly negative, but re-read the comments and see if you can't discern this easily turning into a "one-true-atheist" discussion.
I mean, LM and I raise valid points about not "coming out" or being excessively vocal with out atheist views, and its being treated like some sort of heresy. Won't be long before the first doubtful comment: "I don't think you're even atheists," or some such nonsense. This is giving me little hope for the so-called "new" atheism.
I dunno, DaveX. Of course it could happen, but we're pretty far from a "You're either with us, or against us" state here. I think that you're overstating the heresy point.
Virtually all commenters have been sympathetic towards those such as LM who have concerns about the tangible repercussions of their coming-out.
The general opinion, however, is that armchair atheism, by declining to promote the acceptance of atheism as the philosophical and social equal of any theistic worldview in a pluralistic society such as we have here in the USA, not only fails to advance the causes of secularity and pluralism, it allows the opposing factions to retain and expand on the control they already have and thereby becomes a detriment to those causes.
How does that work as a summary of the thread thus far? Hey, we're not even up to 400 yet. ;-)
Yes Yes Yes. Sadly, at the moment, "Live and let live" versus violent dominionists will get us rounded up and burned at the stake. The least we can do is start promoting atheists as normal people with valid philosophical viewpoints.
I'll chime in and agree as well. I completely understand those who, for personal, professional, or safety reasons feel that they cannot come out of the closet as atheists -- I grew up in West Virginia. I do understand. On the other hand, I can also understand those who just want to go about their business "being" atheists without being noisy about it. But, the problem with the "just be a quiet atheist" approach is that by and large, no one will know that you ARE an atheist unless you let them know. So you can be the most kind, considerate, thoughtful, and reasonable person possible, but these very characteristics often make others think you're a "good Christian." Then, you're just another good Christian, and atheists are still bad, mean, evil people who like to kill puppies. Not productive.
And not to be a hypocrite, I'll be the first to admit that I'm frequently bad about this myself. I don't bring up religion in conversation on my own, so often I know a person for quite a long time before he or she realizes that I am an atheist. But when it does come up, I won't lie evade the fact that I am an atheist; far from being loud, or in-your-face, it's simply being honest.
Don't get me wrong. I'm hardly in the closet. I'm frequently asked to go to someone or other's church, and my reply is always something to the effect that I won't because I'm an atheist. I let them know that I don't believe in god, or attend church. I do the same for missionaries visiting my doorstep, or for the casual person who happens to inquire.
This is being an atheist, and hardly some sort of armchair fooling around.
What I am NOT doing is being obnoxious about it, getting in anyone's face, or promoting a polarized environment by waving a sign, wearing a provocative shirt, or hassling poor bookstore employees.
We may be close to breaking the analogy of the closet as lived and theorized by queers (I'm not sure if the atheist closet is as total as the queer one, but i'm willing to be proved wrong), but that is the very essence of what the closet is--life lived dishonestly. The closet is a double life, and the entire basis for one of the lives is lying. It is the routinization of social practices that force those who live in the closet to live that double life, to have entire relationships based in lies. It may seem to provide protection, but that protection is tenuous and can be stripped away at any moment by the very people who insist on keeping you closeted. As we said in the early 90s, the closet isn't a right, it's a tool of oppression.
Hell, as we've been saying since the days of the Gay Liberation movement.
Tulse and DaveX, as an accountant that does inventory, I have to say the intentional reshelving of a few items out of thousands pales in significance to the unintentional reshelving of items done constantly by lazy and/or confused customers, not the mention the amount of inventory placed in the wrong place by employees.
Plus, the books are being properly classified, so maybe B & B, Borders, etc. accountants will notice the trend in inventory reports and change the classification accordingly. You may consider it rude, but you don't do inventory. We have much more pressing problems in the corporate world than this.
DaveX, we really don't sound that far apart in how we treat our atheism, except that I don't see how wearing a shirt that states or indicates that one is an atheist is provocative or noisy. It's like wearing a shirt for a club or a band. Or a church group, for that matter. The idea that an "atheist" t-shirt is in-your-face and noisy, while a "young life" or "intervarsity christian fellowship" t-shirt is just a t-shirt, well I think that's a prime example of prejudice that many people don't even recognize, and which can only be overcome by more visibility--primarily NOT visibility of people like PZ or Dawkins, or books in the Barnes and Noble endcap (although it helps), but friends, neighbors, co-workers, and other normal, everyday people. That is, the kind of people that friends, neighbors, and coworkers wouldn't guess are atheists; they're too nice.
I'll leave the other two examples out because I think they're much different situations than the t-shirt thing.
Who has time to wade through 389 comments?
I'm sorry if this post is redundant.
As a card-carrying, secret-handshake-using atheist and rationalist, I will not be doing as Dawkins suggests. I needed to personalize this for myself first. My family is good friends with a highly educated family whose friendship I would likely lose by branding myself.
They are as unwavering in their belief system (as wacky as I believe Christianity is) as I am unwaveringly rational. To me, there is a physical universe; the end.
The deal is, though, that we don't spend hours and hours talking salvation. Religion hardly ever comes up. If we ever had it out on that subject, I think that would be the end of our friendship.
It's just not worth it. I don't see the point.
Note that I won't hold back when someone rams their religion down my throat. And my wife and kids do attend a Buddhist church, much to the chagrin from my Christian friends.
We have this one Fred Phelps-type in Sacramento who drives around in a red Toyota pickup, ramming his wacky ideas down anyone's throat who will listen. For him, I would gladly brand myself with the Red A. But for my friends, no, I won't do it, unless they want to beat me up with it. I will fight back.
As an aside (I think related), in June, when my mother-in-law was CVS in the hospital on her way to dying, Christian friends kept telling us we were in their prayers. I really, really wanted to ask them why. What good was it going to do? There was no miracle to be had; mother-in-law's brain had swelled. I wanted to ask if they prayed for Terri Schiavo, too.
Nothing that happened in the three weeks between the stroke and her death that was LESS comforting to me than knowing people were appealing to a non-existent higher-power. I would have felt way better if I heard that this story had motivated them to donate to the American Diabetes Association.
Anyway, that's why I won't be following this advice. Hope it makes sense.
"mighty and unknowable Беличик!" Crap, and I can't even identify enough Cyrillic letters to attempt to even pronounce that!
Kseniya, you said:
Which is what I said way back in post 36. I agree with you completely, and with PZ. We need to bang our drums a little, when we can - and when we should. How those drums get banged, and how loudly, is up to us all and is based on what is needed, and what we can afford.
Organizing would be great - and all are welcome to do so. I understand if it puts people outside of their comfort zone to do so.
But the more we do this, the larger the comfort zone gets. And that's the point, isn't it?
Keith: Беличик = Belichik :-)
Calladus: Just to be clear, the passage you quoted from my recent comment is not so much my expressed personal opinion as it was my attempt to distill the overall mood of the thread down to its essense, tangents excluded. I take it you agree with the accuracy of the summary, as well as with the views expressed.
My own view aren't too far off, but I personally wouldn't have said "armchair atheism" (to which DaveX mildly, though rightly, objected) but it seemed to reflect the subtle undertone of impatience which seems to hum beneath a fair number of the comments which support the activist approach. I think I'm a bit more in the "attraction, not promotion" camp, but frankly there's so much flying around inside my head these days, I hardly know what to think half the time.
Dr Frank,
Good point. Should I believe in the invisible pink unicorn or the celestial teapot or not? Actually I kinda like the idea of a teapot floating around out near Mars...
But seriously, this isn't about whether or not agnostics believe in Santa or Jesus - it's about whether they believe there may be something more than just what we can sense or measure and whether or not there is a "higher power" which for me could mean a number of things, not just a monotheistic version of God. Even atheists have to conclude that it's just turtles all the way down. For example, what came before the Big Bang? There's no reason to believe there was anything at all, but most people believe something caused it. Maybe you think it was two or more higher-dimensional spaces crashing into each other? Or maybe you have some other simpler explanation? I can't say, "There is no God." or "There is nothing out there that we can't sense or measure." There's not any evidence for or against it.
"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic." - Carl Sagan
Salt:
Atheism encompasses a world view based on empirical data - without superstition and fairy tales. Stop make special pleadings for religions, religion isn't the only world view it rejects.
Jim Royal:
Where, exactly?
There is a difference between noting that atheism based on empiricism is stronger than philosophy, because induction from observational probabilities or even abduction to the best explanation is more powerful than philosophical indifference, and claiming that science is equivalent to atheism.
For an example in this thread, basing atheism in empiricism as "about the entire freaking universe" and describing theology to "the vacuous maunderings of old dogmatists about nothing at all" seems to me to capture the former view better than the later. It would be different if PZ had said "faulty maunderings" than noted emptiness.
Commisarjs,
So banning religion or religious groups will stop corruption? Stop violence against other groups? End war? Stop people from thinking abortion is wrong? Or what - they won't have any good arguments against it, when they can no longer say it says so in the Bible? You're confusing belief with organized religious groups. Do you think they are the only non-profit organizations raping the system? The only groups who want to go to War with Iran? Will banning religion end bigotry? I think you are proof that it will not.
I am against religious extremist views and religious institutions that promote hate or fear, then again, I am against any institution that does this (are you listening Bush?), but I am not against all religion or banning any group from forming or having its say - it's called the Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Speech. And yes, Jefferson was talking about exactly these people - he held them in contempt, of course, but he grew up in a more polite society.
I think atheists should come out. There are many and they deserve to be treated with respect and not as "godless" or without morals. But atheists should also be careful about the image they are presenting to the world. Many people feel that organized religion uses its influence wrongly and has so for centuries, not just atheists. Many people are afraid that the US is becoming too religious, not just athiests. Promote atheism as equally valid as religion, not better. Promote atheism as having a strong moral foundation. Going around saying religious people are deluded is a good way to gain attention, but it won't change any religious people's minds. If it gets some atheists out of the closet, great. But in the long run it will be detrimental to the cause, because athiests will be viewed as extremists just like anarchists.
That's why I always say I'm agnostic, because I don't want to be viewed as a religion-hater. I don't hate religion - a lot of good philosophy has come out of it. Besides that, God may yet exist.
Where, exactly?
There is a difference between noting that atheism based on empiricism is stronger than philosophy... and claiming that science is equivalent to atheism.
PZ said:"Atheism is about the entire freaking universe, all the matter and energy and information within it..."
Atheism can certainly be informed by modern science, but it does not depend on it. One can be an atheist while being ignorant of science. The term goes back to the sixteenth century. The word apostate goes back even further, with roots in Middle English.
PZ did not say that atheism is based on empiricism... he said that atheism is empiricism. And he called anyone who disagreed a moron. And according to that logic, anyone who is an atheist for non-scientific reasons should also be called a moron.
I think that the best answer to that is, "I don't know. And isn't that wonderful? It means that there is still so much to explore and discover! We don't even have a clue how to find those sorts of answers yet, we don't even know if we're asking the right questions yet! Isn't that cool?"
I'm comfortable with saying "I don't know", but I don't next say "maybe God did it" (or aliens, or the IPU or whatever). It's merely a question of how things work, and like all such questions it is one that humans will keep poking at until we understand it.
Maybe the question is unanswerable, but we just don't know that yet - insufficient data. Maybe it will take us generations worth of research to figure that out - so what? There'll be a lot of people happily exploring our universe to find it out. It sure beats sitting on your hands in a pew.
Some say that "curiosity killed the cat" - I think the cat died happy.
agnostic, I agree with your views - Atheists must come out and speak up, present a face to the world. If we don't then religious people are free to turn us into whatever big, bad strawmen they want (or need) us to be.
I think Daniel Dennett has it right - religion needs enemies to survive, and they are happy to turn us into that. We need to rob them of this crutch by showing everyone that Atheists are "just folks". We're not starting a war, we're merely refusing to be the enemy. (Of course, some religious people see that as an aggressive stance, but that's not my fault.)
Personally I'm not agnostic because there are infinite things to be agnostic about, and that just tires me out. It's much simpler to hold no beliefs until proven. I think Sagan said something about keeping an open mind, but not so open my brains fall out. I don't disbelieve, I merely lack belief.
I do think that Dennett was right in saying that religion is too important to leave it unstudied as a human psychological and physiological phenomenon. The inclination to invent religions could very well be an evolved response. We should study that question instead of putting "Here be Dragons" signs around it and roping it off with police tape.
Calludus,
yes, "I don't know" is a good answer. The universe is "magical" enough without some Supreme Being hanging around and ignoring it. But every great theory started with a hypothesis and every great hypothesis started with intuition. Most of these were outlandish ideas at the time (I still can't get my head around string theory) - it seems to me that there is an interconnectedness within the universe (not in some bullshit "new age" way either) - I just feel that it is just as likely that there is something else going on other than what we can "sense" or measure - so I'm not an atheist, not in the strict sense of only believing in the "physical" - it may turn out to be a physical connection though, I can't deny that either. So there's my quandry: I've been "wired to believe", but can't exactly make the leap... neither towards complete belief nor complete lack of belief. but my brain hasn't completely fallen out - I'm not here dancing with pixies and fairies not yet anyway...Pondering mysteries is just plain fun though, isn't it? It's a lot more exciting to ask, "What if...? " than just to say, "I don't know."
Jim Royal:
I think what you are trying to say is that PZ claimed his atheism is based on empiricism. I can agree with that.
No, he called everyone "who claim atheism is based on that which does not exist" a moron. Wouldn't you, seeing that his atheism is based on empiricism instead?
Actually I think you are accusing PZ for what he complained in others, making a sweeping and faulty description.
agnostic:
Besides the fact that you answered your own question, there is also the very real possibility of the eternal multiverse which follows naturally from inflation. And that can be infinitely old.
And QM and Planck length at one end of the scale and the Hubble volume on the other means that we have a finite supply of turtles. :-P
Torbjörn Larsson,
Those are interesting beliefs. That's one of the things I'm trying to point out: some people seem to "believe" in the current scientific constructs. Suggesting that there are a limited number of turtles based on the limited understanding we have of the universe is just as closed minded as any other dogmatic approach, i.e there could very well be things beyond those scales which we have yet to discover. And when I said most people believe something caused the big bang, I meant most athiests, believers and scientists. Most people believe in cause and effect. So, actually I was wrong, there is reason to believe that there was something before the big bang, unless matter can be created.
So maybe I worded it wrong. Atheists for the most part, except for the most dogmatic, have to admit it's still just turtles all the way down. Claiming that everything could be an multiverse without beginning or end doesn't change that - it's still the dog biting his tail. Do the words "infinite" or "eternal" make for less turtles? Just a few running around on a moebius strip?
Science is hard pressed to answer the question of why the universe exists. That's what atheisim and religion are for. Atheism at it's best says, "I don't care why, let's make the best of it" and at worst claims there is definately no reason for our existence.
To claim that there is definately no God, or reason for our existence other than the one we come up with is a great philosophy that works for many, but it also smacks a little of fundamentalism. I would rather say that it doesn't matter one way or the other. Whether we believe the same thing or not, we should work together towards common humanistic goals.
agnostic:
Sorry for late reply.
Of course it is a provisional view. It is also current possibilities, so it has undergone a validation. (In the form of being a working theory.) "Validated belief" is knowledge in my book, here in the form of informing of a scientific possibility.
Okay, this is so wrong and wrong again. You must have strong preconceptions to overlook that these are tentative, albeit strongly indicated, possibilities. And that anyone who looks into the science are free to see and acknowledge this.
What would "reason" mean in this context? But FWIW, making the best of it means noting that anything else than natural mechanisms (whatever that means) are improbable - we see plenty of them.
philos - "Religion ... makes communities safer and more habitable."
And you make that statement based on what? Your desire for it to be true?!
Facts, and not wishful thinking, always help at times like this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece + http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religi….
Before there was religious societies were was no religion, and when religious societies disappear, there will again be no religion. Yet the observable world will move on.
But atheism isn't simply identifying free thinking in a confused world or a reaction to a social construct. It is foremost a rejection of former world views and superstition that was inconsistent with observation at worst and descriptive at best.
Atheism is embracing empirical methods where predictive theories have debunked descriptive fantasies. It is constructive where religion is destructive. And it is a valid world view.
Btw, seeing Salt's antics, it is appalling when people criticizes atheism from such simple minded perspectives as the impowerished philosophical description. :-P
But really, agnosticism, neither belief nor disbelief in gods, is but one option. Atheists have no good reasons to not reject unnecessary belief in unobserved things or ideas in general or specially here, and often good reasons for disbelief. So the toothless philosophical gods concept is as inadequate to capture all of atheism as it is to capture all of theism.
No wonder - we don't live in a world of decoupled ideas, we live in a world of observable facts.
Feh! You Dungian infidels soon will again suffer the wrath of the mighty and unknowable Беличик!
Salt:
Atheism encompasses a world view based on empirical data - without superstition and fairy tales. Stop make special pleadings for religions, religion isn't the only world view it rejects.
Jim Royal:
Where, exactly?
There is a difference between noting that atheism based on empiricism is stronger than philosophy, because induction from observational probabilities or even abduction to the best explanation is more powerful than philosophical indifference, and claiming that science is equivalent to atheism.
For an example in this thread, basing atheism in empiricism as "about the entire freaking universe" and describing theology to "the vacuous maunderings of old dogmatists about nothing at all" seems to me to capture the former view better than the later. It would be different if PZ had said "faulty maunderings" than noted emptiness.
Jim Royal:
I think what you are trying to say is that PZ claimed his atheism is based on empiricism. I can agree with that.
No, he called everyone "who claim atheism is based on that which does not exist" a moron. Wouldn't you, seeing that his atheism is based on empiricism instead?
Actually I think you are accusing PZ for what he complained in others, making a sweeping and faulty description.
agnostic:
Besides the fact that you answered your own question, there is also the very real possibility of the eternal multiverse which follows naturally from inflation. And that can be infinitely old.
And QM and Planck length at one end of the scale and the Hubble volume on the other means that we have a finite supply of turtles. :-P
agnostic:
Sorry for late reply.
Of course it is a provisional view. It is also current possibilities, so it has undergone a validation. (In the form of being a working theory.) "Validated belief" is knowledge in my book, here in the form of informing of a scientific possibility.
Okay, this is so wrong and wrong again. You must have strong preconceptions to overlook that these are tentative, albeit strongly indicated, possibilities. And that anyone who looks into the science are free to see and acknowledge this.
What would "reason" mean in this context? But FWIW, making the best of it means noting that anything else than natural mechanisms (whatever that means) are improbable - we see plenty of them.