See, this is the problem with the godless liberal media: they can sometimes treat the rise of atheism as something newsworthy, and in a good way, instead of simply slapping us down. The NYT actually has a reassuring story, More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops, that talks about the sudden surge of assertive atheism all over the country, from rural and traditionally conservative regions of the country to college campuses.
This is the kind of article that should cause the religious to worry. It's not their common hysteria about the vicious atheists coming to eat their puppies…it's about the reality of atheism, which is that it is made up of mostly good people who want to live their lives well.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
At last, I get it. I understand what "framing" is. It's pandering to the status quo, the petty conventions, and the bigotry of the majority. It means don't rock the boat, don't be different, don't stand up for your beliefs. It means CONFORM. You will get other people to support you if you just…
I received 45 submissions for this edition of The Carnival of the Liberals, and the carnival rules required me to select only a final ten. That was harsh; there were many excellent links sent in, and I struggled with the need to reject so many. Ultimately, I just had to let my own biases rule my…
Remember Melinda Barton and that awful piece on the Raw Story? It was taken down, and now it's back up with a few changes, I think. The editors asked me to submit a rebuttal. It's online at the Raw Story now, along with that lovely icon to the right ("Secular Horror"?). You can read it there, or…
Richard Dawkins has a new television series, The Enemies of Reason, that will be broadcast in the UK. I have not heard if it will make it to the US; if it's anything like our experience with his last program, Root of all evil?, it will be buried in post-midnight showings on scattered PBS stations,…
For the record, Dr. Heddle, Steve was talking about favorable treatment enjoyed by religion institutions, not by you personally.
heddle @ 36
Your damn right we think highly of ourselves. Why should a person whose mind and life is free from the stultifying madness of religion not think of themselves above people as yourself so afflicted. Your imaginary god may be above you, but we have no gods below us.
People are still feeding Robert the Troll?
I mean, seriously? Still?
Steve C, Robert made it loud and clear with his first post that he is a dipship. But you are ignoring one of the favorite sports of this blog, the troll stomp. Why else would I have these pretty blood red wooden shoes? All I want is for Robert to address my concerns that he is still beating his wife.
However, in my state it is still against the law for atheists to hold office. An atheist neighbor of mine has suggested that we run for office and challenge the law.
Those laws may be on the books, or in state constitutions, but they have been a dead letter for decades. See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). Whether, as an atheist, you can actually get elected is another matter.
Holbach,
Well that is convincing.
But thinking highly of yourself simply because you claim the right to think highly of yourself is, obviously, bogus. Tell me what you have done that deserves admiration, respect, or kudos. Being an atheist isn't it. I was an atheist--it took no effort--and even if it was the correct position, I deserved no credit for adopting it (or for abandoning it.)
And being stuck in an infinite for-loop with an embedded "imaginary gods" print statement isn't it either.
Suppose he has time to beat his wife? There's all that son and slave beating to attend to.
Inquiring minds want to know!
Oh I totally enjoy a good troll stomp. But he's the type of troll that will just post the same shit over and over, he's not even entertaining to read.
We can has ban for Robert? Really, I like a good troll-kicking as much as the next person but this one doesn't make any attempt to seem on topic or to attempt to defend his claims.
Also he keeps dodging the question about when he stopped beating his wife.
CJColucci@92
I realize these laws are most likely unenforceable, but they need to be removed from the books. An atheist might not win a statewide election, but I live in Cabrorro, NC... or the Berkeley of NC as we like to call it, and an atheist might win a local election here.
Steve_C, Robert still has that New Troll Smell but that is the only thing he has going for him. It is becoming close to time to discard that broken toy. He won't even address my concern.
Patricia! Are you suggesting that Robert would break US laws about the keeping of slaves?
Janine - Of course I'm suggesting that. Robert has a GAWD given right to own all the slaves, wives, sons and chattel he cares to.
There are six state constitutions that bar atheists from holding office, but these are all holdovers from colonial days and none are enforceable since they are superseded by the federal constitution and the 14th amendment. There is no argument about this.
As far as privileges received by religious institutions, they are almost too numerous to count. Aside from tax breaks that are not enjoyed by other non-profits, they are exempt from all sorts of zoning laws, non-discrimination hiring laws, health laws (such as mandatory vaccines), the list goes on and on. The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) exempts religious institutions from all sorts of state land use laws and mandates special treatment for prisoners of faith in state prisons.
Robert wrote:
ZING!
Rush, is that you?
heddle @ 93
See, I knew you would be convinced by that comment; the problem is that you could never apply it to youself because most of your thinking and reason neurons are taken up by nonsense religion. Your cranial void has been occupied to it's fullest and there is no more room to reason with. It's not your fault that there is no imaginary god, but it is definitely your fault for believing so.
The admiration, respect and kudos is what I honor myself with, as well as the same from like-minded rational people. I definitely do not expect those same principles proffered from you in your current state of dementia, as you are unable to appreciate a rational mind. No, you were not a real atheist, more of a phony I conjecture. And any former atheist who reverts to religious insanity has either been physically or mentally wounded, and your current condition is perhaps what you deserve after a short life of reason.
Yes, "imaginary gods" is an apt wording, for the double negative just proves the senselessness of it all.
You will not win heddle, as my reason is stronger than your befuddled unreason.
Alright, alright. Inquiring minds (e.g., Janine, Patricia, Matt) want to know the status and schedule of my wife-beating.
Given that she is two inches taller than me (four in heels), I find it easiest to stand on a stool during the physical abuse. Since she is also pregnant, and I don't want to hurt our future baby (#4!), I am restricted to administering Indian burns and noogies.
Re: Trish @81
Not all churches are responding to the economic crisis in the way that you describe -- and I suspect that much of the laudatory activity comes from individuals that help no matter what their beliefs are.
Dallin H. Oaks, Mormon Apostle, gave a talk at the April 2009 General Conference in which he basically told the flock that they shouldn't depend on the church for help. Here's a summary from one of the attendees:
[Apostle Oaks] emphasized how he and others had REPEATEDLY counseled us to avoid debt and become self-sufficient: "I have said this again and again at numerous stake conferences around the midwest... AVOID DEBT."
He then gave advice for keeping out debt. He paused for a few seconds, encouraging members to write these things down. "Husbands should regularly tell their wives these four things:
1) I love you
2) I'm sorry
3) Yes, dear
4) We can't afford it"
He made it very clear that the church welfare program was to be used as a last resort. I'm sure if anyone falls into need now or is using the system, they must feel VERY GUILTY. I felt really bad for a large, faithful, tithe- paying family in sitting close to me. Their father had lost his job and the church had been helping them with their mortgage payments so they wouldn't be foreclosed. Oaks words must have been very painful to them.
As an aside, the fasts offering program here in the Midwest is running a huge deficit (according to our leaders). A new strategy has been introduced to increase donations: the deacons will now travel by car great distances with the priests to collect fast offerings (this is done in Utah where member live close together-not as practical our here).
He then indicated that through TITHING we can QUALIFY for all blessings the Lord has for us.
[end excerpt -- you can read the entire post at http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon576.htm]
The anti-funny little troll does not even understand why I expressed my concern.
I hear that. Christianity has been organizing for 1800 years, with the benefit of having something to organize around. Atheists, not so much. Only in the past two hundred years have they not had to worry quite so much about being tortured and incinerated for their infidelity at the hands of their less charitably-inclined Christian neighbors, and even now have had to watch while fundies like George W. Bush exert pressure on government entities to divert funds away from secular organizations like CARE and towards faith-based organizations. It's like swimming upstream and being blamed for the flow of the river.
Tomh, I didn't look up which others states have an atheist ban, but Texas was admitted to the Union (unfortunately) in 1845.
Four Robert, Jr.'s... four! Damn it, it's not even 10:00AM here and I get boggled.
Robert @ 23
Shouldn't we be taxing the churches and only getting what those houses of insanity owe to the public all these years? I would tax those nonsense buildings for more than they are worth, as a penalty, and also make that tax retroactive back to the first church built or whenever taxes were first enacted. And another tax at the door to each church to clip the morons who enter. I would vote for these measures if ever a referendum was passed. Tax those insane houses right out of the idiot business and convert them to science labs, schools, libraries, and even sanitation plants. You morons want to keep houses of insanity, you should pay for them out of your own pocket and also pay the taxes. Tax those dung heaps!
dkew wrote: I didn't look up which others states have an atheist ban, but Texas was admitted to the Union (unfortunately) in 1845.
Turns out there are seven, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennesee, and Texas. And you're right, the last two are post-colonial.
Robert the troll wrote: "It's 9:55AM, and you're posting on the blog"
Stupid troll. Never heard of a time-stamped auto-post.
Everyone laugh at the stupid dumbass!
@110
Actually, that's not quite accurate. I shouldn't do these things from memory. Arkansas also has a provision, "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court," whereas Pennsylvania only has specific protections for religious people,
Religions have the considerable advantage of organization and off-the-shelf ceremonies for the major passages of life. And there's nothing wrong with this. It's harder for atheists. They don't have off-the-shelf ceremonies and our own, made-up versions are often treacly. As far as organization goes, it's a lot easier to form a chess club than it is to form a club of people who don't play chess. I don't see this changing in the short to medium-term future.
Guy Lombardo? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-LSlApiGew&feature=related
1. Zebrafish lay in the morning, dumbass. Most of the zfin experimenters that I know look at the embryos in the evening when they've had time to mature. And you don't do experiments every day, either.
2. This blog has an "auto-post" feature. It means many posts can be written and timed to pop-up through the day.
3. Professor hours are not business hours. Many teach at night. So they don't show up until later in the day.
4. It's none of your fucking business anyway.
Puppies, being small, are harder to clean. Much less meat-to-weight yield. Kind of like squirrels...
Heddle said:
Ah, ha ha ha ha aha haaaa... eleventy-one!!1!1!
YOU think the universe was created for YOU! We think too highly of ourselves? Son, against your privileged-planet, center-of-the-universe delusional-arrogance, reason beats in vain...
So don't act like we "think too highly" of ourselves. We, by-and-large, just think we're clever animals lucky to be alive. And not the reason for creation!
heddle:
I would recommend a do statement. Why waste cycles iterating and testing a superfluous counter? ;-)
Tomh, Thinking about state histories a bit more: all of their constitutions are post-colonial, by definition as well as date.
Bye, Robert. Hope you enjoy being in the dungeon with the rest of the scum.
I like the title of the article, an allusion to scripture
Trish,
I am curious where it is you live that doesn't have secular organizations providing for the needy. Feeding America (previously known as Second Harvest Food Bank) is nation-wide, as far as I know. So is Meals On Wheels. I'm sure there are others--these are just two I have contributed to.
As an atheist, I feel no need to establish an atheist version of a charity. I'd even contribute to a faith-based charity if it is effective, hands out its help fairly with no strings attached, and doesn't proselytize.
dkew wrote: Thinking about state histories a bit more: all of their constitutions are post-colonial, by definition as well as date.
You're right, of course, since technically the colonial era ended with the Declaration of Independence in 1776. This is when most states began writing their constitutions and almost all of the original ones were adopted during the war. It's interesting that almost all included a religious test for office, meant to keep out atheists and, in many cases, Catholics. The only ones that didn't have a test were NY and Virginia. The first constitution to prohibit a religious test was the US Constitution of 1787.
Ooh, time for a game of Whacko-Troll(tm)! Such concentrated stupidity, where to begin?
1. Robert apparently believes that blog posts are written the instant he reads them. The timestamp is 9:03 am, not 9:55 am.
2. Despite making a big point about being in a different time zone, Robert failed to consider what time zone PZ is in. Morris is in Minnesota. That's in the US Central time zone. SciencBlog time is US Eastern time zone. It was 8:03 am for PZ when this posted. He doesn't teach any classes before 11:40 am on Mondays. That gives him more than three hours to prepare.
3. What everyone already said. Including the fact that PZ has said on several occasions that he schedules posts to appear so that people around the wold would have fresh material to read.
Bystanders should keep in mind that the group of Christians that Heddle claims to represent is barely half the size of the group of Christians he is pooh-poohing. A silent minority (23%) vs. a vocal plurality (42%). His claim to being a representative of that class is based almost entirely on his perception of his local church.
Watchman @ #118:
You're forgetting this amusing syntax, supported by most C-like languages:
</geekpedant>
pcarini, you are correct! I'd forgotten about the no-condition, no-iteration form. *facepalm*
I don't want to hurt our future baby (#4!)
*sigh*
It's Idiocracy, I sez.
A few thousand can make a big noise about anything and it's still a negligible fraction.
There are more than 30 million members in the Evangelical Church of America, Heddle.
(That's the one that Pastor Ted "I lubs to snort speed off gay hooker ass" Haggard used to be the head of, remember?)
I still, and always have, encourage you to look outside your tiny little church once in a while. It's a big world out there.
I know it's scary, but you're a big boy now.
Kevin @124
"3. What everyone already said. Including the fact that PZ has said on several occasions that he schedules posts to appear so that people around the wold would have fresh material to read"
For which I am forever grateful to PZ for!! This site has been highly informative and entertaining. Not to mention a 'quiet' oasis in a desert of religiousity out there. Thanks again PZ and keep up the excellent work.
Heddle,
Would it be too much trouble to ask you to elucidate your views on separation of church and state in regards to education, gay marriage, the military, influence on government? I am just wondering because we only seem to get creationist input from the theists on this site.
Do you agree with the national government's faith-based initiatives expanded by Bush that are present until today? Do you agree that the issue of gay marriage should be resolved purely as a civil rights issue without any discussion as to what a religious "definition" of marriage is? Do you believe that religion has absolutely no place in our military? Do you believe that religion (or thinly disguised religion, aka. Intelligent Design) should not be taught in public schools? IOW, do you believe in the complete separation of church and state?
If you do, then you definitely are not the type of theist we are used to seeing on these boards.
On the other hand, if one worships at the church of Free Speech, one is not exactly an atheist, right? Or Freedom of Thought or the Goddess of Democracy or...
One of the funniest quiet revolutions in family life is the one brought about by reliable birth control. In many families, when one of the children brings home their One True Love to announce that they're going to marry and be Happy Ever After, parents are apt to murmur, "Are you sure you don't want to live together for a while first?"
This has, apparently, gone completely unremarked among sociologists.
Posted by: Robert @ 47 "Y'all's inconsistent answers are pushing my tiny, religious brain! I'm being told, variously, that Ass.Prof. Myers is salaried, so can blog all day if he wants (which he clearly does); that he works non-traditional hours; that he writes all of these posts on his own time and then puts them on auto-posts (which I'm amazed to know that you all can state he does with certainty); or that it's OK for him to blog during the work day. So which is it?"
All of the above, in various combinations, as he sees fit and is convenient to his daily schedule.
How does Janine not have a Molly?
Y'all's inconsistent answers are pushing my tiny, religious brain!
Is it a pea, or is it a brain? Whatever it is, it is apparently so tiny that it can't encompass the difference between "inconsistent" and "more than one".
that he writes all of these posts on his own time and then puts them on auto-posts
Nor the difference between having the ability to do something and always doing it.
(which I'm amazed to know that you all can state he does with certainty)
No one stated anything with certainty, but that it was stated might just have something to do with PZ saying he does this.
So get to work!
I agree. PZ has been lax and has allowed Mr. O'Brien to escape the dungeon; time to stuff him back in.
This has, apparently, gone completely unremarked among sociologists.
Do you suppose that there there's no dark side of the moon because you haven't personally seen it?
I've heard that sometimes he's so worn out he doesn't bother to remove his coveralls and forgets to punch the time clock on his way out.
Monado, a quick google yields http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/340778
How does Janine not have a Molly?
Damn good question... insulting sinner - check, one of the Gruesome Trio , check, ignorant slut, check - vile bitch, check, trusted keeper of the brass bosoms - check.
Sounds like a Molly winner to me. :)
to RamziD, #131,
No. Get rid of them.
Yes. I also believe that churches can continue to provide the private religious ceremony, with the right to exclude whomever they want.
No. If it provides emotional comfort to some critical mass of soldiers, then I support it. I am fine with restrictions on proselytizing and fund-raising for parachurch organizations from those in uniform—but I support the notion of a modest and well-disciplined chaplain corps for the major faiths. I also support harsh punishment for those who attack or discriminate against those who believe differently.
I don't think it should be taught in science class, period. I think it can be a topic in a humanities class, for example as a current-events topic, or in a philosophy class.
That is not a proper IOW, but like a good Baptist yes, I believe in separation of church and state. Here are my church's articles of faith, which I support. See section 5, items E and H.
That may be true—but you need to ask if the type you are used to seeing on here is representative, or if there is something about his (possibly minority) position that encourages him to come on here and pke you with a stick.
Previous "Anonymous" post was mine. Obviously.
possibly minority
possibly.
good, Heddle. At this rate, in a few years you might even be able to drop the "possibly".
Acknowledge a Supreme Being? I can think of several supreme beings. The girls from the Supremes are an obvious start. Or how about Ruth Ginsberg?
If they won't accept human examples, Texans can always point to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pasta sauce be on him). Or maybe Azathoth, the mad blind god.
I did want to thank Robert for his post in which he - albeit sulkily - apologized for his asanine comments about our host's work habits, and in which he says he's going to try to find out what's actually going on rather than just sitting around and whining.
It's posts like those that show that he's not a squabbling little toad.
That's post #...
Hmm, I can't seem to find a post like that.
Pity.
20 years ago, I wouldn't have seen anything useful about evangelizing atheism or being aggressive about it. Today, though, it's obvious to me that the neo-con radicalization of politics has done the same to evangelical Christianity - and that it's time to put a stop to it.
Keep it up, atheists. In a perfect world, discussions about (a lack of) God would be kept personal, but when in Rome...
I like that bit about supreme being - I wonder how lawyers interpret it. How about Diana Ross?
Well. I must say I am a little saddened by the attitudes I see here regarding people of religion. Some of you are making assumptions that all religious people think alike. That we are all stupid small minded and we all always screw everything up but atheists are perfect. I am confused that the only way to truth is to be an atheist free-thinker. Sounds a little similar to the claims of religious people saying their way is the only way.
Oh, also, I liked the comment earlier in the thread about how heddle was never 'really an atheist' Gee that sounds an awful lot like a No True Scotsman Fallacy that religious people are notorious for using.
You know a fairly large majority of religious people do NOT believe that their faith is the only true faith: http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons# (Except, oddly, Jehovah's Witnesses...Click on beliefs and practices to the survey down the page)
Many religions also accept evolution: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=394 (I was actually surprised by this survey but happily so.)
And guess what? Many other religious people are totally fine with homosexuality too: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=245
Bottom line: no two people think totally alike and it would be nice if other people would see that.
One last thing I will say that might blow your mind. As a Christian I am thrilled that we have atheists in the world. No sarcasm. You guys add a wonderfully needed perspective on the world.I just wish some of you were not so verbally abusive or hostile to those who are religious. (Exceptions made for Jerry Falwell and his ilk.)
Nicolae I was going to blast you, but frankly I think you have some good points.
The problem a lot of us have is that by subscribing to a religion means you are sacrificing rational thinking for irrational.
And yes I know we all do it. But being irrational about a baseball team, or a pets love is a whole exponentially smaller level of irrationality than religion, something that is supposed to guide your life.
Heddle,
Thank you for responding. I have to say, I agree with all of your answers except for having religious personnel within the military. If all religious people felt like you and wanted to keep religion a private matter that doesn't interject itself into the government sphere, then the U.S. would be a much better place.
I think you will find that, for the most part, most atheists would not have any quarrels with this type of benign religiosity. However, the choice for being theist/atheist, religious/non-religious should be private for everyone. That includes your children, mine, and everyone elses.
There is one overriding difference between theists and atheists, though, and this is something that I'm afraid cannot be reconciled between the two schools of thought. That is, like Rev. BDC explained above, the difference between rational thinking and irrational thinking. Faith is irrational. We see the dangers of that mindset that go well beyond religion.