We “passionate” atheists

why do I keep thinking this series of posts by PZ is somehow leading up to a revision of the St. Crispin's day speech from Henry V?

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;For he today that sheds his blood with meShall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,This day shall gentle his condition:And gentlemen in England now abedShall think themselves accursed they were not here,And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaksThat fought with us upon the New Atheist's day.

LOL

once more into the breach!

Is use of Comic Sans a form of framing?

Good work, PZ - I agree 100%. It is probably also true to say that atheists are perhaps more likely to be passionate about things that are relevant to our world in the here-and-now, than people who think that their reckoning can be procrastinated to some singularity in the hereafter, and they are carrying the ultimate "Get Out of Jail Free" card. One might even argue that such an attitude is more compatible with morality than slavish adherence to the supposed prattlings of some hypothetical pixie. Religion, in fact, *cannot* be a basis for proper morality.

For an atheist, *every* day is Judgement Day, and that's just the way we like it.

Well said, PZ, and LoL @ Ichthyic. (St. Hitchens' Day?)

The gentleman from Arkansas makes a common mistake: He conflates (or confuses) atheism with nihilism and wrongly concludes that is all about "believing in nothing," from which follows the idiotic aphorism, "Those who believe in nothing will believe in anything."

(Say, if we're all automatons, why do I prefer Bartók to Beethoven? Should I ask for my money back?)

If Mr. Comic Sans speaking with his Gumby hat on can't understand how one believes in nothing, perhaps it'd be easier if he thought about it this way: believing in nothing is not drastically different from believing in something that doesn't exist; supply your own value judgement. Not believing is like being passionate about being not stupid, or not insane.

I'm passionate about atheism, but atheism isn't about nothing: it's about valuing reason over superstition, about conquering unfounded fears, about facing the real world without crutches and lies to hold you up.
PZ you wax poetically, I feel there must be a book in you
just waiting to burst forth,am I correct???

I don't think his accusation makes sense from another perspective: since when do all atheists, or even most, spend lots of time trying to convert anyone to anything?

Sure, those of us that you actually hear about spend some of our time objecting to fallacious arguments that people make in public and that deserve response (especially, it must be noted, when these statements are insults and accusations against US). And others of us spend our time on political causes that we think make society freer, more just, and make everyone (including believers!) better off.

But since when has deconverting believers been pushed as a priority, or even a big deal? Sure, I wouldn't mind living in a world with a lot less religious faith. But then, I wouldn't mind living in a world with a lot less obession about what Britney Spears is doing every moment of her day either.

And if someone is a believer, chances are they aren't going to stop believing no matter what I say. And as long as they don't threaten anyone, or get away with making bogus claims unchallenged, it's really not a big deal in the end: it's not like I believe they are going to hell for it, after all.

The worst they might be doing (that's not already illegal and so already opposed) is spreading bad ideas. I'll fight those, but I'm not going to sweat it out if they ultimately just keep believing something I don't see any reason to believe.

St. Hitchens' Day

heh, exactly.
the irony is perfect.

Should I ask for my money back?

good luck. I think they even outsourced the customer service dept. for that last year.

I'll tell him what I'm passionate about. I'm passionate about stopping idiots like this from imposing their irrational belief system on everyone else. I'm passionate about keeping religion out of politics. I'm passionate about keeping Canada a secular society. I'm passionate about smacking down religious hypocrisy.

If no God exists, what is there to get passionate about?

Um...reality?

I'd offer up "St. Dawkins' Day", but perhaps we could give a little love to the much-ignored Victor Stenger instead. "St. Stenger's Day", indeed.

well, let's not ignore St. Myers.

after all these years, PZ really has managed to make a significant splash in the atheism pool (let alone the New Atheist Jacuzzi).

which reminds me...

finish the damn book already, PZ.

In all seriousness, I am passionate about avoiding the building of personality cults around atheism. Canonizing is therefore out. :-)

There are many people in life whose opinions I value, but not one of them, nor all of them together, are as capable of swaying me in one direction or another as is one incontrovertible fact.

Well I said it before..but i'll say it again.

Atheism is about one sole moral code:

Live with the goal of reducing suffering and increasing happiness while keeping free will.

If those godbots can't understand why we would want to promote a life that is centered around this concept...i question who it is exactly that is lacking morals.

It really is all the same pile of crap-ola. What, oh what is going to happen to someone when they become an atheist?

"without restraint, he may become a pedophile, a murderer, a thief, or any other kind of a deviant you can think of.
"

As many others here have noted, and I have always felt, if the only thing that's stopping you from becoming a child molesting, thieving murderer is your belief that some big invisible person in the sky is keeping tabs on you; run, don't walk, to the nearest professional counselor and doctor. You are a danger to society. These people scare the living shit out of me.

"If no God exists, what is there to get passionate about?"

FOOTBALL!

"If no God exists, what is there to get passionate about?"

FOOTBALL!

How can you be passionate about football if you can't pray to god for touchdowns?

Actually, the "what do atheists have to be passionate about" idea is incredibly common and one of the big reasons that more moderate religious people don't have a problem with other faiths, but have a problem with vocal atheists. Fine, don't believe if you don't want to, they think, but why the hell are you yelling about your belief in nothing? Sit down and shut up already, and leave me to my beliefs.

Its an idea I actually had myself back before I'd actually interacted with atheists (and became one myself). Its obviously an idea that comes from having not thought about the issue very thoroughly, but it can be counteracted rather easily, at least when dealing with less-crazy religious folks. Just explain WHY atheism is important to you, and talk about what you DO believe in. The real nuts just hate atheists, and aren't listening anyways... but there are many, many ordinary religious people that simply never had this conversation with an atheist, and would act much more kindly towards them if they had.

"How can you be passionate about football if you can't pray to god for touchdowns?"

Very true, its a fact, in almost every game that people pray for one team or another, one of the teams wins. (it just so happens that both teams are being prayed for, so god gets to let the chips fall where they may, and he still gets credit)

How do you get passionate about nothing ? " If no God exists, what is there to get passionate about ?I know it's been done before, but here we go:
"If no Zeus exists, what is there to get passionate about?"
"If no Wotan exists, what is there to get passionate about?"
"If no Marduk exists, what is there to get passionate about?"
"If no Ra-Herakty exists, what is there to get passionate about?"
I wonder why those xians spend so much time shouting and proselytising, after all they disbelieve in Zeus / Wotan / Ra / Osiris / Aphrodite / Thor / The Incredible Hulk / Noggin the Nog...why, I wonder how they restrain themselves from paedophilia, murder and torture (Oh, that's right they don't).

Ahh, the law of unintended consequences rears it's ugly head. When John Terry wrote that article he probably didn't even pause to consider the many live he would affect - and that one of them would be mine...

Thanks John (and PZ).

This past Saturday was amazing, a hot September day in Minnesota, and I'm lying out in the grass and listening to XTC and Brian Eno, and I swear I could feel the earth spin. I pictured myself as this tiny little point of consciousness in this enormous universe, all spinning and swirling. Like I'm the penpoint in a Spirograph, regularities turning out symmetries all around me, getting inside me. It was all vertiginous and giddy, like a light-speed Tilt-O-Whirl. Completely mind-blowing, God-free, and using nothing but the chemicals and energy and patterns in my brain. The god of revealed religions is crabbed, tawdry, anemic (despite his bloodlust) and pathetic. To a worm such a being could be a god. But to a man in a park below a blue sky, reality is too much a thing to be passionate about to admit these petty idols from humanity's infancy. We're not the ones with the explaining to do.

Shorter, modern version of the St. Crispin's Day speech:

I aim to misbehave.

Hey, applies pretty well, dont'cha think?

As many others here have noted, and I have always felt, if the only thing that's stopping you from becoming a child molesting, thieving murderer is your belief that some big invisible person in the sky is keeping tabs on you; run, don't walk, to the nearest professional counselor and doctor. You are a danger to society.

True, which is perhaps why so many of these types have serious anger-management problems and various personality disorders marked by barely concealed aggression and hostility. Most of the actively proselytizing Christians I've met seem to be suffering from a form of permanent road rage, which they subdue with varying degrees of success. Probably also why many of them gravitate to authoritarian politics.

My first thought was, "How do you get passionate about nothing?" If no God exists, what is there to get passionate about? Why do professed atheists find it necessary to convert other people to their unbelief, since there is nothing of substance there to convince them of?

Perhaps yon fuckwit might consider the long and honourable tradition of sending missionaries to Christianise the heathens, part of which included passionately disabusing the locals of their native belief systems.

I mean, if Quetzalcoatl never existed, why the need for Jesuits to tell the poor savages that ?

Oh Lord Jesus Christ, if you truly do exist, please send me a representative of your faith who is not a complete and utter moron, ignorant of history and humanity.

If no God exists, what is there to get passionate about?

And whose name do we yell at those peak intimate moments? Heh. It's obvious where this guy's thoughts are! I predict another sex scandal coming up.

Theists always talk about how god must be their number one priority in order for their lives to hold meaning. Whenever they talk about non-theists, the only things they can imagine replacing god are always some crazy, shallow, evil priority. It's never "Instead of god, atheists make fellow humans their top priority," which has the unfortunate effect of making atheists sound like like nice, sensible people. It's always "atheists 'worship' material wealth and fame" or that we're nihilists, which is of course untrue. Ah, but theists wouldn't be theists if they weren't intellectually incurious and easily placated by lies.

P.Z., you are terriffic! And this from an old (very retired) engineering dean.

Everything posted today was as good as it gets.

Thanks

So far, we've got:
"naive"
"amoral"
"passionate"

Are we atheists therefore passionate about naively being amoral? Amorally passionate about being naive? I'm a little confused.

I expect PZ has a few more to throw up here when the time is right (when his secondary or tertiary personality is posting in the middle of the night, for example). Will we see "foolish", "ignorant", and "lazy" in addition to the oft-cited "militant", "strident" and "new"? This could get fun.

At least we're not being accused of smelling of prawns. Yet.

And whose name do we yell at those peak intimate moments?

Reminds me of a joke my (also atheist) friend told me:

Q: What do atheists scream during sex?
A: Oh primordial ooze, oh primordial ooze!

Seems to me the only thing to scream during orgasm is your lover's name--unless you happen to be the Virgin Mary.

Seems to me the only thing to scream during orgasm is your lover's name

Hello? We're immoral atheists, remember? We don't know what our lover du jour's name is because we're closet hedonists.

Why are atheists coming out of the " closet" now ?

Because we're sick of cocky, holier-than-thou, know-it-all idiots like you who are ruining the country with your delusional god nonsense.

Because we're sick of cocky, holier-than-thou, know-it-all idiots like you who are ruining the country with your delusional god nonsense

In other words, we're sick to death of the immorality and hypocrisy of theists.

Seems like the entire midwest took their anti-atheist pills recently. I was back home for family reunion in July.

When the family went to church the pastor delivered a sermon that was almost an hour and a half long on how it must suck to be an atheist because we "don't have a plan in life."

So can we be the "aimlessly wandering" atheists too?

"How can you be passionate about football if you can't pray to god for touchdowns?"

Perhaps you didn't hear me the first time. FOOBOW!

TO THE HAPPY FEW

Stendahl used it as a motto at the end of The Charterhouse of Parma

What about all the "strident" or "passionate" theists? They always make me think of this joke by the incomparable comedian Emo Phillips.

"Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over."

When the family went to church the pastor delivered a sermon that was almost an hour and a half long on how it must suck to be an atheist because we "don't have a plan in life."

Um, neither do Christians. Apparently, some guy named 'God' has a plan for them, but it's only ever revealed post priori.

Had your kid killed in a landslide? All part of God's plan. Incurable cancer? All part of God's plan. Murderer went on a rampage and shot up your sister at a mall? All part of God's plan--but still the fault of the homos/feminists/libruls/intellectuals/trade unions/'Darwinists'/Comedy Central.

#34
yeah because if Mary had screamed out her lovers name, then she would have had to have been stoned to death immediately.
At least that's what my in depth study of the Life of Brian has taught me.

Thanks PZ, I was born in a muslim household and was a fairly devout muslim up until I opened my eyes to the world around me. It's ramadan at the moment, which is probably the time of the year I feel most alone. I love my family very much but I don't share their religious passions and it often makes me feel like the "innocent flower, / But be the serpent under it".
But you speak to me and make me love the reason and truth that I hold in such high esteem, and make me realise that it's the best part of me.

#42

are you sure you don't mean ex post facto? Or are both of those equally ass-covering?

Either way, I'm willing to bet that the pastor would have said that the only plans atheists have are of the five year variety...

but still the fault of the homos/feminists/libruls/intellectuals/trade unions/'Darwinists'/Comedy Central.

yeah, ain't that a kicker how fast Comedy Central has risen the demonization ladder?

I wonder if someday "comedians" might be on a higher rung than "darwinists" in this country.
I suppose it does depend on the country in which the demonization ladder is built.

in countries where the majority of the populace actually understands satire and irony (like England, say), I'd bet that comedians are far more commonly demonized than darwinists.

:P

Here's an "egged" atheist:

Vandals egg house of local atheist

The home of a local outspoken atheist was vandalized overnight Friday, police said -- with eggs tossed at the house and cars, and crosses and religious words scrawled in chalk on the driveway.

A church bulletin also was stuck on the front door.

The incident comes days after Rob Sherman's daughter, Dawn, led a successful effort to have the song "God Bless America" yanked from Buffalo Grove High School's homecoming celebration. Dawn Sherman is a freshman on the student council.

The vandalism likely was the retaliatory work of youngsters, police Sgt. Mike Millett said -- since it came on the heels of the school incident and because one of the chalked words, "Jesus," was misspelled.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=43811&src=1

Go Dawn!

"Jesus," was misspelled.

Perfect.

you just can't write better social commentary than that.

The idiot is right when he said we are concerned about "nothing". It's because he has no freaking clue about our position, but that doesn't stop him (and the drones that appreciate him) from expressing their worthless opinions on the matter.

░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░▐▐░
░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░▌░▐▐░
░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░████░
░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒░░░░░░░░██░░
░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒██▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒██▒░░░░░░░░██░░
░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░██░░
░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████████░░
░░░░░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░██░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
░░██░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
░░██░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██░░░░██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██████░░░░██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Are we atheists passionate about something? Hell, yes.

Hell yes! I'm passionate about genuine, unadulterated truth and about seeing the world for what it is rather than what I want it to be!

Okay, yes, I am one of those hard agnostics who is so close to being atheist that it's probably difficult to measure, as opposed to a soft agnostic who doubles for a Christian apologist. Still, I feel I stand to be counted with any movement that values telling the truth, regardless of what that truth might actually be. I think the one thing religion cannot tell you is the truth.

A minister huh? I wonder does he have any other job or is ministering the whole thing? Cause if it is I now understand why he needs to make statements like the above. He can't find any other work and is not competent to actually DO anything.

I can't imagine a more boring passionless life than that.

We believe in nothing? HUH?

As an extremely passionate future mathematician, I'd like to add that in fact you CAN get passionate about nothing--as one of my favorite professors is fond of pointing out, you can build up the whole of mathematics from just the empty set.

Gee, I had to take down my "absence of theism" quote after all that. :P

Live long and prosper!

"yeah, ain't that a kicker how fast Comedy Central has risen the demonization ladder?"

Has it? Haven't seen that myself, but it's not surprising. They can't abide laughter.

Hi PZ - I haven't been around your (or other) blogs for a number of months [catching up will happen] but the tone of your passion is wonderful and I am so glad I chose to drop in on your blog this day.

(signed) marc

Wow... Another indoctrinated simple-minded minister projecting. Still, I'm impressed that the quality of religious twaddle from Arkansas seems to be improving.

In The Reason Driven Life, Robert Price's incisive and often funny rebuttal to the popular The Purpose Driven Life, Price points out that, according to Pastor Rick Warren, God's purpose for your life is for you to dedicate yourself to volunteer work at a church. And he also points out that, by very strange coincidence, Pastor Rick Warren runs several huge mega-churches which rely heavily on (here's where the spooky part comes in) volunteer work.

Interesting how easily everything all fits together in the Christian faith.

I'm passionate about my students, and in most cases I don't have a clue what religion, if any, they practice ... and it wouldn't matter in the least anyway.

Right there with ya!

well said, sirrah!
i endorse the others' echoes of the passion of the Bard, and the young king...

I'm sure someone is going to sit there and dissect the letters of the word and tell me that atheism means only an absence of belief in gods, but screw that -- it's about a whole philosophy of thought that is built on materialism and naturalism. It is an idea with substance.

Wonderfully put! You've summed up pretty much my entire outlook here.

I take this little bitch John Terry out to the woodshed in my own response, which I wrote as a letter to the editor and have also posted at the Atheist Experience blog, here.

i think you almost could say that, in effect, "marduk/god/wodin" capture the inchoate passion of the whole universe, regularize it, use it...to regulate the behaviors which the passions often solely motivate.

Maybe the article refers to atheists who are vociferous in the defense of atheism and, as it usually goes, the vehememt rebuttal of misinformation perpetuated by "believers".

As an atheist I subscribe to two definitions of nihilism as it pertains to my non-belief. One, that human life is meaningless and two, that there is no pure objective basis for truth.

So I don't share the same passion as some for engaging in pissing matches with wingnuts. As long as I get richer, and continue to have the opportunity to get richer, I really don't care.

Would I care if I lived in a repressed theocracy that prohibited me from attaining the life I want because of my religious beliefs (or lack thereof)? Yep. But I don't. Do I think that my lack of caring will bring about that situation? No. Until that danger exists I'm not going to burden myself with the stress.

"naive," "amoral," "passionate," ... No one has called me that.

Although I have been called "ignorant" and "cowardly" too.

"If no God exists, what is there to get passionate about?"

FOOTBALL!

A perfect example of principle that there are no objective values without religion. How do we know what you mean by "football?" American football? Gaelic football? Soccer? Now, if you said "THE PACKERS", then we'd know what manner of man we're dealing with.

Wonderful - elegant, yet pointedly direct - one of the best defences of atheism I've read. Thank you, PZ!

~ Nick

Longtime reader first time poster. I just want to say thanks for the recent atheist 'labels' series. Not being so eloquent myself it is nice to be able to show people a nice summary of things that I feel.

"it's about a whole philosophy of thought that is built on materialism and naturalism. "

Unfortunately i don't totally agree with this. I mean i wish that's what all atheists believed in, but i've met too many who were also in to astrology or some other BS.

Actually the thing more frightening than "That is morally wrong because the God says so" is "That is morally right because God says so".

PZ's mixing up humanism with atheism again.

BTW- what's happened to Caledonian?

Wait, what?

PZ sed:
I'm passionate about science, a process that actively and explicitly excludes gods and the supernatural, whether they exist or not.

Uhh...

"...whether they exist or not"?

What does that mean?

That scientists would/should ignore/exclude the existence of gods and the supernatural, even if they were proven to exist?

Or... oh, wait - you're saying that the domain of science is the natural world, so anything not of the natural world is of no concern to it... ?

But... you're also saying ("whether they exist or not") that gods and the supernatural may possibly exist; but if that's the case, then their existence would not be detectable through any scientific methodology, as their realm of existence would be "beyond" the natural world, meaning that no science or scientist could, ever, be able to say anything meaningful about their existence or nonexistence; or, if some method were found by which their existence could be confirmed, then, having existence, they would actually be part of the natural world, in which case theology would become a subset of physics. Or vice versa.

Or... damn, I'm confused. I really don't get what you're trying to convey in that sentence. It seems to turn backwards and eat itself; the words don't match the sentiment you're attempting to express.

And I think you may get in a bit of trouble with it. Any halfway intelligent religite'll seize on it as an opportunity to say "see? Scientists admit that they wouldn't accept or acknowledge god even if he exists!" Or "see? Atheists just want to defy god!"

'cos that basically seems to be what you've said... unless I'm misreading that... I probably am; it's late, I'm tired.

A clearer formulation might have been "... a practice which actively and explicitly excludes gods and the supernatural, which do not exist." Except you can't say "which do not exist," because you can't prove that something doesn't exist. So you'd have to say something like "which have a probability of existence so vanishingly small as to be for all practical purposes zero."

But then how do you calculate the probability of the existence of gods and the supernatural?

Sorry, I'm probably mucking up the thread. I just really... do not grok that sentence.

Sometimes I'm a hungry atheist
Sometimes I'm a drunk atheist
Sometimes I'm a creative atheist
Sometimes I'm a focused atheist
Sometimes I'm an atheist in New Orleans
Sometimes I'm an atheist playing with my dog
Sometimes I'm a Telemark Skiing Atheist
Sometimes I'm a woodworking atheist
Sometimes I'm a cooking atheist fool
Sometimes I'm a server updating atheist
Sometimes I'm an angry atheist
Sometimes I'm a tired atheist
Sometimes I'm a James Brown listening atheist

I'm a passionate atheist about everything I like to do.

The labels are just some way to pigeon hole atheists as some singular type of person.

It's complete bullshit.

I'm sure someone is going to sit there and dissect the letters of the word and tell me that atheism means only an absence of belief in gods, but screw that -- it's about a whole philosophy of thought that is built on materialism and naturalism. It is an idea with substance.

Yeah, I'll disagree too. Atheism does mean only an absence of belief in gods. I have no problem labeling, say, Mao Zedong as an atheist, but we don't have all that much in common philosophically.

Many atheists, because they don't have theist beliefs getting in the way, tend to develop philosophies of thought that are built on materialism and naturalism. But that philosophy isn't atheism.

"How do we know what you mean by "football?" American football? Gaelic football? Soccer?"

There is only one football and that is FOOBOW! You know it in your heart, even if you think you don't.

I'm passionate about rejecting nonsense.

Series of Tubes

Wait, what?

PZ sed:
I'm passionate about science, a process that actively and explicitly excludes gods and the supernatural, whether they exist or not.

Uhh...

"...whether they exist or not"?

What does that mean?

That scientists would/should ignore/exclude the existence of gods and the supernatural, even if they were proven to exist?

Or... oh, wait - you're saying that the domain of science is the natural world, so anything not of the natural world is of no concern to it... ?

But... you're also saying ("whether they exist or not") that gods and the supernatural may possibly exist; but if that's the case, then their existence would not be detectable through any scientific methodology...

My take on this is that when someone's talking about God, we should assume, unless otherwise stated, that he means the God who lives in the minds of all those believers out there. NOT the god of the philosophers.

We're talking the God of Moses. We're talking the god Jesus.

Those gods don't exist. So yes, science excludes them explicitly.

As for any gods who do exist, they're excluded from science too... for now at least. When they've proved their existence then yes, of course science will include them. But not today.

Suppose someone a thousand years ago had guessed the existence of radiowaves. Not through observation, not through logic. Just guessed. That wouldn't be science!

Oops my bad. Put the closing blockquote in the wrong place.

but atheism isn't about nothing: it's about ...

No. Those may well be among the factors which led to your personal atheism but they are not what atheism itself is about. Similarly your passions aren't because you are an atheist. Your atheism is largely irrelevant to the things you list.

Maybe what PZ meant to say was "but the NEW atheism isn't about nothing..."

While I mean this as a bit of a mediocre joke, I do think that what PZ is talking about has more to do with the current social movement than with the history and literal meaning of the word.

Whether thats clear, or good, or whatever I'll leave to everyone else to argue over here in the thread. But, as for me, I agree with PZ. And when someone talks about atheism, it should be inexorably tied up with everything that PZ espouses, literal translation aside.

Hey, this PZ guy can really write. Great stuff.

And to jeh, #41:
My favorite Emo Philips joke is:
"When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me."

@Brownian (#27)
Oh Lord Jesus Christ, if you truly do exist, please send me a representative of your faith who is not a complete and utter moron, ignorant of history and humanity.

Sorry, but if you are too lazy to get your butt out of your armchair and moving, you shouldn't complain that people don't crawl behind you and up your a**

Small hint: Being too butt lazy to actually search for something isn't evidence of its non-existence.

Brownian,
"yon fuckwit"!!!! What a wonderfully descriptive phrase! May I have your permission to use that in my daily discourse?

Hardy Bourland #30:

"Everything posted today was as good as it gets. Thanks"

I second that. Absolutely superb.

Live with the goal of reducing suffering and increasing happiness while keeping free will.

That is awesome, thank you for bringing it to my eyes. Replete yet concise.

What, no one is offended by his comment that without God's morals, we atheists might become pedophiles or murderers? I guess I should be glad that he is a theist.

There is one thing to be said for the article: He is honest about what he is trying to defend.

This approach is a refreshing change from that of the typical anti-atheists. (Terry Eagleton being the type-specimen). Instead of defending some sublime, subtle and [insert vapid cliche here] "philosophy", he actually tries to defend his religion.

Sorry, but if you are too lazy to get your butt out of your armchair and moving, you shouldn't complain that people don't crawl behind you and up your a**

Small hint: Being too butt lazy to actually search for something isn't evidence of its non-existence.

Yeah but most all observable evidence is that Brownian is spot on with the types we deal with here.

Very nicely written! :o)

And he dares to rebuke us for believing in nothing? We believe in every thing.

Hey, that would look great on a t-shirt...

It's great to wear this shirt in public. It's even more fun to have my kid wear his "Heathen" shirt...

The looks are priceless.

Series of Tubes: I think PZ was referring to the traditional idea of God - invisible old man in the sky/within the universe/"out there someplace" -who has a physical form, not an incomprehensible, unfathomable, infinite ultimate superbeing, who would be infinitely beyond our tiny minds anytime, and hence meaningless evem to discuss.

Fundies are usually the ones arrogant enough to claim our lives are impoverished and empty if we don't agree with their corner of religion.

Surely an atheist is passionate because he or she is a lover of truth and cares about people being fettered with ideas based on tradition authority/revelation. And they're psasionate about the dangers and diviseness that religion fosters.

Of course science excludes the supernatural. Science by definition only deals with the natural world. It can't tell us why any world exists to be studied, why THIS universe, and not another, and so on. But of course that doesn't mean another enterprise can...

Small hint: Being too butt lazy to actually search for something isn't evidence of its non-existence.

Sorry Oliver, but I put in all the work I'm ever going to do searching for God during the first 15 years of my life (going to church, reading the bible, becoming an altarboy, praying, etc.)

God may love his twisted game of eternal hide-n-seek, but I'm done looking. I guess he's won (and still winning.) I just hope he's comfortable under whatever little rock he's sequestered himself away under. God: enjoy your small victory, you petty little deity.

Sorry, but if you are too lazy to get your butt out of your armchair and moving, you shouldn't complain that people don't crawl behind you and up your a**

I think that can apply to "God" and "Jesus" as well. If those lazy, prick-faced, sumbitches want me worshipping their sorry asses they better do some goddam MIRACLES. NOW. Failing that a bolt of lightning and eternal damnation will do. I'm waiting...

How dare you demand the attention of God or The Son! They're too busy whispering to schizophrenics and painting self-portraits on tortillas and tree bark to be bothered with that sort of trivia!

And let's don't forget the home runs and goals and touchdowns they are engineering for Notre Dame teams... Or is it Penn State? Isn't that why the sky is blue and white?

Hold on. How can anyone jump up Brownian's ass if he's sitting in an armchair?

I dunno Rey, but I must say I am intrigued by the kinky possibilities of such an ability.

I'm sure someone is going to sit there and dissect the letters of the word and tell me that atheism means only an absence of belief in gods

Yes. My atheism is a trivial and uninteresting consequence of the fact that I care (passionately) about whether things are true or not. That "whole philosophy of thought that is built on materialism and naturalism" is much more than simply atheism, and needs to have a different name.

I knew it! Brownian likes teh butt sexers. Next thing you know he'll be advocatin miscegenation, equal rights for homosexers, equal rights for wimmin, and forcin pastors to marry dogs and cats of the same gender.

A few weeks or a month ago someone asked what "ontological somethingerother" was. This is a perfect example.

Atheists believe there God doesn't exist. Theists believe God exists. Word this another way. Theists believe in God. Therefore atheists believe in lack of God, or in other words, atheists believe in nothing. Nothing is a neutral vacuum thus any passion, philosophy, outlook, morality, etc. atheists may have claim to have must be oximoronic. To believe in dead neutralism is intellectual suicide so atheism is a self-destructive untenible philosophy.

I can carry this further. One can only believe in constructive positive concepts, so only constructive positive concepts are believable. Unbelievable things can not exist. Since no-one can believe in cowardice or ambiguity, cowardice and ambiguity don't exist. Since no-one believes in, say, breakfast cereal, breakfast cereal doesn't exist either.

===end experiment; begin serious woozy talk===
It'd be almost hard for me to believe John Terry, the Arkansas minister who said this, wasn't deliberating obfiscating and mangling the meanings of "belief", the concept of a belief, and the object of the belief, if only his credentials were slightly higher than a pudonk minister writing for a local paper. It should be obvious to any-one that believing a concept ("Whales are fish") is completely different than "having belief in" a concept ("I live my life on the tenet that whales are fish"). Likewise both believing a concept ("Whales are not fish"), "having belief in" a concept ("I live my life on the tenet of knowing that whales are not fish") are both different than the object of the concept ("I am passionately opposed to fish and demand whales not be them").

("I am passionately opposed to fish and demand whales not be them")

Ok, where is this bastard that's so adamantly opposed to fish?

I gotta fishbone to pick with them.

fish rule.

(all hail Dagon)

"yon fuckwit"!!!! What a wonderfully descriptive phrase! May I have your permission to use that in my daily discourse?

only if you add the standard intermediary word: demented.

as in:

yon demented fuckwit

shortening to only fuckwit is allowed after you have used the complete phrase (demented fuckwit) to correctly describe someone at least 3 times or more, and have a written record of having done so.

"But, soft! What blight off yonder fuckwit flakes?"

Say! Can we pull out you omnidirigent fuckwit for the more meddlesome types?

Say! Can we pull out you omnidirigent fuckwit for the more meddlesome types?

you'll have to put it to a vote.

the problem IMO is while "demented" is a common application and well known, as has been pointed out, "omnidirigent" is obscure at best.

unless we want to be accused of obscurantism, just like Vox, I'd have to vote against common usage.

I agree, but I have an ulterior motive.

But I suppose I can make due with "meddlesome motley-minded joithead" or "mammering swag-bellied maggot-pie!"

Bybelknap, I'm personally guilty of miscegenation, of advocating for equal rights for homosexers and wimmin, but I draw the line at forcing Pastors to marry pets of any sexual orientation or species.

As a cat fancier, I just don't see it working out.

#100:

("I am passionately opposed to fish and demand whales not be them")

Ok, where is this bastard that's so adamantly opposed to fish?

I gotta fishbone to pick with them.

fish rule.

Well, according to Terry Jones' logic, that bastard would be every person who believes whales aren't fish. For that matter, it'd be anyone who believes that anything is a fish might exist. In fact it is you for believing in a fishiness that implies the existence of a non-fishiness to against which to rate the fishiness.

But don't worry. These a-fish-iests believe in nothing so they aren't passionate in their hatred of fish.

atheism isn't about nothing: it's about valuing reason over superstition, about conquering unfounded fears, about facing the real world without crutches and lies to hold you up.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on this: atheism is a single position on a single question: are there any gods? What you list above isn't atheism, it's rationality.

Granted, there's a lot of overlap between people who call themselves atheists and people who value reason, but there's a distinction. I suspect at least part of this is because atheists who believe in silly things tend to call themselves something else, like "Buddhist" or "Raelian".

"But, soft! What blight off yonder fuckwit flakes?"

Way to keep it in meter and rhyme! You get a gold star.

Jesus has really pooped out engineering touchdowns for Notre Dame this fall. Must be legions of potential atheists in South Bend right now. Better get our recruiters over there right now!

"But, soft! What blight off yonder fuckwit flakes?"

Way to keep it in meter and rhyme! You get a gold star.

I agree. If this were a game of basketball, then Kseniya took my weak lob and alley-ooped it. Swish! Nothing but net!

I'm glad it's not a basketball game, though. I'd hate to see what Don Imus has to say about me.

I'm sure someone is going to sit there and dissect the letters of the word and tell me that atheism means only an absence of belief in gods, but screw that -- it's about a whole philosophy of thought that is built on materialism and naturalism.

Wow, thanks for excluding huge numbers of atheists in your formulation of what it means. Atheism is but one aspect of your philosophy and to tar the whole of people who are Atheists as believing what you do is incredibly arrogant. I'll admit, I agree with a lot of your opinions, but not wholly, and I suppose that means I'm out of your little club.

So, Brownian, you fancy cats, do you? Good. I think they are delicious. Siamese are a bit stringy, but Burmese, them's good eatin!

Say! Can we pull out you omnidirigent fuckwit for the more meddlesome types?

Well, VD's god may be omnidirigent, but unfortunately for him, I am not a dirigible.

I propose to use "omnidirigent" regularly (when appropriate, of course) and within a few weeks or months, Google will return many more hits for "omnidirigent" than for "omniderigent". It will then be revealed, by dint of common usage, that Vox has in fact mispelled the very word that he himself coined.

Brownian, basketball? Hey, I am a basketball player. At 5'9" I'm a bit short for alley-oops, though. :-)

Well, for what it's worth I felt compelled to write a response the the editor.

I probably should have proof-read.

And I probably was a *lot* "nicer" than idiots like him deserve.

Well, it probably won't get printed.

====
I feel compelled to point out the glaringly fallacious logic of Mr. Terry Jones editorial "A solemn and sad situation" (Sept. 22, 2007). The basis of the editorial is that atheists believe in "nothing" and it is impossible to be passionate about nothing.
Mr. Jones is rather drastically, if not deliberately, confusing believing a statement ("I believe Mr. Smith lives on Apple Lane") with "belief in" a statement ("I believe in forgiveness"). Furthermore, he is equating belief in a statement with faith in the nominative subject of a statement. When a person says "I am not hungry", he is not expressing anything about the concept of lack of hunger. He is expressing a concept about himself and it is that he isn't hungry. Likewise, when an atheist says "I do not believe in God" he is not saying that he believes in nothing. He is saying that he believes that the world exists without a God. This is very far from a belief in "nothing".
I have little to say about his first two "dangers" of atheism, except to say he is mistaken about the "apparent belief of atheists". No atheist believes his non-belief is a danger the Christianity nor individuals, nor does it in anyway affect the existence or non-existence of God. Indeed it'd be absurd to believe anyone's belief in anything should in anyway effect its exsistence in any way.
His third "danger" however, that without recognizing the restraints belief generates, the athiest may become "a pedophile, a murderer, a thief, or any other kind of deviant" simply fails scrutiny. The fact that our jails are filled with pedophiles, murderers, and thieves who profess a belief in God, shows that belief alone guarentees no such restraints. Likewise the fact that of the twenty to forty million athiests in the United States only a very few (no greater a precentage than among believers) are actually deviants, shows religious belief can not be the only source of restraints.
Rather than blaming the secularizing of the country for the rise in atheism, I'd suggest Mr. Jones consider the opinion of his fellow Christian, Rev. James Evans of "The Decatur Daily", who also on Sept. 22 addressed the issue. (http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/religion/columns/070922a.shtml). Unlike Mr. Jones, Rev. Evans considers for many turning away may be a form of running away from the narrow-mindedness of Christians like Mr. Jones, that "certain expressions of faith have made God too small to be embraced by those who experience the universe as vast and great."

Likewise the fact that of the twenty to forty million athiests in the United States only a very few (no greater a precentage than among believers) are actually deviants, shows religious belief can not be the only source of restraints.

This implies that restraint is necessary for not becoming "a deviant". It shouldn't.

woozy, very nice!

re: #116

I didn't want to go into any discussion about the nature of morality or forces that keep us (or fail to keep us) moral.

Suffice it to say:
a) the "restraints of belief" aren't sufficient to keep/make us moral. Evidenced by the many christian "deviants".
b) the "restraints of belief" aren't nescessary to keep/make us moral. Evidenced by deviancy among athiests is at most no higher than deviancy among christians.

You are right that both Jones and the wording of my rebuttal imply that it is restraint is nescessary to avoid deviance and, of course, you are right. "Deviance" is not nescessarily a natural or desirable state.

Perhaps I should have worded it:

Likewise the fact that of the twenty to forty million athiests in the United States only a very few (no greater a precentage than among believers) are actually deviants, shows the restraints of religious belief can not be the only prevention of deviance.

#117

Thank you, Ema.

Maybe it's the mathematician in me, but frequently what irritates me most about the garbage spouted by idiots like Jones isn't the bigoted viewpoint but the lazy and contorted logic. I can tolerate people saying things such as "Athiesm is a cynical viewpoint" or "All morality come from God" which, although I couldn't disagree with more, are at least self-consistant and defensible, but when Jones uses a lazy and dishonest transference like "How can anyone be passionate about nothing" it sets my teeth on edge. Likewise when someone makes a prediction that without a belief in god people will become immoral, I have to respond as with any other prediction with a simple look at the evidence.

Faulty logic is just laziness and, to me, smacks of a cheap attempt to emotionally sway.

So, Brownian, you fancy cats, do you? Good. I think they are delicious. Siamese are a bit stringy, but Burmese, them's good eatin!

Boorish oaf! Cats are not to be eaten! They are to be swirled, sniffed, swished, sucked, savoured, and spit, not scarfed down like breaded scampi at Red Lobster. Fool! Eat like that and you'll end up piss-drunk and face-down in the kibble with half the cats untasted, not to mention being the laughingstock at the next AA meeting (Ailurophiles of America).

I propose to use "omnidirigent" regularly (when appropriate, of course) and within a few weeks or months, Google will return many more hits for "omnidirigent" than for "omniderigent". It will then be revealed, by dint of common usage, that Vox has in fact mispelled the very word that he himself coined.

Kseniya, my dear, you are my kind of evil.

So the Northwest Arkansas Times hasn't published my letter yet. Considering the number of typos, and spelling and gramatical errors (admittedly *not* my strong suit) I made, and the fact that I'm in Berkeley, Ca. (about as not-local as you can get) I'm not surprised.

They did publish a letter from one local. The letter had the same Dawkin inspired comments all of us athiests make: athiests are the most unfairly hated group, and there are fewer representative athiests in jail than professed christians.

It makes me wonder though. The "new athiesm" arguments are very simple. We make the same arguments over and over again. And yet I have yet to hear any anti-new-athiest ever address or rebut them.

===From today's Northwest Arkansas Times letters to the editor===

A PLATFORM FROM WHICH TO HATE
On Saturday, Sept. 22, the Northwest Arkansas Times published an opinion piece by John Terry entitled " A solemn and sad situation" in which he suggests that an atheist is likely to become " a pedophile, a murderer, a thief, or any other kind of a deviant you can think of. " It is absurd that such a statement should even have to be addressed -- but given that it was published in the most highly circulated paper in the region, it demands it. Mr. Terry attempts to wrap his brain around the idea of a passionate atheist, and then proceeds to give one of the most excellent examples I have ever seen of why so many of us are becoming more vocal.

Atheists are the most reviled group of citizens in this country. A recent study from the University of Minnesota (one of those darned secular universities ) found that " Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other minority groups in " sharing their vision of American society. " Knowing how many Americans feel about Muslims and homosexuals, it is pretty scary to see us ranked below them. It is the casual bigotry of people like Mr. Terry -- who don't even have the decency to be ashamed -- that gets to us. He is the reason we are becoming so passionate.

The fact is, as a group, the percentage of the incarcerated who are atheists is far lower than the percentage of atheists as a whole. America is the most Christian nation in the world, and has never been more so. Yet our economy is crashing around us, poverty and teen pregnancy are on the rise, and we have the largest percentage of citizens imprisoned of any country in the world. And regarding the outrageous claim I quoted to begin this response, I would hope that, as a minister himself, Mr. Terry would remember Matthew 7: 3: " Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye ?" In a society that prides itself on the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech (to say nothing of the freedom of religion so many assume applies only to their own ), it is important to remember the responsibility we citizens share in not abusing those rights. Mr. Terry has overstepped the bounds of that responsibility, as is also his right. But it saddens and frightens me that an esteemed publication such as the Northwest Arkansas Times would give him a platform from which to spread his hatred.
James Allen / Bentonville

Kseniya, I expect to have many opportunities to help with your plan to google bomb the word omnidirigent, and used it over on the amoral atheists thread. The response I got highlights the contrast between us amoral atheists, and those amoral theists.

"but when Jones uses a lazy and dishonest transference like "How can anyone be passionate about nothing" it sets my teeth on edge."

It's almost like he had never actually met an atheist and wrote about them anyway. I mean, you know, not that I would ever want to accuse him of such an un-priestly sort of thing. Perish the thought.

Re #107

"Atheism isn't about nothing: it's about valuing reason over superstition, about conquering unfounded fears, about facing the real world without crutches and lies to hold you up." -- PZ original post

#107 then wrote:
"I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on this: atheism is a single position on a single question: are there any gods? What you list above isn't atheism, it's rationality.

"Granted, there's a lot of overlap between people who call themselves atheists and people who value reason, but there's a distinction. I suspect at least part of this is because atheists who believe in silly things tend to call themselves something else, like "Buddhist" or "Raelian"."

"Silly things"? Eh, before you further embarrass yourself with your ignorance, you might want to read briefly some literature about Buddhism. For one thing, it now has no ontological commitment to a deity (Buddha was not a deity). For another, Buddhism is a religion to the extent that some of its schools involve practices such as ritual chanting, meditation, effigies of the spirit of compassion, and so forth, all as an aid to focus the mind on the necessity for concentrated action in the here and now, but always with compassion for other beings at the foremost of this concentrated awareness. As such, Buddhism is much less than a religion and more a systematic psychology applied to the practice of happiness in life; read almost anything by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, you'll find him really funny in the way he expresses the insights of the Buddha. This conception of Buddhism finds its zenith in contemporary Korean Zen Buddhism, although Tibetan Buddhism, and Japanese Zen Buddhism are critical ancestors. It is perfectly possible to live as a Buddhist without believing that reincarnation of souls is a physical reality; even the Dalai Lama would not be terribly concerned if that belief turned out to be false. For the relief of suffering, right action trumps right belief. He would, however, with his lifelong interest in Western science, be concerned that certain phenomena were suddenly both observable, and yet, lack an explanatory paradigm. Actually, less "concerned" than delighted at the prospect of new discovery! Watch the film "Seven Years in Tibet" -- true story. The Wikipedia entries document the evolution of Buddhist thought to the present, about 2500 years.

Yes, Seven Years in Tibet was very interesting. (And hey - Brad Pitt!)

The documentary film Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion is also well worth a look. Essential, even.

Could use your help -- click here.

Anyone remember loonies like AFdave or other fundies that showed up on Panda's thumb? I'm looking for any forums or posts where people like that might be posting so I can run some comparisons and data checks.

If you do, please, click the above link and drop me a link on my blog.

Doug,

"Silly things"? Eh, before you further embarrass yourself with your ignorance, you might want to read briefly some literature about Buddhism. For one thing, it now has no ontological commitment to a deity (Buddha was not a deity). For another, Buddhism is a religion to the extent that some of its schools involve practices such as ritual chanting, meditation, effigies of the spirit of compassion, and so forth, all as an aid to focus the mind on the necessity for concentrated action in the here and now, but always with compassion for other beings at the foremost of this concentrated awareness. As such, Buddhism is much less than a religion and more a systematic psychology applied to the practice of happiness in life; read almost anything by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, you'll find him really funny in the way he expresses the insights of the Buddha.

None of that really alters the fact that many Buddhists do believe in silly things, and practice Buddhism at a religion. There are many Pureland adherents who venerate Amitabha not just as an aid to mental focus, but on the belief that he's a real being who can help them reach Paradise. The Dalai Lama is very clear about his positive belief in gods, precognition, miracles, literal reincarnation, and so forth.

It's quite true that Buddhists tend to say you're not morally required to believe such things, and that they wouldn't believe them if there was solid evidence against. But so do liberal Christians. (For that matter, some of the most liberal Christians consider the supernatural elements of their faith to be metaphorical. I've met some self-labeled Christians who consider Jesus to be a great, but mortal, philosopher. Bishop Spong is far more committed to science and naturalism than is the Dalai Lama.)

In any case, arensb didn't assert that all Buddhists believe in silly things; rather, that an atheist who does believe in Buddhist-associated silly things is more likely to identify as a Buddhist than as an atheist.

Hey, could somebody tell PZ to turn down the Barry White? It's coming through the walls and everything! I mean, passion's OK but geez, God and everybody knows it when he brings a new squid up to his room!

Likewise the fact that of the twenty to forty million athiests in the United States only a very few (no greater a precentage than among believers) are actually deviants, shows religious belief can not be the only source of restraints.

This implies that restraint is necessary for not becoming "a deviant". It shouldn't.