...I’m increasingly suspicious that he’s less a true believer with his head up his own ass and more a right wing operative trying to increase the political power of the religious right by luring Catholics into the fold.

I’d say that more than suspicion is warranted; it seems pretty clear that that’s precisely his angle (to the extent that he’s not simply an attention-seeking gasbag). He speaks for a fairly small but noisy cohort of loony-right soi-disant Catholics who identify more with with the Christian right (despite the powerful anti-Catholic current within it) than with most of their co-religionists.

Donohue’s “thought” definitely seems to be more with American fundamentalists than with either American Catholics or official Vatican doctrine. True, concern about the host would be a bit weird for a Protestant, but I’m sure he could sell it to a fundamentalist as just an act of witchcraft and blasphemy. Fundies totally lose their shit over that. I’ve never seen Donohue support some of the non-sexist social doctrine of the Catholic Church. Anti-death penalty, anti-Iraq, pro-welfare, pro-union, pro-living wage.

I might buy his Catholic ADL line if he was prepared to attack religious right nutjobs talking about the Antichrist in Rome or Mary-idol worshippers. I’m not holding my breath.

Donohue and his co-horts are what they decry the loudest:  “Cafeteria Catholics”.

They pick and choose, and consistently choose the most hateful parts and choose to attack those who are different.

Forget Jesus’ good news.  No chapters of Matthew for them.  No hiding their faith in a closet and hiding hypocrisy.  No helping the poor, sick, infirm, and imprisoned b/c how you treat the worst of society = how you treat Jesus.

The creationism bit is a bit shocking, though.  That’s not Catholic—Catholics have been pro-evolution for decades (with the caveat that God is directing it all from behind the curtains).  Catholics are not literal Bible people—that’s a relatively new phenomenon from the Protestant/Dominionist/Evangelical world.

But most “real” Catholics are embarrassed by Donohue anyway.  I don’t understand why the bishops don’t tell him to shush, except that most bishops were appointed by JPII and are more power-hungry politicians and ‘correctors’ than serve-the-Church types.  What’s a little heresy if it increases control and obedience?

Yeah, the obsession with the host as a fetish object is far more in line with current Fundy Protestant thinking.  than mainstream Catholicism.  It frankly reminds me a lot of the way that some evangelicals believe that simply by uttering the Sinner’s Prayer, you become saved and anything you did before or may do after is officially void because you are automatically going to heaven now. 

That said, does anybody remember that passage of Angela’s Ashes where Frank McCaourt throws up the communion wafer in the back yard, and it’s a big deal and nobody can figure out what to do?  Hilarious.  Or, you know, in the context of that thoroughly depressing book.

I don’t understand why the bishops don’t tell him to shush, except that most bishops were appointed by JPII and are more power-hungry politicians and ‘correctors’ than serve-the-Church types.

I’ve always wondered that myself.  He’s not a priest—he’s not even a deacon.  He’s just an asshole with a fax machine who claims to speak for the Catholic Church.  You’d think that if nothing else, the Church would want to protect their brand from unauthorized spokespeople.

Possibly my favorite Donohue moment (from an ex-Catholic point of view) was when he denounced a Jesuit for his incorrect interpretation of Catholic doctrine.  Because, of course, layman Bill Donohue knows much more about Catholic doctrine and dogma than a lowly priest.

I think the heard of the problem is a rather wrong thinking of the idea of freedom. I’m not going to go spy on people, because I think that they have a right to privacy. However, in the eyes of guys like Donohuse (or I’d argue, most people), rights and freedoms are something strictly having to do with the authorities, full stop. It’s not something they have to extend to other people, it’s something they are entitled to.

When someone can not express their personal (I do think there’s a difference between personal opinion and actual action, sometimes your opinions CAN truly affect other people) opinion without being threatened with losing their livelihood, then nobody is truly free.

But most “real” Catholics are embarrassed by Donohue anyway.  I don’t understand why the bishops don’t tell him to shush, except that most bishops were appointed by JPII and are more power-hungry politicians and ‘correctors’ than serve-the-Church types.  What’s a little heresy if it increases control and obedience?

Another delicious pancake.

Donahue serves the same political purpose for the Catholic Church as street thugs do for third world political parties: he attacks people that they want attacked to serve the darker, more menacing core of their philosophy, the one that they deep down in their hearts want, but realize that it is impolitic to admit out loud.

Maybe he’s a lapsed Catholic, and he just lapsed the wrong way. He still thinks of himself as “technically” a Catholic—having been raised and baptized and confirmed and all… maybe Catholocism is a race/religion, like Judaism. So he doesn’t really hold with the Church doctrine, but unlike most Catholics, who just want someone to cut them a little slack and let them try to live their lives and stop going to church, Donohue decided that there’s not enough judgement and retribution and punishment in the Catholic Church, and he’s much happier in Southern Baptist/Pentecostal/NonDenom churches. So he’s still saying “I’m a Catholic” because he can’t stop identifying with how he was raised?

(I’m thinking too hard about this. Occham’s Razor tells me he’s just a greedy, exploitative, politically expedient, self-serving asshole)

He still thinks of himself as “technically” a Catholic—having been raised and baptized and confirmed and all…

IIRC, the only ways to leave the Catholic Church are excommunication and officially converting to another religion.  Unless one of those two things happens, you’re still on the rolls even if you haven’t set foot in a church for years.

And there is a certain cultural identification associated with being a Catholic, I think.  I still identify myself as a Catholic, not because I believe in their teachings or go to church (we were married by Unitarians, fer chrissakes) but because it’s a handy shorthand to explain where many of my cultural references come from.

Donohue never denounces anyone unless they’re a non-Republican, so he’s strictly a political attack dog. I doubt he’s really a Catholic or a Christian at all. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that he never attends mass…

Without trying to repeat much of what Jesse said, the real discrimination only occurs if someone is punished by job loss for speaking out against religion.

In Donohue’s case, he wants people punished for speaking in any way that does not praise Catholicism. Don’t think he would have batted an eye if Amanda were mocking Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other faith except, you know, the right one. He probably would have sent her flowers, actually.

Possibly my favorite Donohue moment (from an ex-Catholic point of view) was when he denounced a Jesuit for his incorrect interpretation of Catholic doctrine.  Because, of course, layman Bill Donohue knows much more about Catholic doctrine and dogma than a lowly priest.

Actually, that’s typical Opus Dei BS, that Jesuits are all heretics, basically. I wonder if Donahue has any connection to Opus Dei

>>Because, of course, layman Bill Donohue knows much more about Catholic doctrine and dogma than a lowly priest.

Not just a priest. A Jesuit.

It’s like one of the chickenhawks questionning the military knowledge not just of an army infantry grunt, but a member of the elitest corp of the Marines.

Seriously, the Jesuits unceasingly study theology, rhetoric and debate tactics because they feel it’s their duty as foot soldiers of the church to convince people of Catholic doctrine through education and rational debate. Now I may differ (a lot) with them on their conclusions, but I respect their philosophy a lot.

This is pure power politics. Somebody is pulling string from the inside. So it’s time to dig any progressive catholic connection to counter CL. 

Writing to progressive audience has little effect on what they do. One has to get the higher up that can control donohoue.

So what everybody must do is go out and talk to people that “matter” surrounding donohoue, start with liberal catholic blogs.

Stop whining like a WASP. It doesn’t work in catholic circle.

“So, Donohue is a creationist.  “

He is not a creationist. He is a whore. He answer to power and money. This is as old as the church itself.  You got to find the people who control and pay him in order to stop him.

Following Mnemosyne, I think that a more useful description of Donahue’s actions would be as part of his cultural outlook.  Amanda would benefit from reading Clifford Geertz, specifically his definitions of the semiotics of religious “moods” and “motives.”

I agree with about everything Amanda has written in this post, and most especially with the general tone of frustration at Donahue’s asshattery.  That being said (and I speak as a liberal protestant who thinks evolution obviously happens, and rolls his eyes at creationists inability to reconcile their faith with science), why is this sentence necessary: “There’s a lot of theological hokum that means that they’re not 100% on board, which is to be expected, because religious power-holders realize how big a threat science is to religion, and therefore to their power.”  Why describe theology as “hokum”?  Okay, I realize the answer (or at least part of it) is that Amanda really does think theology is hokum, but I think that’s a shame.  Regardless of your religion or lack thereof, there is a whole bunch of interesting and beautiful stuff in theological writing.

I think what Amanda really means is that the specific theological writings that underpin Christianity are “hokum.”  But shouldn’t then all of the rest of it, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, whatever be “hokum”?  I think that Amanda is (as are we all) the product of a wide variety of cultural moments and formations.  I, for example, am influenced implicitly by the culture characteristic of certain aspects of the religious right, in which I grew up; by the culture of the arts, in which I worked for years; more explicitly by the particular culture of liberal friends and the liberal blogsphere, since I have been a liberal for nine years or so; and by the culture of academia, since I am a graduate student in history now.  All of these cultures influence my thinking; undoubtedly, a number of cultural moods and motives surround Amanda.  In this context, “theological hokum” and the “threat” of religion to science sounds like dogmatism.  Donahue’s specific actions certainly could be seen as a “threat” to atheists (although I personally hope, the way things are looking, that such actions will increasingly be just an annoyance rather than a threat), but religion doesn’t have to be a threat to science or to atheists.

The last church I regularly attended got me hooked because (apart from the great music; it was half a mile from a great music conservatory) the first time I went, the pastor was in the middle of a five-part sermon on Christianity and physics (and don’t worry, it wasn’t intelligent design bullshit).  He was later kicked out of the presbytery for performing gay marriages.  This was depressing to me, and soured me for a while on organized religion.  But it won’t always be that way.  There won’t always be a “religious right” as it is generally described today.  Who knows, maybe in a century people will decry the influence of the “religious left.”  In any case, science and religion do not necessarily have to be opposing forces.

Look. this is a puny organization

FOUR PERSON crew, and $2million budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_(U.S).

(get their calendar, get their name list, donor list…then start scanning who among the big donors are liberal. Scan donohue meeting schedule. Where he goes to church, who is in charge in that churce.

start doing power analysis, chart the organization. get people who has some pull to affect it)

or else, build counter organization.

invisible, all powerful. with insider pull.

————-

this is pure politics. As old as the roman empire itself.

find somebody from archdiosis of NY. That’s where donohue oeprates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archdiocese_of_New_York

I suspect Donahue is funded by the same wingnut billionaires who are backing and fueling the so-called “schism” in the Episcopal/Anglican Church (and who funded the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptists.) The Episcopal situation also involves fundamentalist practices and beliefs incongruously showing up in the “dissident” churches. (A friend of mine who is a member of the Falls Church in Virginia offhandedly described services that sounded just short of speaking in tongues.)

I think what Amanda really means is that the specific theological writings that underpin Christianity are “hokum.”

Nope.  And to say so is to buy into Donohue’s charges of anti-Christian bigotry. 

Amanda really is an atheist, Jackson.  She really does believe that all religion is hokum.  If you’d done any reading at this blog before commenting, you’d know that. 

But shouldn’t then all of the rest of it, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, whatever be “hokum”?

Yep.  The difference being that Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism are in no position to turn their hokum into laws, or having it taught in the science classes in public schools, at least not in the U.S.  Christianity does that all the time.

In this context, “theological hokum” and the “threat” of religion to science sounds like dogmatism.

However, in the context of a country where people are more willing to elect an open homosexual to public office than an open atheist, where presidential candidates must make at least token gestures to pander to religious groups if they even hope to be elected, and where local and state governments all over the nation are trying to find ways to insert “alternatives to evolution” into science classes, it sounds like simple reality.

The other thing this reminds me of is Lakoff’s research on liberal and conservative concepts of “freedom.” In a nutshell, if I recall correctly, conservatives believe that freedom means freedom to do the right thing. For someone in that mindset (which I personally can’t understand at all), it is apparently perfectly reasonable to think that freedom means that religious people cannot be prohibited from proselytizing anywhere, but nonbelievers cannot be allowed to mock Catholics.

By which I mean not that it’s an acceptable point of view or that we shouldn’t fight back against it, just that it may explain how Donahue could have what appears to supporters to be a consistent position, even though it looks to us like he’s a complete hypocrite finding excuses to attack people for what are transparently political differences.

I think what Amanda really means is that the specific theological writings that underpin Christianity are “hokum.” But shouldn’t then all of the rest of it, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, whatever be “hokum”?

....and this is so hard to believe…why? Yes, it’s all equally hokum. Pretty, lofty-sounding 100% pure grade-A horse manure.

Yes, atheists are real, and they really believe as they do. It’s not some petulant teenager phase. Shock!

Yes, atheists are real, and they really believe as they do. It’s not some petulant teenager phase. Shock!

Liberal religionists are funny, aren’t they? Perhaps they ought to turn their attention from complaining about how their delicate sensibilities are wounded by us nasty uncouth atheists who stoop to pointing out the Emperor’s nakedness, to doing something to fight the fundamentalists who will have THEM up against the wall just as soon as they’re finished with us.

The worst thing religion is doing in America (in terms of polity) is intruding itself into science in the classroom.  This impulse is, of course, not really religion at all, but a particular manifestation of a deeply flawed religious culture.  There is not much that torques me off more than “intelligent design” and the attempted denigration of religion in the classroom.  That doesn’t mean that it will work, however.  Protestant fundamentalism (with it’s particularly weird strain of postmillennialism) hasn’t been around forever (say, late nineteenth century, with some roots further back), and I’m optimistic that this particular project of imposing religion on science, and more generally the bizarre brand of fundamentalistic evangelicalism it springs from, will fade away.

I for one am glad that there are people like Amanda Marcotte to really take this sort of thing to task, just as I’m happy to hear from voices closer to the center.  Not so much glad to hear from people like Donahue.  I think, however, that we are maybe starting to witness the marginalization of him and his ilk.

By the way, Seraph, the “if you’d done any reading” sort of comment isn’t very useful.  The airing of different points of view (up to a point) is a good thing.  Cliche-ish “if you’d done any reading” comments, not so much.  I love Pandagon, although I admit I hadn’t been here much for a couple of years.  I was an every-day reader and a huge Jesse fan way back before the depression of the ‘04 election made me ignore politics for awhile.  Sounds like I missed some good stuff on this blog.

By the way, Seraph, the “if you’d done any reading” sort of comment isn’t very useful.  The airing of different points of view (up to a point) is a good thing.  Cliche-ish “if you’d done any reading” comments, not so much.

Seraph’s point was entirely merited. This blog has been home to several lengthy discussions of atheism and its adherents—including two enormous comment threads on same within the past WEEK. To seem shocked that Amanda would declare theology to be “hokum” is either a sign of willful ignorance or a sign that no, you haven’t been reading recently.

Wow…my delicate sensibilities are wounded!!!

Relax, folks.  I certainly didn’t mean to imply that there is anything “petulant” about atheism.  Man.  You’re atheists, and proud of it.  I’m a liberal Christian, and proud of it.  This is as it should be.

doing something to fight the fundamentalists who will have THEM up against the wall just as soon as they’re finished with us.

Yeah, wow.  OMG.  How on earth could we not have thought of that on our own…?  Wow, I can’t believe I wasted so many years of my life trying to defend religious fundamentalism! 

Seriously, about 80% of the reason that some over-vocal atheists annoy me is that I feel like they’re turning on their fellow travelers, the huge number of liberal people who believe in god, aren’t fundamentalists, and are actively working alongside atheists to protect secularism and prevent theocracy. 

What ultimately happens, though, is that we find ourselves running interference on both sides, hand worst of all having to defend ourselves constantly against attacks from people we consider to be on our side and whom we are trying to coalition with.

Seriously, about 80% of the reason that some over-vocal atheists annoy me is that I feel like they’re turning on their fellow travelers, the huge number of liberal people who believe in god, aren’t fundamentalists, and are actively working alongside atheists to protect secularism and prevent theocracy.

Funny, that’s exactly how we feel about you. With a hell of a lot better reason, given the realities of our overwhelmingly religiose society.

The use of the term ‘hokum’ regarding the rite of Communion is completely on the mark. The original term ‘hocus pocus’ apparently derives from the latin rite ‘hoc est Corpus’ said when the mass was in latin and none of the people understood it.

(Taken from a thread on Pharyngula)

Funny, that’s exactly how we feel about you. With a hell of a lot better reason, given the realities of our overwhelmingly religiose society.

That doesn’t even make any sense.

Do obnoxious atheists know any counter-arguments besides “I know you are but what am I”?  ?

OK, I’ve already asked this question elsewhere, but in transubstantiation doesn’t the wafer only turn into Jesus’ flesh as you’re eating it?  I mean is Donohue going to start jumping on anyone who pours some red wine down the sink?  And what about the few churches that pass out real bread, not wafers.  If I let some bread get moldy and then throw it out, am I insulting Christianity?

I can’t believe that I, an atheist, know more about religion than these knuckleheads.

OK, I’ve already asked this question elsewhere, but in transubstantiation doesn’t the wafer only turn into Jesus’ flesh as you’re eating it?

It’s turned into flesh by the prayers said over it, which aren’t done until right before the Eucharist is served.  Until it’s blessed, it’s just a piece of wafer (or bread, depending on which area of the country you live in—apparently Michigan has been using bread for years now).

There probably are some rituals for de-sanctifying any unused Eucharist and wine, but it’s one of those things you only learn at the seminary.

If anyone ever read The Story of the von Trapp Family Singers, there’s a funny story in there about one of the kids sneaking into the family priest’s room and eating the (unblessed) Eucharist.  Spankings ensued, but there wasn’t a lot of hair-tearing about Blasphemy.  Just disobedience and theft.

Bill Donahue thinks atheists don’t have rights

Him and all other religious fundamentalists, especially the various flavors of fundamentalist Christianity.  Had a lot of fun discussing separation of church and state and the idea that the US should be a pluralistic society one’s choice of conscience is given due respect and civility by the state and other individuals…even if they disagree with those choices each time they attempted to give me the prothetyzing speech.  They really didn’t care for that too much….

The foundations upon which a healthy pluralistic secular society is laid is one which renders due respect and civility towards an individual’s conscience choice….even if others disagree with that choice is the “live and let live” and “agree to disagree” are wonderful points that Opoponax and Holly made in past threads with similar themes. 

As to those religious fundamentalists who want a theocracy…they should be wary of what they wish for….especially when one considers how theocracies end up operating to the disservice of the people, non-favored religions, the state, and even the purportedly favored religion and its believers.  If it comes to pass..it would not be shocking to me if some of the most vociferous supporters of a theocracy ended up being branded as heretics and being tortured/punished as a result….including Donahue.

It makes perfect sense. We often feel- as I do with respect to you right this minute- that with “allies” like you in the fight for our rights, we hardly need enemies. Too many “liberal” religionists spend a lot more energy attacking so-called “obnoxious” or “militant” atheists than you do to attacking your many co-religionists who are as big a danger to you as to us. And that adjective “obnoxious” is a clue to the problem. To some people, any refusal to grant undeserved “respect” to inane beliefs- as opposed to respecting your right to hold those beliefs, which I will defend to the death- is “obnoxious”.

Tough.

The attitude of liberal religionists who are given the vapors by vigorous expressions of disbelief is reminiscent of people who are “OK” with gay people as long as they “don’t flaunt their sexuality in public”.

Seriously, about 80% of the reason that some over-vocal atheists annoy me is that I feel like they’re turning on their fellow travelers,

It doesn’t help matters that atheists’ “fellow travelers” jump in on just about every dang thread here to slur them one way or another.  They insist that atheists cannot define them yet they can define atheism (as a Western movement with its own heroes and lore just like Christian fundamentalism);  that engineers and scientists are too stupid to know what non-literal deeper meaning is;  and they imply constantly that if atheists don’t shut up already they’ll take their ball and go home.

It’s amazing to me how many atheists in these threads insist that if we discuss religion in any context, we’re “silencing” them.  Dudes, maybe people are calling you “obnoxious” because telling people, “Well, that’s stupid,” is a conversation ender and not something that encourages people to continue talking to you.

You’re confusing us with the Christians who are always whining about “persecution”.

Anybody who could post that right below KL’s very just observations is is severely lacking in both self-knowledge and a sense of irony. We’re the ones who are always being told that we are just too dumb to get the subtle beauties of theology, and suchlike BS.

I mean is Donohue going to start jumping on anyone who pours some red wine down the sink? 

It’s not Teh Blood Of Christ until you say the magic words over it. 

And what about the few churches that pass out real bread, not wafers.

That’s heresy, according to the Catholic church. 

Want to hear something horrifying?  The church has also decided that Catholics who suffer from celiac disease and cannot eat wheat gluten are basically fucked and are going to hell, because somewhere it is decreed that communion wafers have to be made of wheat.

We didn’t say, “Mnemosyne, Opoponax, et. al must now avow their own beliefs to be hokum at every turn.” We simply stated OUR OWN BELIEFS. Which, by the way, we consider fully mockable, just as we consider yours to be.

By now, you all know how Amanda and many of her commenters feel about religious beliefs and systems. You should be beyond surprise on this point. If you choose to turn every single thread pertaining to religion into a conversation about What Atheists Are Allowed To Say…I suppose that’s your right. But really at this point it’s nearly like trolling.

Dudes, maybe people are calling you “obnoxious” because telling people, “Well, that’s stupid,” is a conversation ender and not something that encourages people to continue talking to you

If someone saying they don’t hold with your beliefs is all it takes to end your conversation, I’d argue you can’t have had much to say about it in the first place. If you don’t feel like continuing to talk to us…well, there’s a real obvious solution to that problem, now, isn’t there?

We often feel- as I do with respect to you right this minute- that with “allies” like you in the fight for our rights, we hardly need enemies.

Yes, but that’s not what “vice versa” would mean with regard to what I said.  If that’s what you meant, then you should have just said it rather than being all “oh, yeah?  Well you are, too!”  Which doesn’t even make sense.  If you were to reverse my original sentence, it would become hopelessly garbled b. 

Not to mention, seriously?  You actually cannot see the difference between someone who says “I want to start a theocracy and execute the lot of you!” and someone who says, “I agree with your secular aims completely, I just happen not to share your exact theological stance.”  ?

Can you walk and chew gum at the same time??

it occurs to me that this:

Which, by the way, we consider fully mockable, just as we consider yours to be.

should really be an “I” statement. So if i could haz edit, i would make it such.

Count me in, TOTV. Although none of them seem to actually have the wit to pull it off.

Not to mention, seriously?  You actually cannot see the difference between someone who says “I want to start a theocracy and execute the lot of you!” and someone who says, “I agree with your secular aims completely, I just happen not to share your exact theological stance.” ?

except what you’re really saying is: “I agree with your secular aims completely, I just happen not to share your exact theological stance, And so you are never allowed to criticize my theological stance, or state your personal stance which directly contradicts mine, because nyah nyah.”

It is not heresy to use bread instead of the stale wafers.

There are, of course, rules to what kind of bread you can have, specifically unleavened, but bread is a lot closer to what Jesus and the Disciples ate at their seder anyway.

Matzoh would probably be best.

As for leftover bread and wine after the Eucharist, the eucharistic ministers (the people who hand out communion along with the priest) gobble it up and drink it down in the sacristy as they clean up quickly trying to make it back to their seats before Dismissal.

I wonder if Donahue has any connection to Opus Dei

Wouldn’t surprise me at all.  They’re real heretics, as is Mel Gibson’s “catholic” church founded by an excommunicated priest.  It always bugs me when they call Gibson a Catholic, b/c he’s not.  You can’t just say “yuck” to Vatican II.

Well, you can, but then you’re playing by your own rules and not by the hierarchy’s, so you don’t get to call yourself Catholic.

Here’s an idea.  Atheists are not “obnoxious.”  Christians’ beliefs are not “inane.”  The important thing, for liberals, about Bill Donahue’s beliefs and actions is, not their perceived level of wrongness (if objectivity exists, there are not many things more objectively “wrong,” in the context of our society, than replacing science with religion in school curricula) but what the outcome of those actions is.  Unfortunately, no one is going to change Bill Donahue’s mind, or Hagee’s, or the loathsome Pastor Swank’s.  Could be, however, that a lot of people together might change a school board’s policies, over a period of time.

I rarely comment on the blogs I read, maybe because there often seems to be this meta-discussion involving covert or overt name-calling; “obnoxious,” “inane,” “silencing,” “up against the wall,” etc.  But in this case, it made me think about something.  See, I cringe when I hear people talking about aliens, ghosts, the paranormal, all of that.  My reaction is, it’s all inane; in fact (I think to myself), the very definition of hokum (thanks, by the way, to Temporis for the interesting history behind the term; I didn’t know that).  I want to belittle it.  But I really shouldn’t; not because it would necessarily be wrong, but because it wouldn’t be useful.  And who would I be to belittle it anyway?  I’m quite sure I’m wrong about many important things, but I have to figure them out myself.  If I were an atheist, calling what I believe “obnoxious” would not make me think, “wow, maybe they’re right!”  It would, in fact, be pointless noise.  Similarly, someone calling my religious belief “inane” won’t change anything, least of all my mind.  It just has no point.

I’m a recent transplant to a new city.  So, inspired by this discussion, I’m off to try to find out what the situation is in my local schools with creationism.  The least I could do is write a letter, and maybe I can do more.

Jackson, the very ESSENCE of atheism implies that all the religious traditions are false. Granted, it doesn’t necessarily imply that they are “inane,” but it DOES imply “hokum”—because if there are no gods, then religious practices are illusions, or done in service of an illusion.

To accomplish what you propose, Atheists would have to refrain from ever mentioning their beliefs to someone with spiritual or religious convictions. How is that a good thing?!?

The alternative would, I suppose, be for people with spiritual or religious convictions to quit taking it so damn hard when confronted with the fact that, yes, some people think what you believe is false and silly.

Because really…everyone has something they say, do, or believe that someone else thinks is false and silly. People need to just accept that you can’t win everything with everyone, and move the eff on.

<blockquote>Relax, folks.  I certainly didn’t mean to imply that there is anything “petulant” about atheism.  Man.  You’re atheists, and proud of it.  I’m a liberal Christian, and proud of it.  This is as it should be.

Jackson, before you dig yourself any deeper, you should be aware that you’re walking into an ongoing conversation here, which is why it’s relevant whether or not you’ve read any recent posts on this blog.  At all. 

Whenever Amanda (or some other Pandagon poster, but usually Amanda) writes a post that promotes atheism, holds a religious absurdity up for ridicule, or even condemns a specific religious oppression or oppressor, there are always those - even among Pandagon regulars, who should know better - who point out that they themselves are religious and yet liberal; that religious people are not all oppressive fundamentalists; that religion itself is not evil and can be made compatible with a progressive/rational worldview by (blank); that atheists only make it hard for “good” theists to join with them by being so hostile.

What such people miss is that these arguments are no different than entering a feminist discussion and saying “But what about men?” or an argument on race and saying “Well, I’m not racist.”

You need to realize:

1) If you’re not one of the “bad” ones, good for you - but you need to be aware that you benefit from the same power imbalances that they do.  You are privileged in ways that you don’t even think about.  Think of the scene in “Fiddler On The Roof” where Tevye and Lazar Wolf are in the tavern, celebrating Lazar’s engagement to Tzeitel, when a group of drunk young Christian men come in.  These men mean no harm, and indeed, do no harm (at that point).  But, without even thinking about it, they’ve asserted their privilege over the Jewish men in the bar - who, after all, would not be welcome in a tavern in the Christian part of town. 

2) By demanding that an oppressed group behave in a way that doesn’t offend you as a condition of you allying with them, you are asserting that privilege.  You are being oppressive yourself.  Atheists shouldn’t have to tailor their message to spare your feelings any more than feminists should have to make their message inoffensive to men.

3) By arguing against the oppressed group’s message if it happens to offend you, rather than going after the “bad apples” in your own group, you are effectively defending those bad apples.  This is particularly egregious in a post about Bill Donohue.  This is a man who uses religion as a weapon; a man who costs people their jobs because they offend his sensibilities or threaten his power; a man who puts people’s actual lives in danger with the fervor he whips up…a man who would have no power at all if the single largest Christian denomination in a Christian-dominated country hadn’t convinced itself that it was a threatened minority.  But arguing with Amanda’s anti-religion statements is more important. 

4) A condescending pat on the head like the above quote isn’t going to do anything but piss people off.  It’s just one more assertion of privilege.

uh…yeah. Or what Seraph said, 100 times and in all boldface.

(wow! that was awesome, Seraph!)

All people who believe in any kind of religion, god, etc., are not worthy of human life.

Atheism™ is the one true <strike>religion</strike> way.  Once our <strike>holiness</strike> dear leader Sir Richard Dawkins is made world emperor, we will be free to destroy not only all religions, but all people who believe in this idiotic nonsense.  I make it my mission every day to spread the good word of Atheism™, telling every person I pass on the street and going door to door to inform people of their pathetic delusions and how Atheism™ along with the Way of the Dawkins(patent pending) will make them completely better in every way.  I also stand outside of churches on Sundays with a very witty sign that is sure to convert many <strike>morons</strike> Christians.

I will not rest until everyone knows that I am an Atheist™, and am therefore at least 78% superior.  We must go the Way of Dawkins!

It doesn’t help matters that atheists’ “fellow travelers” jump in on just about every dang thread here to slur them one way or another. 

Telling you that you are either ignorant of the facts or grossly overstating your case is not a “slur”. 

Asking you to please inform yourselves about something before you go around dismissing it and behaving rudely to people who know far more about the matter than you do is not a “slur.”

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single theist here at Pandagon openly “slur” atheism.  Over and over, in fact, I see believers saying that they fully respect the beliefs of atheists, except that the post in question gets X, Y, and Z wrong.  Or that while obviously atheists have every right not to believe in god, it annoys the commenter in question when atheists say or do X. 

We have a right to express our grievances*, just as you do.  Atheists are not in any way exempt from criticism.  If Amanda wants to declare Pandagon an official atheism safe space zone where nobody is allowed to criticize any atheist in any way, then so be it.  I probably would stop posting here, and definitely would never read any of her Yay Atheism! cheerleading threads.  But until such time as that happens, no, someone disagreeing with you about something is not a “slur”. 

They insist that atheists cannot define them yet they can define atheism

I certainly haven’t been involved in every atheism thread here at Pandagon, but I’ve never seen this happen.  Generally what does happen, though, is that an atheist will spout some figment of their imagination, usually built of straw, to support why religion is wrong/crazy/evil/whatever.  Other people, who may or may not believe in god, come along to correct the innacuracy.  Again,  being corrected when you are ignorant is not a slur, or impinging in any way your right to believe what you want. 
 
engineers and scientists are too stupid to know what non-literal deeper meaning is;

This is generally said in jest.  Though a part of this general sentiment results from mouth-breathers coming into a thread and trying to use their lack of awareness of abstract thought to “prove” that religion is a meaningless waste of time.  It’s not the fault of theists that said mouth-breathers act as proponents of atheism, or that they are either so stupid or such poor debaters.  Perhaps you should get some more intelligent or better informed proponents, or tell the idiots to buzz off. 

and they imply constantly that if atheists don’t shut up already they’ll take their ball and go home.

I’ve never seen this happen in any thread about atheism that I have participated in here at Pandagon.

* None of which, by the way, extend to the fact that you don’t believe in god.  So far I’ve never seen anyone at Pandagon actually try to argue that god exists, or that atheists must accept god into their lives.

(wow! that was awesome, Seraph!)

I second that. I wish I were half so eloquent.

and they imply constantly that if atheists don’t shut up already they’ll take their ball and go home. 

I’ve never seen this happen in any thread about atheism that I have participated in here at Pandagon.

  If Amanda wants to declare Pandagon an official atheism safe space zone where nobody is allowed to criticize any atheist in any way, then so be it.  I probably would stop posting here, and definitely would never read any of her Yay Atheism! cheerleading threads.

face, meet palm….

The whole country is YOUR safe space, Opo. But just one safe space for atheism would be too, too much for you, right? I sentence you to re-read Seraph’s post for as long as it takes to get it.

Mnemosyne said “There probably are some rituals for de-sanctifying any unused Eucharist and wine, but it’s one of those things you only learn at the seminary. “

No, there are no rituals to de-sanctify it.  Any unused pieces of Jesus are either consumed or kept in a special gold container (don’t remember the name of it) and stored in a locked (gold again) tabernacle in the church.  Once transubstantiation has occurred Jesus is forever present in the piece of bread.  The wine (blood) is either consumed or poured down a special sink that goes straight into the ground.  Holy dirt!  They have shit fits when the wine is accidentally spilled on the floor because it is hard to totally clean up.    There are a lot of Catholics who take this really, really seriously and literally worship the Eucharist because they believe it is god.

That said, I have been addicted to the threads on Pharyngula about this and believe PZ has every right to express his opinion of the extraordinary weirdness of this belief and of those who would threaten to kill somebody over a very dry cracker.  Blaspheme away!

Moreover, what you do when you do this:

We have a right to express our grievances*, just as you do.

is actually get on our case for refusing to make Pandagon a SAFE SPACE FOR BELIEVERS. This is the meat of your complaint—that atheists are too mean and dismissive to the “good” believers—is it not?
So, we are wrong to not make this YOUR safe space, and wrong to make it OURS, too.
The fail. It is Epic.

I liked Kathy Griffin’s bit about when “The Catholic League” went after her for her “suck it, Jesus” speech.  “Did you know that the Catholic League was one guy with a computer?”

Suck it, Donohue!

you need to be aware that you benefit from the same power imbalances that they do

Except when you don’t.

Your example from Fiddler works well when thinking about members of the dominant religion in the hegemony.  However the bottom line is that if the Dominionists get their way, I’ll be up against the wall right along with you.  They don’t particularly care who’s an atheist, vs. who’s a Pagan, vs. who’s a Muslim.  We’re all toast.

So when someone comes to you and says, “I don’t believe exactly what you believe, but I face the same threat., ” it’s probably best not to tell them that, actually, it’s them who’s the threat, and by the way regardless of that, they’re obviously delusional so why bother even talking?

This is the meat of your complaint—that atheists are too mean and dismissive to the “good” believers—is it not?

No, it’s not.  It’s that you think criticism is the same s a slur.

Which is funny, because it’s one of the key problems with the people you claim to hate.

Which causes me to wonder who the fellow travelers are, here, exactly?

So when someone comes to you and says, “I don’t believe exactly what you believe, but I face the same threat., “ it’s probably best not to tell them that, actually, it’s them who’s the threat, and by the way regardless of that, they’re obviously delusional so why bother even talking?

Except that we don’t tell you you’re the threat. We just tell you that we think your belief is kind of silly. And that by continuing to fight us on this, you help do the Reichwing’s work for them—demonizing and marginalizing atheists. You’re showing them how best to demonize and marginalize YOU, later on.

And if you find it impossible to work alongside someone—FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT—if that person happens to think one part of your philosophical makeup is silly….how is that the OTHER person’s problem, again?

Seraph,

Awesome!  Your point #1 is fascinating, a statement to dig the teeth into.  You’re right, I think, a majority, even an unspoken one, can be unaware of the benefits of their majority.  I happen to be reading a bunch of early American gender history right now, and your point parallels some of these constructions of gender.  Thanks, very thought-provoking.

As far as the “pat on the head,” not intended, that would probably be an outgrowth of the fact that while I read most of the posts on Pandagon and several other sites, I don’t often read the comment threads.  Apologies for not being aware of the apparent “atheist vs. liberal Christian” backstory.

I disagree with points 2 and 3, at least partially.  As far as 2 goes, I wouldn’t necessarily want you, as a atheist, to “tailor your message.”  It’s not that I take offense.  That would be pointless.  It’s about what I think is useful.

As for point 3…arguing about Amanda’s point isn’t a replacement for going after Bill Donahue.  It’s a replacement for skimming a book about early American material culture to pick up ideas for some abstracts I need to write.  Should I go after Bill Donahue?  Absolutely, he’s destructive.  But why not in addition to commenting on this post about atheism, which at least for me is getting more interesting all the time.

Perhaps not for you, but in any case, thanks for the interesting comment.

No, it’s not.  It’s that you think criticism is the same s a slur.

Uh, perhaps in THIS thread, but not in any of the other Big Atheism Threads this week. There, your point was we need to be more respectful of your beliefs because [mumble mumble be nice!!]

Oh, FFS. Once we get the “atheists are JUST LIKE the Catholic League, that’s the ticket!” nonsense going, the thread is dead.

I’m tempted to compare the tactic to a certain group of Swiftly Boating Veterans…but shall refrain and simply note that honest debate has left the building.

And Opop trolls another thread into oblivion.

WHY is this moron still here?

“Want to hear something horrifying?  The church has also decided that Catholics who suffer from celiac disease and cannot eat wheat gluten are basically fucked and are going to hell, because somewhere it is decreed that communion wafers have to be made of wheat.”

Hey, that’s not true!

You can take the wine if you want.

And not taking communion doesn’t send one to hell.

You should learn a bit more before passing out your wafers of misunderstanding.

There, your point was we need to be more respectful of your beliefs because [mumble mumble be nice!!]

Actually my point there was that everyone ought to be more respectful of everyone’s beliefs and try not to comport themselves in real life as a jackass.  If everyone is doing so, then my concerns are satisfied, and there you go.  I certainly do not believe and never intended to imply that any mention that atheism exists is some kind of challenge to theism, and thus should be silenced.

I do, however, think it’s rude to go around telling people that their beliefs are delusions and that anyone who believes as they do is obviously insane.  If that is what atheism is, to you, then yes, you are an obnoxious little asshat and I will continue to call you out as such.  Though, again, it’s not that I advocate censorship so much as that I think people who do such things are a bunch of arrogant jerks. 

The atheists I know off the internet generally don’t do that, though, so I’m willing to give 99% of atheists (“polite atheists”, if you will) a pass.

Jackson,
One liberal Christian to another. The basic rule should that it’s Amanda’s (and Jesse’s and Pam’s) house (virtually speaking). Don’t read or just ignore the atheist posts if they bother you. Sometimes they bother me, but that doesn’t matter because it’s not my blog and as was mentioned in a recent post, I don’t have a right to be free of bothersome things just because.
A single statement that a post bugs you is sufficient if you feel you must. Otherwise, drop it because in the end the atheists will believe what they will and religious people will believe what they will. At that level they are opposed to each other, but there is more than enough common ground to continue a practical conversation about dealing with the genuine threat to us all, the right wing of this country.
And to avoid the potential misconception, I am not suggesting reciprocal action here. Amanda or PZ should express their beliefs in their blogs obviously and commenters should tell them (even politely) that for the greater good atheists should STFU. Amanda, PZ, etc. understand greater good and asses it as well as anyone.

And not taking communion doesn’t send one to hell.

When I went to religion class in Catholic school, that’s what we were told.  You have to go to church every Sunday and take communion, otherwise it’s a mortal sin, i.e. you will go to hell.

I guess it’s possible that the Catholic church has reversed its stance in the 10 years since I went to Catholic school, but I seem to remember them taking their communion stuff damn seriously.

Though I believe it’s true that people with celiac disease an receive a blessing, I’m not sure where that puts celiac Catholics wrt their eternal souls.  My point was mainly, however, that the church refuses to allow any changes to the communion wafers and is rather inflexible on the materials that can be used for it to “count”.

I’ve read actual news articles to this effect, citing nuns, priests, bishops, etc. so you can’t tell me this never happened or isn’t true.

Opoponax -

Let’s break this down.  Do you disagree with the actual point of the post, that Donohue and the Catholic League - while willing to go after anyone, even Catholics whose beliefs are more in line with official dogma than the Donohue himself, whose beliefs are distinctly fundie-flavored - is targeting prominent atheists because atheism is currently making a strong showing in the media? 

If so, why?  If not, what do you find offensive about the post?  Is it this paragraph?

There’s a lot of theological hokum that means that they’re not 100% on board, which is to be expected, because religious power-holders realize how big a threat science is to religion, and therefore to their power.

This is the only paragraph I could find that condemned religion as a whole in any way, and it seemed pretty mild to me.  The Catholic explanation for evolution (which is the only thing that is actually being referred to as “hokum”, take note) - Theistic Evolution - is an attempt to accommodate ancient creation myth to modern science, and it’s an uncomfortable fit.  And you have to admit that religious power-holders are uncomfortable with the onward march of science, because it’s constantly revealing new things about the universe that sometimes conflict with their Eternal Truths.

If you’re offended by the atheist comments in the thread, remember that it began with this:

I think what Amanda really means is that the specific theological writings that underpin Christianity are “hokum.” But shouldn’t then all of the rest of it, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, whatever be “hokum”?

...which sounded an awful lot like an accusation of anti-Christian bigotry.  On a thread about Bill Donohue, no less.  That, inevitably, raised some hackles.  I, and some others, responded that, no, it wasn’t anti-Christian bigotry, that Amanda, as an atheist, did consider “all of the rest of it” to be hokum as well, which is pretty much the definition of atheism. 

Which is when it got ugly. 

Is that what was offensive, then?

Actually, I’m going to stick with being an opo-defined obnoxious little asshat. Just because the phrase “polite atheists” gives me the burning hives and an urge to vomit.

“Hahahahahaha (know your place) hahaha..”

When I went to religion class in Catholic school, that’s what we were told.  You have to go to church every Sunday and take communion, otherwise it’s a mortal sin, i.e. you will go to hell.

^^^

You were never told that. It’s considered mandatory that one take communion at least once a year. Going to weekly mass is mandatory, but not taking the sacrament. This rule certainly predates both of us, and goes back at least to the middle ages, when it was impossible for many peasants to attend weekly mass due to travel considerations.

As for those who can’t eat the bread, you can take the wine. Either “species” is acceptable. If you can’t take either, you are dispensed. It’s considered a sacrifice.

You were either misinformed or are misremembering.

So now you know, and can stop misinforming others.

“Though I believe it’s true that people with celiac disease an receive a blessing, I’m not sure where that puts celiac Catholics wrt their eternal souls.  My point was mainly, however, that the church refuses to allow any changes to the communion wafers and is rather inflexible on the materials that can be used for it to “count”.

Yeah, so what?

The atheists I know off the internet generally don’t do that, though, so I’m willing to give 99% of atheists (“polite atheists”, if you will) a pass.

And, let’s play a game of What Is More Likely?

1) Only mean, vile, rude atheists congregate on the Internet, while all of your atheist friends in real life are sweet and respectful of your beliefs?

or

2) Atheists feel that, in discussion forums that are SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ATHEISM, it’s appropriate etiquette to defend their beliefs vigorously, and explain why it is they don’t believe in gods (hint: this usually involves the idea that believing in ANYTHING without a shred of evidence is pretty silly)—even if they would never, in “real life,” just start going up to a religious friend and start asking them when they’re going to cut out the dumb faith thing already.

Seraph: You rock.

Opoponax: You have a perfect right to disagree with us atheists, and we have a perfect right to tell you we’re tired of hearing it.

I ‘love’ the Catholic League because I never would have found the Golden Compass books if they hadn’t made such a stink over the movie. And, yeah, the movie was mediocre, but the books are absolutely fantastic. Thank you, Catholic League!

If you’re not one of the “bad” ones, good for you - but you need to be aware that you benefit from the same power imbalances that they do.  You are privileged in ways that you don’t even think about.

Excuse me?

Maybe if I was a Christian, I guess. But I doubt you’ve ever experienced the fun that is American Wicca. You get it on both sides - hate speech from Christians and “you’re so fucking stupid” speech from the militant atheists. Mind you, 90% of the atheists I meet are totally nice and supportive of my religious choices, for the same reason that I am of theres - we both respect that the truth is an on-going search and that there is nothing ‘good’ in harassing people who believe differently from you. Most atheists have experienced the rough side of religious intolerance, and they are careful about not doing the same thing to others. But there are a few, a very few, that do otherwise.

Sorry, but saying that a person’s deeply held beliefs are wrong, stupid, silly, foolish, delusional, or anything else is just plain rude. And I know it’s getting very vogue to be ‘righteously rude’, but you don’t realize you are doing the EXACT SAME thing that Christians have been doing for years… and which you yourself hate.

I don’t enact religious legislation. I don’t try to convert people. But please keep your personal feelings about me respectful - just because I believe in a god figure and you don’t doesn’t mean I’m a blithering, delusional nutcase. And I’ll respect you as a thinking, reasoning individual who perceived the universe differently, but no less VALIDLY, than myself. And I’ll even give internet hugs if anyone wants a group hug. Kthxbai.

And, jackson, thank you for realizing that nasty words only make unnecessary enemies out of people who could have a common cause and common dream for this country.

Sorry, but saying that a person’s deeply held beliefs are wrong, stupid, silly, foolish, delusional, or anything else is just plain rude.

We never said it wasn’t. But I will refer you back to the wise person who noted above:

I don’t have a right to be free of bothersome things just because.

Seriously, about 80% of the reason that some over-vocal atheists annoy me is that I feel like they’re turning on their fellow travelers, the huge number of liberal people who believe in god, aren’t fundamentalists, and are actively working alongside atheists to protect secularism and prevent theocracy.

Since most of the people you refer to turned on PZ when he insulted a cracker, I’m not especially convinced in the courage, fortitude, and general usefulness of these supposed “fellow travelers.”

Atheists would have a great deal more respect for the moderate religious if the moderate religious didn’t side with the fundamentalists 80% of the time. Ultimately, that’s the danger of moderate religion - it’s still religion, and as a result its adherents feel they have a lot more in common with their co-religionists than with atheists.

It’ll always be that way. A lot of atheists simply don’t care about alienating the moderate religious because they’ve rarely been allies, anyway.

I think what Amanda really means is that the specific theological writings that underpin Christianity are “hokum.” But shouldn’t then all of the rest of it, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, whatever be “hokum”?

It’s amazing, given how simple the concept is, that there are always some people who can’t seem to get their heads around the concept of “atheism.”

Sorry, but saying that a person’s deeply held beliefs are wrong, stupid, silly, foolish, delusional, or anything else is just plain rude.

“Stupid”, “silly”, “foolish” are probably rude; “delusional” is arguably a loaded, if accurate, term; but “wrong”? Honestly? You think it’s rude to be told that Wicca is a factually incorrect model of the universe?

How about the Flat Earth guys? Do they have a right to be insulated from globes? Do they think it’s rude to mention Columbus? I don’t know that people should be belittled for their beliefs; but then, I don’t think “delusion” is a belittling term when it’s applied to the deluded. The guy who thinks he’s Napoleon Bonaparte is deluded, and I’m sure he finds it “rude” to be told so, but does that mean we should stop? Isn’t it a little unreasonable of him to ask that?

Do you disagree with the actual point of the post, that Donohue and the Catholic League - while willing to go after anyone, even Catholics whose beliefs are more in line with official dogma than the Donohue himself, whose beliefs are distinctly fundie-flavored - is targeting prominent atheists because atheism is currently making a strong showing in the media?

If so, why?  If not, what do you find offensive about the post?  Is it this paragraph?

I don’t find anything in the original post offensive.

In fact, thus far, I don’t find anything in this thread at all to be “offensive”, I just think that certain statements have been lame, wrong, silly, rude, etc.  None of which were in the official post, which I’m perfectly fine with.

I never criticized a word of the original post.  The first comment I made to this thread that was in any way critical of anything that is not the Catholic Church, Catholic League, Bill Donohue, etc was a rebuttal to something
posted by Steve LaBonne, who I didn’t realize was a sockpuppet for Amanda or any of the other regular bloggers here.  I don’t really see why Steve is exempt from criticism, sorry.

“Atheists would have a great deal more respect for the moderate religious if the moderate religious didn’t side with the fundamentalists 80% of the time.”

source? Because I think that the majority of protestant denominations will not side with the funengelicals more than 30% of the time, their theologies being so drastically different… could it be you are hearing those who yell loudest and those who are talking about the issues you also care about instead of hearing the totality of moderate Christians?

All of the churches I attended as a child were moderatly to highly disdainful of those who tried to bring religion into the political sphere. They didn’t spend much time dealing with it*, instead focusing their energies on those things they deemed important (like feeding and clothing the poor, promoting literacy, and running bake-sales… they loved their bake-sales…).

I think that we can all get a little caught up in the echo chamber that is the internet and forget at times that we focus on our interests, and just because something is being said outside of our own focus it doesn’t mean it isn’t being said at all.

* I can totally get behind the idea that those churches could have and should have done something other than look down their noses at other denominations, getting involved in keeping religion out of secular life, but they didn’t feel it was that important.

Wow! As an agnostic and a lurker, i just have to jump into this and tell you all you need to chill! Oppo isnt the enemy, Donohue is.  Shes on your side.  When you have an ally, the very least you can do is not to demean their beliefs.  Just saying that you do not believe in God is not demeaning. Putting people down, however, by saying they are stupid/whatever, is.

You all get pissed at liberal christians for defending themselves against you, and accuse them of directing their irate towards athesists, not the real culprit!

Look whos talking. While youve been enjoying the circular firing squad, what have u done to battle the real culprit? Which is Donohue and his fellow fundies, not the friendly liberal christian/religious person next door who completely agrees with you about establishing a secular state.

Yes, fundamentalist religious people have taken over the national conversation about religion, and yes, the liberals should have spoken up earlier.

Where were you when the republicans took over? Is it your fault the dominant media narrative is now IOKYAR, and open season on democrats? Do you blame yourselves for that? Why didnt you speak up earlier? If you did, why didnt you succeed?

Wake up. Liberal christian/religious people are in the same boat as you are.  Theyre just in as much trouble as you are. Sure, athesits go up first before the firing squad, but guess whos next?

Im a feminist, and i dont go posting on threads saying all men suck and their dicks should be cut off. I dont insult men who come on the thread and express support for the cause. That is all Oppo has ever done here, other than ask you guys to respect her right to have her beliefs. She didnt ask you to respect her belief, she asked you to respect her RIGHT to believe what she wants without being verbally assaulted for it.

We have all been screwed over, and you guys are lining up to shoot at your allies. Way to go, dorks.

I’m not exempt. Neither are you, your unfounded beliefs, or your apparently irresistible urge to troll threads that touch on atheism.

It probably won’t help if I suggest that you read OTV’s latest comment and the last three from Chet as many times as necessary until you understand them. Nevertheless, that’s really all I can do. Because until you DO make some attempt to actually engage with what those comments are saying, you’re just trolling.

In fact, thus far, I don’t find anything in this thread at all to be “offensive”, I just think that certain statements have been lame, wrong, silly, rude, etc.

OK…but if we call YOUR statements lame, wrong, silly, and rude…we’re suddenly no better than Donahue. Yeah. Well….you have fun with that.

And, jackson, thank you for realizing that nasty words only make unnecessary enemies out of people who could have a common cause and common dream for this country.

Please don’t take this as an attack - it’s an honest question - but how does this square with our standard response when faced with somebody who wanders onto a feminist thread and starts talking about how the patriarchy hurts men, too (when that isn’t the topic of the thread) or who upbraids us for driving off potential male allies by being so rude?  Such folk aren’t generally thanked for their insight.  “What about teh menz” isn’t a compliment. 

Do you think we should be gentler with them?

Excuse me?

Maybe if I was a Christian, I guess.

I’ll admit the statement was a bit overbroad.  I was mostly talking to Jackson in that post, who has identified as Christian.

Sorry, but saying that a person’s deeply held beliefs are wrong, stupid, silly, foolish, delusional, or anything else is just plain rude. And I know it’s getting very vogue to be ‘righteously rude’, but you don’t realize you are doing the EXACT SAME thing that Christians have been doing for years… and which you yourself hate.

Not even remotely close.  Saying that a person’s deeply held beliefs are (see above) is rude.  Period.  What Christians have been doing for years is discriminate in hiring, try to deny others (or even rival Christians) places to practice, physical violence…the whole bigot package.  If you’re seriously comparing atheists to them, well, them’s fightin’ words.

Where were you when the republicans took over? Is it your fault the dominant media narrative is now IOKYAR, and open season on democrats? Do you blame yourselves for that? Why didnt you speak up earlier? If you did, why didnt you succeed?

Well, for one thing, I wasn’t born yet when the Rethugs started to take over the media.

Seriously… You write as if the only thing any of us has ever thought, said, or written in our lives is this particular blogular critique of the god-people. It is possible to think on many things in one day, even to DO many things in one day!

Yes, we’re all on the same team about many, many things. But in this area, this area in which atheists somehow suddenly bear the sole burden of being “nice” and “not making trouble” within the progressive arena, we are NOT on the same page. And it’s unlikely that we will be, unless there’s some kind of meeting in the middle.

What would that look like? Well, for one, yes…the more vocal and insulting of us in the atheist camp could work toward a precision of language. Note that I don’t say “we need to shut up a bit.” But this post is a perfect example of precision of language: Amanda refers to the Catholic doctrine of Theistic Evolution as “hokum.” Which, from an atheist perspective, IT EXACTLY IS. She did not say “inanity” or “idiocy” or “horrifying stupidity.”

The other half, then, comes from believers who would have her implicitly cater to their beliefs and refuse to name the doctrine as “hokum.” And I’m sorry…asking that isn’t asking for respect, it’s asking for coddling. “Oh please don’t mention that some people think this is bunk…we don’t want it getting out and it hurts our feelings.” So you folks on that side of the fence need to back off. You need to understand that disagreeing with your beliefs, however deeply you believe them, IS NOT A PERSONAL INSULT. And asking to be sheltered from the basic fact of our disagreement, because you fear it makes you look dumb, is asking too much.

I should note that personally, I don’t even want a “meeting in the middle” of the sort that i describe above. But that would be one way of ending this ridiculous, circular debate that derails every serious discussion of Atheism this community attempts.

I prefer to continue spouting off as I tend to do, and let the god-people stomp their feets. Eventually they’ll run out of steam.

Seraph,

Since when does the “patriarchy” equals a sincere religious belief that does not interfere with anybody’s'rights?  Since when does saying ” a woman has her place” equals “i beleive in this and that”?

I really dont think you can compare the two.  Being quietly religious yet supportive of a secular state hurts no one. 

Asserting a man’s'privilege, however, does.

I dont think its an fair comparison between “teh menz” and “respect my right to believe what i want to believe”.  The latter, by the way, applies to athesists. It is a mutual, two way sign of respect between any two persons. Why is it wrong to point out that being rude to others should not be acceptable?

Im a feminist, and i am familiar with “what about the menz” problem. I dont see that happening here with the liberal christians. What i see here isnt “what about the liberal christians?” I see what happening here is ” i believe in this and that but i totally agree with you about a secular state”.  And this results in being gangpiled, being called all types of names, etc?

There is a big difference between “i dont believe in god” and “peope who believe in god are deluded/backwards/etc”. 

When i see a “what about the menz” i say, “you need to own up to your privilege”. I dont say, ” all men are stupid and need their dicks cut off”.

And asking to be sheltered from the basic fact of our disagreement, because you fear it makes you look dumb, is asking too much.

Damn, if you had just left out that middle clause this thread would have died quickly—or maybe even gotten back on topic.  But alas you made the cardinal sin of presuming a motive for our sensitive brethren.  I wonder how long it will take to get to the insults now?

Since when does the “patriarchy” equals a sincere religious belief that does not interfere with anybody’s’rights?

Since we live in a religion-soaked society in which the rights of unbelievers ARE routinely interfered with and in which being a believer of any sort confers a variety of unearned privileges. Case in point: the courts will enforce your right to engage in any damnfool practice as long as you can credibly claim you’re engaging in it out of some kind of religious belief.

Your comment absolutely reeks of the kind of unconscious privilege which you would rightly deride in men who troll feminism threads (which I stay out of, by the way.)

Being quietly religious yet supportive of a secular state hurts no one.

It does if your support for the secular state is as quiet as your religion. Which tends to be the case. I don’t see droves of liberal Christians calling out Donohue on his BS. The only droves I see doing that are atheists. And the liberal Christians who Do come here seem to have nothing better to do on such threads than to berate atheists.

Sorry, but saying that a person’s deeply held beliefs are wrong, stupid, silly, foolish, delusional, or anything else is just plain rude. And I know it’s getting very vogue to be ‘righteously rude’, but you don’t realize you are doing the EXACT SAME thing that Christians have been doing for years… and which you yourself hate.

I’m not sure how one gets to be this dense.  The post is about Bill Donahue, a “Catholic” who uses his position to get atheists and moderate believers fired from their jobs and shunned from their communities.  If he was just “righteously rude,” I wouldn’t give a shit, and neither would anyone else. 

I will gladly say that religion is humanity’s oldest and silliest delusion.  If someone said that my atheism was a delusion (because, for instance, I’m ignoring the the vast quantities of no evidence), I might enter into an argument, or I might ignore them.  I wouldn’t try to ruin their lives.  It’s hardly the “EXACT SAME thing.”

So, Donohue is a creationist.  Which means that he’s not actually the Catholic he’s claiming to be—-the official church stance is that evolutionary theory is what scientists generally claim it to be, a scientific theory that explains the natural world.  There’s a lot of theological hokum that means that they’re not 100% on board, which is to be expected, because religious power-holders realize how big a threat science is to religion, and therefore to their power.

...the Catholic Church having found that modern biologists are soggier and more difficult to burn than medieval astronomers…

KL, I didn’t know how else to interpret the fact that calling believers “Wrong” is the same thing as calling them “stupid.” Unless they feel that to be called wrong makes them look stupid.

OK…but if we call YOUR statements lame, wrong, silly, and rude…we’re suddenly no better than Donahue. Yeah. Well….you have fun with that.

Ummmm, no?

If you’ll kindly look upthread, you will notice that what I said was eerily similar to the Fundie tactics was the insistence that if people don’t constantly tiptoe around your beliefs, they’re “censoring” you and using “slurs” against you. 

Isn’t that exactly the sort of thing we’re supposed to be fighting against?

The first comment I made to this thread that was in any way critical of anything that is not the Catholic Church, Catholic League, Bill Donohue, etc was a rebuttal to something
posted by Steve LaBonne, who I didn’t realize was a sockpuppet for Amanda or any of the other regular bloggers here.  I don’t really see why Steve is exempt from criticism, sorry.

That was exactly what I was asking. 

Okay…checking it out…

Liberal religionists are funny, aren’t they? Perhaps they ought to turn their attention from complaining about how their delicate sensibilities are wounded by us nasty uncouth atheists who stoop to pointing out the Emperor’s nakedness, to doing something to fight the fundamentalists who will have THEM up against the wall just as soon as they’re finished with us.

...yeah.  I can see why that would piss you off.  Suddenly Jackson is no longer the focus, but all liberal religionists.  Not good.  Maybe merited in one of the Big Atheism Threads, but everybody had been pretty good up until this point.

On the other hand, you responded with:

Seriously, about 80% of the reason that some over-vocal atheists annoy me is that I feel like they’re turning on their fellow travelers, the huge number of liberal people who believe in god, aren’t fundamentalists, and are actively working alongside atheists to protect secularism and prevent theocracy. 

What ultimately happens, though, is that we find ourselves running interference on both sides, hand worst of all having to defend ourselves constantly against attacks from people we consider to be on our side and whom we are trying to coalition with.

Instead of criticizing Steve specifically, you attacked “over-vocal” (please tell me you understand why that sounds absolutely awful) atheists as a group.  No better.  Fight started.  Or should I say, resumed?

Christ on a sidecar.  If more right-wingers stopped in here, they’d never think there was a “liberal agenda” ever again.

I’m going to say it one more time, Opo, and slowly.

I. Don’t. Care. What. You. Say. About. My. Beliefs.

You can say atheism is a stupid, pointless, artless way to think. I don’t care! That’s your right! I can say that I don’t see how a reasonable adult can believe in some kind of deity. That’s my right!

What you DON’T have is the right for your side, and your side alone, to set the terms of discussion. If you find us too rude, you may ignore us or you may give back as good as you get. If we find you to be too sensitive, we may decide to back off or we may decide to keep spouting off.

That’s just how it goes.

you attacked “over-vocal” (please tell me you understand why that sounds absolutely awful) atheists as a group.

that, combined with the phrase “polite atheists” is where you run right off the rails. Why not just call us “shrill” and be done with it?

Instead of criticizing Steve specifically, you attacked “over-vocal” (please tell me you understand why that sounds absolutely awful) atheists as a group.

Can it really be true that every atheist in this thread has lost the ability to read, or at least to parse the English language?

Because in my universe, when someone says something like “over-vocal atheists”, “green bell peppers”, “pink frosting”, “left-handed students”, etc etc etc they are usually identifying a group of things that share a particular attribute, rather than tarring all members of said group with said attribute.  To say “I think white wine i tastes best with fish” is not to imply that all wine is white, but to identify the kind of wine you are talking about.

When I say that one thing I don’t like about over-vocal atheists is that they do X, I’m not saying that one thing I dislike about all atheists (who have a bad habit of being over-vocal about their beliefs,  I mean, how rude is that!) is X, I’m saying that one thing I don’t like about atheists that fit a certain category is that they do X. 

And, yes, the “X” in this case is something that some of the more obnoxious and over-vocal sorts of atheists really do tend to do, so claiming that your real beef is with that part of the sentence isn’t going to work.

Can it really be true that every atheist in this thread has lost the ability to read, or at least to parse the English language?

Before bowing out of this trolled-to-death thread may I just say how much I admire your awe-inspiring powers of projection.

you may give back as good as you get

No, we can’t, because if we do, then we’re using “slurs” against you.  We’re “censoring” you.  We’re oppressing you.  We’re silencing you.

Again, if Amanda wants to declare Pandagon an Atheist Safe Space Zone where nobody has any right to criticzei any aspect of anything that a self-avowed atheist says , then so be it.  But until that time comes, I will reply to posters as I see fit.  You an take it, or you can ignore it.  You can respond in kind, or you can take the high road.  You can insult me and my beliefs, and I will give as good as I get.  Or maybe I’ll be really busy with work and life and not respond at all.  Or maybe I’ll go check out another less antagonistic thread. 

But the moment you pretend that atheists are poor put upon victims of those evil, evil “people who are not necessarily atheists but might possibly believe in god, except that they’re secularist and completely against fundamentalism of any stripe”  you start to look like an ass, in my opinion.

Because in my universe, when someone says something like “over-vocal atheists”, “green bell peppers”, “pink frosting”, “left-handed students”, etc etc etc they are usually identifying a group of things that share a particular attribute, rather than tarring all members of said group with said attribute.

“Hard working white Americans”?

Im a feminist, and i am familiar with “what about the menz” problem. I dont see that happening here with the liberal christians. What i see here isnt “what about the liberal christians?” I see what happening here is “ i believe in this and that but i totally agree with you about a secular state”

Bearing in mind that my question, like your original compliment , is about Jackson specifically and not the ongoing atheist vs. theist brawl, I can’t help but see “what about the liberal Christians” in the following:

That being said (and I speak as a liberal protestant who thinks evolution obviously happens, and rolls his eyes at creationists inability to reconcile their faith with science), why is this sentence necessary: “There’s a lot of theological hokum that means that they’re not 100% on board, which is to be expected, because religious power-holders realize how big a threat science is to religion, and therefore to their power.” Why describe theology as “hokum”?  Okay, I realize the answer (or at least part of it) is that Amanda really does think theology is hokum, but I think that’s a shame.  Regardless of your religion or lack thereof, there is a whole bunch of interesting and beautiful stuff in theological writing.

I think what Amanda really means is that the specific theological writings that underpin Christianity are “hokum.” But shouldn’t then all of the rest of it, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, whatever be “hokum”?

This reminds me a bit of conversations I’ve had with certain very political bisexuals, who think we should refer to both straight people and homosexual people as “monosexuals”, and chastise them for their hidebound thinking - because if only we tell them often enough we need to jump the fence, maybe they’ll wake up from their stupor. Of course, suggesting that this is a) unproductive, really and b) more about trying to be the smartest, hippest person in the room than any actual change is “silencing”, “saying we should go back in the closet” and “justifying oppression”. And of course if you don’t suck it up and work with them like siblings, you are “taking your ball and going home”.

There are always going to be people who enjoy being in the vocal, Smarter Than J00 minority, and who would frankly be disappointed if everyone agreed with them. There are always going to be people who think if you’re not in the magic belief circle, you’re part of the great, undifferentiated mass of sheeple, ie The Enemy.

Part of the price of fighting religious oppression and working for a secular society is that I’m going to have to listen to a lot of atheists whose understanding of religion starts and stops at “what those Christian morons at my high school thought”, and frankly some who think atheism is a swell cover for anti-Semitism. Sometimes you have to grit your teeth. And sometimes, when they say something particularly stupid, you and some of your other less-narcissistic allies can share a quiet eye-roll.

You think it’s rude to be told that Wicca is a factually incorrect model of the universe? How about the Flat Earth guys? Do they have a right to be insulated from globes?

Chet, please explain how Wicca is a “factually incorrect model of the universe”. Use facts.

The difference between Wiccans and Flat Earthers is pretty simple. The earth is demonstrably round. We have pictures form space. People fly around the globe and can end up back in the same place without turning around. The world even looks flat - ever watch a ship “dip” below the horizon? If you’ve got similar factual proof that the god figure I believe in doesn’t exist, I’d be interested in seeing such proof.

...

What Christians have been doing for years is discriminate in hiring, try to deny others (or even rival Christians) places to practice, physical violence…the whole bigot package.  If you’re seriously comparing atheists to them, well, them’s fightin’ words.

Seraph, peace - I’ve got no problem with atheists, in general. I certainly have no problem with atheists who are not verbally abusive, who feel that a thinking, intelligent person can believe in a god figure, and who do not take issue with people who hold private religious beliefs (by ‘private’, I mean people who don’t pressure you to convert, insist you are wrong, try to enforce their religion through legislation, etc.). And I will HAPPILY concede that many Christians have done much, MUCH worse than be ‘rude’. I just want:

1) Atheists like Chet to realize that there is no reason to compare a belief in a god to a disproven ‘fact’ like the flat earth…and that such comparisons alienate good people who would prefer to stand WITH atheists in the fight against religious bigotry.

2) Atheists like One True Vegan to realize that being a “polite atheist” to a “polite pagan” like me is nothing to be ashamed of. I respect you as a thinking, intelligent person who perceives the universe differently from you. As long as my actual ACTIONS are the same as yours (mutual respect, fighting against bigotry, crying out against Christians who send death threats over this host non-issue which is a non-issue percisely because Cook was not at fault for fleeing the scene where he was freakin’ assaulted for crying out loud and did nothing wrong by keeping the host in his haste to flee), why not be polite to me on the subject of beliefs? There’s nothing wrong with saying, “Well, I don’t believe in a god, but if you want to, that’s fine, as long as you remain a good person.” If you’ve been saying that, I’m sorry, but there did seem to be some “all god-believers are idiots” hostility in some of the posts. Sorry if I misunderstood.

3) Atheists like you, Seraph, who seem to be terribly nice people to turn on assholes like Chet and to openly distance yourselves from them. After all, if you want “moderate” (i.e. tolerance) Christians to distance themselves from the “you’re going to hell!” Christians, should not the tolerant atheists distance themselves from the “you’re an idiot who believes non-factual delusions” atheists? I sort of see a similar mentality - maybe because I get so much ridicule from both groups…militant atheist or militant Christian - they both think people who believe differently from them are worth less than them. It’s sad. :(

OK, I’ve already asked this question elsewhere, but in transubstantiation doesn’t the wafer only turn into Jesus’ flesh as you’re eating it? 
keshmeshi on 07/14 at 01:51 PM”

no, it “turns” into body of christ after eucharism (sacrament of eucharist. the whole ritual bla bla, mass)

PS. Oppo, yer conflicted. gotta fix that.

Because in my universe, when someone says something like “over-vocal atheists”, “green bell peppers”, “pink frosting”, “left-handed students”, etc etc etc they are usually identifying a group of things that share a particular attribute, rather than tarring all members of said group with said attribute.

“over-vocal liberal christians”? That sits OK with you? what about “over-vocal Civil Rights activists?” or “over-vocal Feminists”?

The subtext to your term, which somehow you still need spelled out for you (you don’t know your own dog-whistles?!) is that for an Atheist, it’s possible to be Too Vocal. That there is a “Correct” atheism, and it involves not upsetting people. Gosh, kind of how lots of anti-feminists feel about women, yeah?

The subtext to your term, which somehow you still need spelled out for you (you don’t know your own dog-whistles?!) is that for an Atheist, it’s possible to be Too Vocal. That there is a “Correct” atheism, and it involves not upsetting people.

I think a “correct” anything would be not calling otherwise very nice people “stupid”. I’m not saying you’ve done that, but some militant atheists do just that, and regularly. I believe that was what was meant by “over-vocal atheists”.

I also think “over-vocal Christians” like Jerry Falwell should STFU. Now.

What a strange, sensitive thread. It seems obvious, after so many of these posts (which I avoid posting in) , that these discussions go nowhere, and the best thing all around would be to not insult others or provoke them, but to work to create positive change. Can’t everyone, whatever their personal beliefs, agree that Bill Donahue spouted some crazy, hateful stuff? Instead of arguing with one another in a small forum, why aren’t we constructing arguments to go after this guy? Amanda made some lovely points right in the post itself, about how this lunatic actually does not understand and contradicts official Catholic doctrine. Wouldn’t taking that and turning out anger at him into action be such a better way to spend our time?
Accusing some people in every other post of being “god-people”, or making blanket statements about how Christians only want to hire Christians is no way to create active change. Another way to prevent helpful alternatives is to use a bizarre phrase like “polite atheists”, which is blatantly provocative. A person’s belief is of no interest to me, until they get in my face and label me as rude and obnoxious if I believe one way, or dumb if I believe what they think is “unfounded”. What does such a word like “unfounded” even mean? One person has their belief structure which may or may not include God, and another their own. The danger enters when people can’t even have a constructive conversation because their own previous experiences prevent them from hearing anyone else out. On top of that, everyone seems so sure of their stance, so sensitive to any remarks which may even mildly disagree with them. People seem to be much less interested in listening than in reiterating their own beliefs again and agin, and nobody can understand each other as long as everyone is merely guarding their own position and closing their ears.
In the meantime, we’ve done nothing to stop Bill Donahue from his hate talk, and as I’m pretty sure he thinks we’re all sinners, and he has the bigger audience, then he’s the one we should be focused on. Can we let one another live in peace without insults, and start dealing with those who actually are ready to label us and do away with who and what we are? It’s just a hope. I know it’s only a thread, but hey, any ideas and actions would be more than welcome, and I personally would love to do something. I sincerely hope I didn’t come across as insulting. It was only a meager attempt to refocus all this defensiveness and anger at something which really does need to be dealt with…

Again, if Amanda wants to declare Pandagon an Atheist Safe Space Zone where nobody has any right to criticzei any aspect of anything that a self-avowed atheist says , then so be it.  But until that time comes, I will reply to posters as I see fit.  You an take it, or you can ignore it.  You can respond in kind, or you can take the high road.  You can insult me and my beliefs, and I will give as good as I get.  Or maybe I’ll be really busy with work and life and not respond at all.  Or maybe I’ll go check out another less antagonistic thread.
The Opoponax on 07/14 at 05:30 PM”

lol. I was going to use that defense against. your “ban sq, ban sq” wail. but I thought it was pretty pathetic to use Amanda authority to back argument. On top of being completely unnecessary from posting point of view. It’s sort of cheap shot appeal to meta. 

So now you understand the need for diversity and less demand of meta? “I’ve been around forever. And thus I am the guardian of group purity”

This is OT, but amuses me to no end.  (plus, atheitsm vs. theism argument is so old. It’s not even worth repeating. nobody says anything new, just in different form.)

also, toss a coin. I can carry endless argument on theism or atheism all day long. if you feel bored.

The whole country is YOUR safe space, Opo. But just one safe space for atheism would be too, too much for you, right? I sentence you to re-read Seraph’s post for as long as it takes to get it.

Not my undergrad campus….the way the campus culture and student body demographics were made up when I attended.  With the majority of undergrads being proudly atheist….and nearly all being nasty harassing jackasses about it to the point the minority of religious and even agnostic students felt the only way to avoid those taunts and get by was to keep their beliefs hidden and were thus, silenced by the atheist majority. 

Unless things have drastically changed at my undergrad since I graduated…...Oberlin College was a safe affirming place for atheist students…to the point most felt entitled to leverage their majority status to openly taunt and harass religious and agnostic students in/out of class with insinuations they are of “inferior intelligence”. 

Kind of ironic when some of those self-proclaimed “intellectually superior” atheist classmates ended up being suspended/expelled for academic underperformance while some of the religious students who they taunted graduated in great standing…including one who is finishing her Neuroscience PhD at a certain topflight institution in Palo Alto, California. 

All people who believe in any kind of religion, god, etc., are not worthy of human life.

Atheism™ is the one true religion way.  Once our holiness dear leader Sir Richard Dawkins is made world emperor, we will be free to destroy not only all religions, but all people who believe in this idiotic nonsense.  I make it my mission every day to spread the good word of Atheism™, telling every person I pass on the street and going door to door to inform people of their pathetic delusions and how Atheism™ along with the Way of the Dawkins(patent pending) will make them completely better in every way.  I also stand outside of churches on Sundays with a very witty sign that is sure to convert many morons Christians.

I will not rest until everyone knows that I am an Atheist™, and am therefore at least 78% superior.  We must go the Way of Dawkins!

With the exceptions of having Dawkins as leader and the actual standing outside of churches however much many of them wanted*, the mentality and attitude of that paragraph above is an accurate depiction of the mentality of the militant atheists who were the majority of my undergrad campus. 

* Too chickenshit to risk college judicial board sanctions for acts of intolerance, anger from local town residents who were already predisposed to hating us for our being supposed “commie/homosexual/DFH” from wealthy suburbs on the “left coasts”, and being exposed as hypocrites after paying much lip service to the college’s progressive traditions of tolerance and respect for the diversity of all students.

Ok, FINE, we get it! You were made fun of at Oberlin!!

It’s really not my job to somehow make that up to you. Sheesh!

Sorry…you have basically cut and pasted that post at least four times now, exholt. I’m not going to respond to it in a substantive way each and every time.

Sigh. One last point in response to Faye.

It is a quite incorrect way of putting it to say that there is “proof” that the earth is not flat. First of all, proof belongs to mathematics, not science. Second, one cannot “prove” a negative.

The correct way of putting it is that there is massive evidence in favor of the positive proposition that the earth is an oblate spheroid. The evidence for existence of the Mother Goddess or whatever is what, exactly? Nonbelievers have been asking believers of all stripes for evidence, for aeons.. None worth a damn has ever been forthcoming. Anyone actually conversant with the scientific worldview, and unwilling to tolerate cognitive dissonance, HAS to draw fairly strong conclusions from that. 

And I would submit further that there are very strong arguments from biology- especially from evolutionary biology and neurobiology- against the existence of “divine” or “supernatural” beings. If indeed such concepts are even philosophically coherent, which I doubt. But there is no space to get into any of that here.

Enjoy your beliefs for whatever well-being they bring you. But do not try to pretend that they somehow compel respect from others in the way that well-supported scientific claims do. Again, this is very much to be distinguished from respect for your right to hold those beliefs, which should be absolute. But that right does not extend to immunity from criticism from those who believe irrational beliefs are harmful.

I don’t think “wrong” should be included in that list of unmentionable adjectives either. Is it actually possible to talk about atheism in any meaningful way without (at least) suggesting that ‘religion’ is wrong? I think this is about where accusations of “silencing” are probably justified.

“over-vocal liberal christians”? That sits OK with you? what about “over-vocal Civil Rights activists?” or “over-vocal Feminists”?

1.  Yeah, “over vocal” is actually the exact term I would use to describe those obsessively proselytizing Christians who always want you to go to their church, ask if you’ve accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior, tell you they’ll pray for you, etc.  They are OVER VOCAL.  They are way too fucking in your face about how Christianity is the only true way and if you don’t convert immediately your Immortal Soul will be in danger.

2.  If I had a friend, of any race, who was constantly telling me that by continuing to embrace white culture I was selling out all people of color everywhere, that every. little. thing. I did or believed was “racist”,  even when there was very little evidence that this could be the case, constantly compared me to Klan members and other white supremacists simply because I’m from the south, or because I haven’t married a black man, converted to Islam,  changed my name to Khadija X, and started celebrating Kwanzaa. -  —Yeah, I would think they were bing a tad “over-vocal” in their support of racial equality.

3.  There have been times in the feminist movement (*cough* the 70’s *cough*) when there were plenty of feminists who would be considered “over-vocal” by any sane fellow traveler.  The ones who thought all women with any relationship to any man (including their sons) should forfeit said connection and become a separatist.  The ones who thought that the only moral position for a feminist was to become a lesbian, regardless of her sexual orientation .  I could also mention the feminists still among us who think that it should be perfectly acceptable to discriminate against transgendered people.  I’m sorry, but I do not love women so much that I’d be willing to start hating another group that some women considered threatening.

ooooooooookay. Way to twist my point around completely, and yet still come off looking bad.

So, all those “over-vocal” people, in all those groups, what is the problem with them? Their ideas, or their speaking them aloud?  Is the solution for them to be quieter, or just to agree with you already damnit? You don’t call someone “over-vocal” unless you believe they need to be less vocal.

So people who disagree with you need to be quieter about it. Got it.

3.  There have been times in the feminist movement (*cough* the 70’s *cough*) when there were plenty of feminists who would be considered “over-vocal” by any sane fellow traveler.

“Have been times”?  Do you want the bloglinks?

The whole country is YOUR safe space, Opo.

Oh, bull fucking shit.

I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN.

The vast, VAST majority of the people we are fighting against (theocrats, Dominionists, religious fundamentalists)) would be happy to pile me onto the stake right behind you guys.  In fact, a lot of them would consider you and I one and the same, because I’m not an official member of any “real” religion they would recognize.  At worst I’d be a “satanist”, “devil worshiper”, “witch” or “heathen” and be in far more danger of being directly executed for my beliefs (“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”, for instance) than any atheist would.

Nowhere in this country that is not a safe space for you would be a safe space for me.e.

Opoponax -

I don’t think you’re going to be able to rehabilitate “Over-Vocal”, no matter how hard you try.  It’s always going to sound like “shrill” or “uppity”, and around here those are words that start the big fights.

Maybe if you tried “evangelistic”?

Well, given that you didn’t ID yourself as a Wiccan until AFTER i posted that I hardly consider my statement some kind of willful ignorance.

And way to ignore my RECENT responses to you. You know, the ones where I ask whether you really feel militant feminists and civil-rights people should be a little quieter. Because you don’t agree with them.

Opo: The reason you won’t win this argument is NOT because atheists have some inherent problem with politeness.

It’s because you have shown, several times in just this thread, that you are not willing to demonstrate the self-examination and general tact that you would have us show you. You are NOT willing to examine whether you speak from any internalized privilege. You are NOT willing to back down on terms like “Over-vocal.” And you are NOT willing to acknowledge that “I think you’re wrong” is qualitatively different from “I think you’re stupid.”

I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN.
The Opoponax on 07/14 at 06:09 PM”

ok. I will be your atheist inquisitor for tonite then.

first. what religion are you in?

Well, given that you didn’t ID yourself as a Wiccan until AFTER i posted that I hardly consider my statement some kind of willful ignorance.

I’ve said multiple times in virtually every thread ever at Pandagon that even vaguely touched on any religious subject ever since I have posted here regularly (the last year or two?) that I’m a non-christian.

I’m actually not a wiccan, either, but thanks for playing. 

The point, however, was not that you were posting in willful ignorance of my specific spiritual stance (I’m still somewhat ignorant of it, myself) but that you immediately assume that anyone who is not an atheist is at the very least a mainstream/moderately orthodox Christian, and probably an evangelical fundie. o, someone who is a member of the American religious hegemony, who is in the majority just about everywhere except a bris.

It’s offensive, to be honest.  Not beause I expect you to keep tabs on the religious affiliations of everybodyat Pandagon,  but because that’s an incredibly unfair and uncharitable assumption to make in a discussion like this.  I know it’s really tempting to see the world as Us vs. Them, everybody but you and your 3 best friends being “Them”, but honestly, it’s both childish and offensive.

Do I sense some hesitation to identify yourself with your religion oppo? Why is that?

surely a believer must believe ones religion has moral authority and deserve to answer “the” question.

You are NOT willing to examine whether you speak from any internalized privilege.

Oh, fuck off.

Yeah, you’re so right.  When the fundamentalist Christians come to power and declare Evangelical Christianity the official religion of the USA, they will understand and accept my kinda-sorta vaguely agnostic “spriritual” stance as a semi-observant Pagan.  They will single out ONLY the dyed in the wool atheists for expulsion/deporation, reeducation/whatever, and leave everyone else alone in their magical kingdom of ecumenism.  Yep, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

You know all the examples y’all gave last week, about how when people in your shitty small town ask what church you go to, and the answer is “I don’t”?  Same here.  You know the example someone gave of the hurt that comes with having to sit in a church pew and hear your particular set of beliefs scorned and demonized?  Been there. 

So you can fucking fuck off if you think I have some level of special magical religious “privilege” that you don’t.

But that’s hypothetical and rather poor illustration of what you believe in.  (what do you believe in?)

Ok, FINE, we get it! You were made fun of at Oberlin!!

You know what’s really funny, I didn’t receive the worst of it.  I only started getting the same flack after getting so infuriated with seeing religious classmates being so taunted in my classes and around campus and started arguing back in response with those atheist classmates by pointing out how hypocritical their behavior was to fostering the college’s progressive values and how they were making a mockery of the institution’s mission to promote a highly intellectual learning environment. 

One could say I was a bit disillusioned to find that many of my supposedly “young adult” classmates were still acting like vicious bullies I would expect in elementary or junior high school world I thought I left behind….not an institution of higher education. 

Unfortunately, it was not an isolated phenomenon as immature assholes, regardless of conscience choice, seemed to infest other higher-ed institutions according to atheist co-workers who had to put up with the same BS from Christian/Catholic bullying jackasses.

What’s more sad is that some of the atheist commenters on these atheism themed threads are acting in eerily similar ways as those militant atheists with whom I argued with back then. 

Thankfully, most of the commenters here are far more reasonable….and I have learned a great deal.

stop giving me “persecution complex when it comes to religion”. It’s the BASIC foundation to all modern organized religion.

on top of that, there are more outlet than religion to fight against prosecution. (law, grassroot organisation, ngo, etc, etc)

religion has specific argument.

It is a matter of readily observable fact that in the US belief of virtually any sort is privileged both by social custom (“surely you must believe in SOMETHING?”) and by law (legal exemptions from prohibition or regulation for all sorts of activities judged to be “religious”, many of them non-Christian and pertaining to small minorities.)

Facts do not cease to be facts because they are unwelcome to someone who consequently tells anyone pointing them out to “fuck off”.

Steve LaBonne, you can prove a negative, you cannot prove a “universal” negative.

In other words, it is entirely possible to prove that the earth is not flat - you just have to prove that it IS round, or square, or any other “not flat” shape there is. You cannot, however, prove that there is not, somewhere in the universe, a flat planet.

And stop baiting and switching with your pleas of evidence of a mother earth goddess or whatever you’ve decided I believe in. Chet said that Wicca was “factually” wrong. I want these FACTS, please. Really, if there’s a proven FACT (as HE claimed, not me) about the wrongness of my beliefs I’d love to hear it. But if you just want to say that there’s no EVIDENCE for a god, I already realize that and that doesn’t affect my belief. Really, in fact, I wouldn’t call it “belief” if there were FACTS in favor of it - I don’t really ‘believe’ in evolution, since I consider it to be a factually based theory, there’s not much to ‘believe’ in.

I note no one has responded to my point about militant atheists being as antagonistic as militant Christians. I expected more intellectual honesty, at least from Seraph who seemed pretty open-minded.

It is a matter of readily observable fact that in the US belief of virtually any sort is privileged both by social custom.

Which is why Wiccan soldiers had to fight tooth and nail to get the privilege to post a pentagram on their tombstone.

Seriously, get off your “we atheists have it so tough” high-horse. I personally know people who have been attacked, physically, for having the ‘wrong’ religious beliefs (and they weren’t atheists). There have been Real Life cases of women who were not allowed to take their newborn babies home from the hospital because the nurses were convinced that Wiccans sacrifice and eat children!

We are NOT more privileged than you - we have the same fucking problem (fundamentalist wackjobs trying to fuck up the government) and we should be working TOGETHER, not tearing each other down because you believe the facts are all on your side, or because you’ve decided that religious people are automatically a privileged class!

Belief in any deity at all is as factually wrong as any proposition outside of mathematics can be. I gave my reasons for saying that( above. They consist, to briefly recapitulate, in the negative statement that no evidence of any weight to anyone who does not already believe in them) has been found despite having been assiduously sought and demanded throughout human history; and the positive statement that all of our now-considerable knowledge about the physical basis and evolution of minds pretty well rules out the existence of any of the sorts of incorporeal “beings” that religions of all kinds posit (with the exception of Spinozist pantheism, which notoriously is logically indistinguishable from atheism).

By all means, continue to believe whatever you wish. I for my part will continue to evaluate your beliefs in the way I have indicated, should they include existential claims that are incompatible with scientific knowledge. So it goes.

Opoponax:

I do, however, think it’s rude to go around telling people that their beliefs are delusions and that anyone who believes as they do is obviously insane.

1) In the context of the atheism-themed threads of the last week or two, you are the rude interloper who has invaded the discussion space and gone around telling everyone else what to think.

2) Tough shit, anyway. You don’t have the right not to be offended. Thinking otherwise is a pretty strong indicator of, at the absolute best, unenlightened personal exceptionalism. At worst, it’s what drove the Taliban to destroy the Bamian Buddhas, to cite just one example.

If that is what atheism is, to you, then yes, you are an obnoxious little asshat and I will continue to call you out as such. Though, again, it’s not that I advocate censorship so much as that I think people who do such things are a bunch of arrogant jerks.

I’m willing to respect your beliefs right up to the point that you call me an “obnoxious little asshat” or “arrogant jerk” for expressing mine (in a space that has been carved out for that specific purpose, no less!). At that point, you rapidly begin to become indistinguishable from Bill Donohue and his ilk.

The atheists I know off the internet generally don’t do that, though,

I guarantee you it’s not because they don’t feel the same way.

so I’m willing to give 99% of atheists (“polite atheists”, if you will) a pass.

Sorry, but you don’t have the authority to hand out “good atheist” passes.

We are NOT more privileged than you - we have the same fucking problem (fundamentalist wackjobs trying to fuck up the government) and we should be working TOGETHER, not tearing each other down because you believe the facts are all on your side, or because you’ve decided that religious people are automatically a privileged class!

We can do that when, and only when, you learn that the only thing that will protect both of us is a genuinely secular society- one in which religious beliefs of all kinds are regarded as strictly private matters of which no notice is taken at all- including, for example, by the IRS; not a popular thought among “moderate” believers- in the public sphere. Many people of your stripe- and I stress that I do not know whether this is true of you- would be content with a society in which all religions are equally protected and oh, I suppose atheists are OK as long as they keep quiet. But no such stable situation is possible; it inevitably degenerates into tyranny of the religious majority- the very situation we see around us- which as you rightly say is a threat to you.

Many atheists percieve that a lot of our would-be “fellow travelers” simply do not understand the discimtinction I just made. That, quite frank;y, is why we do not regard them as reliable allies.

There have been Real Life cases of women who were not allowed to take their newborn babies home from the hospital because the nurses were convinced that Wiccans sacrifice and eat children!

Not to mention, of course, that there are, to this day, people in prison ultimately because they were accused by the surrounding Christian community of being satanists/pagans/witches who were supposedly sexually abusing children as a part of their religious rituals.  The charge was sexual abuse, except of course that no sexual abuse ever occurred, and the ritualistic satanism part was the part that got everyone riled in the first place.

I usually hate playing the “more oppressed than thou” game, and get especially wary when wiccans and pagans start with the Burning Times b.s.  But seriously, guys, trust us.  They don’t want us in the special People Of Faith Club.  We know this from experience.

At the moment, atheists are at the top of the Theocratic hit list, but just a few years ago it was us.  And before that it was the Jews.  And before that, the Catholics.  Which is kind of ironic in light of the original topic of this thread.  Intelligent non-Christianists know that at the end of the day, not being at the top of the current hit list does not guarantee your safety.

I guarantee you it’s not because they don’t feel the same way.

Wait, so I’m supposed to believe that 100% of atheists are genuine grade-A assholes, except that most of the ones I know in real life are just censoring themselves because they’re afraid I’ll report them to the God Police? 

Come on.

Wait, so I’m supposed to believe that 100% of atheists are genuine grade-A assholes, except that most of the ones I know in real life are just censoring themselves because they’re afraid I’ll report them to the God Police?

Hm. The phrase “reductio ad absurdam” comes immediately to mind.

“At the moment, ... The Opoponax on 07/14 at 07:59 PM”

you have no idea what you believe do you? Yet you are mad over others opinion.

In the context of the atheism-themed threads of the last week or two, you are the rude interloper who has invaded the discussion space and gone around telling everyone else what to think.

I have not told ANYONE what to think, sorry.  I have told people they were wrong, but then atheists do that all the time.  I have told people they’re being assholes, but then seriously, if you can’t handle someone on a blog telling you you’re being an asshole, then seriously you are far too thin-skinned to exist.

You don’t have the right not to be offended.

I never said I did.  Saying you’re offended isn’t the same as saying you have a right not to be offended.

Thinking otherwise is a pretty strong indicator of, at the absolute best, unenlightened personal exceptionalism.

Wait, why is it that atheists have every right to tell me that my beliefs are factually wrong (a claim they have no real proof for), that my beliefs make me clinically insane, that my beliefs are proof that I’m of lesser intelligence and/or morality than atheists, and/or that my beliefs imply that I’m a hypocrite in league with the sort of religious extremists who would have no compunctions about having me executed?  But then if I feel like insulting people that way is a rude thing to do, I’m accused of silencing atheists? 

Who’s the one that resembles the Catholic League more, here?  The person who thinks you should leave people alone to believe as they wish, or the one who thinks others have no right to criticize their assholish proselytizing?

At worst, it’s what drove the Taliban to destroy the Bamian Buddhas, to cite just one example.

Wait, if you’re an atheist who believes that all religion is a psychotic delusion, don’t you agree with the Taliban on that particular issue?  I mean, at best, the Bamian Buddhas are the equivalent of the work of Adolf Wolfli, and at worst they’re a dangerous tool for religious indoctrination.

Amanda, Could you post some of the threads as atheist commenting only?  Some of the conversations here are worthwhile but they get completely hopeless because of the ‘religious liberals’.  Any guidance to lower the flamewar and trolling would be appreciated.

Well then, Dan, what am I supposed to take from this particular meme?

You might be decent on other threads for debating, The Opoponax, but you’re a troll on religious threads at this point.

Wait, if you’re an atheist who believes that all religion is a psychotic delusion, don’t you agree with the Taliban on that particular issue?  I mean, at best, the Bamian Buddhas are the equivalent of the work of Adolf Wolfli, and at worst they’re a dangerous tool for religious indoctrination.

Oh, we’re mindreading now, and putting words in people’s mouths, are we? Well I could play that game too, if I chose. For example:.

“All this heatedness, oppoponax, is a dead giveaway of intellectual bad faith. You know damn well that your beliefs, whatever they are, are unfounded, and deep down you have a bad conscience about that. Hence the ever-increasing vehement defensiveness of your comments.”

Do go ahead and amuse me by continuing to provide supporting evidence.

Chet, please explain how Wicca is a “factually incorrect model of the universe”. Use facts.

I’m going by the Wikipedia article on Wicca, because that’s the best resource I have for Wiccan beliefs. If it misses the mark for you personally I apologize for not knowing more about your belief system.

Wicca (IPA: /ˈwɪkə/) is a pagan, nature-based religion popularised in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant, who at the time called it Witchcraft and its adherents “the Wica”.[1] He said that the religion, of which he was an initiate, was a modern survival of an old witchcraft religion which had existed in secret for hundreds of years, originating in the pre-Christian paganism of Europe.

Strike one; there’s no factual basis to assert that Wicca is the continuation of anything. It essentially appears out of whole-cloth in 1954.

For most Wiccans, Wicca is a duotheistic religion worshipping a God and a Goddess, who are seen as complementary polarities, and “embodiments of a life-force manifest in nature.”

Strike two; there’s no such “divine life-force” present in the natural world. Vitalism as a doctrine was disproven by science centuries ago. We now know that “life” is a function of chemical reactions that occur inside of, and between, cells; in other words, “life” is the state of having a living chemical metabolism. There is no such thing as a “life force.” (On the other hand, the movie “Lifeforce” has one of Harry Mancini’s greatest movie scores.)

Wiccans believe in magic that can be manipulated through the form of witchcraft or sorcery.

Strike three. Magic is the province of video games and fantasy novels; fiction. There is no such thing as “magic” in the real world.

Atheists like Chet to realize that there is no reason to compare a belief in a god to a disproven ‘fact’ like the flat earth…

There’s every reason, because they’re exactly the same - obviously false beliefs that people paradoxically continue to give credence to.

Yeah, yeah. I know, you’re insulted. That’s the hilarious part, how insulted all the cranks get. The alien people get insulted when you compare their beliefs to belief in Bigfoot. The Bigfoot people are insulted when you compare their beliefs to pyramidology. It’s like, everybody recognizes the ridiculousness of every belief but their own. The only way to avoid looking ridiculous is to make a commitment not to take things on faith. (Well, sometimes that’s not even enough.)

such comparisons alienate good people who would prefer to stand WITH atheists in the fight against religious bigotry.

Look, you’ve not been much help so far. You’re certainly doing much more in this thread to stand up for irrational belief than to attack it. In what sense are you my ally? In what sense are you the ally of any atheist? By adopting a faith position you’ve aligned yourself with the exact opposite of what I’m trying to do. How can you possibly be my ally?

I note no one has responded to my point about militant atheists being as antagonistic as militant Christians.

Because it’s long been known to be a stupid attempt at equivalence. “Militant Christians” pick up arms and go kill people. So-called “militant atheists” write books. That the term “militant” is applied to both is a long-running religious attempt to smear nonbelievers.

Wait, if you’re an atheist who believes that all religion is a psychotic delusion, don’t you agree with the Taliban on that particular issue?

No, actually; that you would even suggest it is simply further proof of your breathtaking ignorance of atheism.

Strike one; there’s no factual basis to assert that Wicca is the continuation of anything. It essentially appears out of whole-cloth in 1954.

Virtually all modern day Wiccans accept this belief. It’s no more controversial than the idea that Christianity was invented out of whole cloth by the followers of Yeshua ben Yosef circa 50 AD.  This fact does not in any way invalidate Wicca as a belief.

there’s no such “divine life-force” present in the natural world. Vitalism as a doctrine was disproven by science centuries ago. We now know that “life” is a function of chemical reactions that occur inside of, and between, cells; in other words, “life” is the state of having a living chemical metabolism. There is no such thing as a “life force.”

Yes, because clearly it’s impossible to accept such a belief on a metaphorical, metaphysical, or philosophical level.  As discussed in other threads, humans (including atheists, btw) accept a great many illogical and scientifically impossible concepts without really thinking whether there is real evidence for their literal existence. 

There is no such thing as “magic” in the real world.

There are two good counters for this.  Firstly, I have to say that I haven’t met very many Wiccans (or Pagans of any stripe) who believe that magic as it exists in fantasy novels and fairy tales really exists in a literal or scientifically provable sense.  And, secondly, the word “magic” is a pretty subjective term.  It’s pretty easy to see how people in the era before WalMart believed in magic—it’s pretty fucking magical when the crops actually sprout up out of the ground and bear fruit on time, without being infested by bugs or eaten up by birds and rodents.  Surviving childbirth after every woman who came before you in your family failed to do so feels pretty magical, too.  Vestiges of this kind of magic still exist even though nowadays our food comes from a supermarket year round and we take medicine for granted.

Kit, “atheist commenting only”? Seriously? Wow.

Steve LaBonne, I’ll seriously try to respond, and I’ll try to be polite, because you are probably a really nice guy in Real Life, just like everyone else on this thread.

1) Lack of evidence is not proof to the contrary. For instance, there is a lack of evidence that there is sentient life elsewhere in the universe, but I think we can probably agree that there’s a good possibility that somewhere, out there, there could be some intelligent life.

2) Lack of PHYSICAL evidence for a SPIRITUAL phenomena is not surprising. To wit, I ‘get’ your point about lack of physical evidence of a god. That might be meaningful if the god I believe in intervenes in a physical manner, like say the Christian god with, say, prayers for healing. That would be a deliberate, testable thing - you could measure the healing rates of prayer-people versus those of non-prayer people. However, many brands of Wicca (including my own) believe in a form of dualism - that there is the physical and there is the spiritual - and the two NEVER overlap. So, I believe in my goddess for purely spiritual reasons and there is really no surprise that there is no physical evidence for her, since - according to the very definition - there can’t be. So, again, lack of evidence FOR does not mean that there is evidence AGAINST.

3) You’d like a secular society? This may surprise you: So do I. I don’t think religious organizations should have tax-free status. I don’t think religious charities should be government funded. I think schools should take care of science and maths and leave religion to the philosophy courses. I want all marriages to be government-handled, and the religious ceremonies can be done separately and volutarily, but would not carry any legal weight. The problem is, I shouldn’t have to prove all this to anyone before they deign to treat me with some respect. There is a big difference between these two statements:

“I have no personal belief in an unproven deity, but I respect that you have differing opinions and I will judge you on your actions, not your faith,”

AND

“I am an atheist because I have the facts on my side, whereas your beliefs are factually wrong and will lead me to assume that you are my enemy on issues of social policy.”

Now. Only about 1% of atheists say the latter to me, and they all seem to be on the internet. I believe that - for whatever reason - the internet is causing us to misunderstand each other. But I do believe that there is the occassional troll who is just pretending to be an atheist in order to be hateful and give atheists a bad name, and I try - however badly - to respond to them to point them out as wrong. I feel that Chet is one of these, as he regularly claims in previous threads that ANY religious belief is one step in the door to being a homocidal lunatic. And I don’t appreciate that lack of respect.

H yes, we’re getting all metaphorical again. Yawn.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

I’m partial to militant agnostics myself.

1) Lack of evidence is not proof to the contrary. 
Faye on 07/14 at 08:58 PM”

The problem, lacks of evidence itself is justified that particular believes system is true, thus the practice can be applied to wider group of people.

Chet, I appreciate that you actually took the time to respond to my question. Thank you.

The real problem with Wiki-ing any religion is that a rough-and-ready introduction to any deep philosophical concept cannot convey any real depth or truth. And it’s not just limited to philosophy - one of the reasons that anti-evolutionists survive and thrive is because a basic explanation of evolution is usually terribly strange-sounding and confusing to anyone not previously exposed to the subject. (Initial reaction of many to evolution: We came from monkeys? But we look nothing alike! And why are there still monkeys? And why don’t we have tails? And gills? And why aren’t all evolutionary creatures indestructible now by teh power of mighty evolution?)

Not that I blame you for Wiki-ing my religion in an attempt to understand me better, just pointing out that you’re starting from an odd place.

Opop has answered most of these claims extremely well, and also to point out that some of the claims are immaterial. Whether you believe Gardner started Wicca or not does not make the religion less true or meaningful to its followers - that’s Leader Bias. If you found out tomorrow that Darwin didn’t write Origin of the Species, but actually stole the work from someone named Bob, that wouldn’t make evolution less true. Only Christians and Muslims (to my limited knowledge) care WHO started the philosophy they live by.

Second, you simply cannot prove that we are not surrounded by a spiritual divine force that exists in nature. And, third, my explanation of magic (and Christian prayer) is the same as my explanation for placebo effects and Gesthalt theory: psychology, pure and complex. If you perceive the world in a certain way, it will usually conform. Ever decided you were going to have a really good day and then, like magic, you did? It’s about choice and attitude. I realize that probably disappoints you because Wicca sounds so much cooler as a fantasy novel, but it’s not what I (or many other Wiccans) believe.

I’m a big fan of atheists and atheism. I own books by Dawkins, Carrier, Shermer, and I truly love James Randi. He does a fantastic job of pointing out the shills and shrifters who use my deeply meaningful philosophy as a smoke-screen to hurt innocent people and steal their money. I myself am not an atheist, but I fully support the good fight that they wage to keep intelligent design out of the science classrooms, and I try to help in my own small ways (want to see my FSM necklace and my FSM bumper sticker?). But if I am still not your “ally” simply because you want to abolish all religion, well, you’ve got me there. I was sort of pointing out that Wiccans can be good allies in the fight against religious oppression, religious legislation, and basically moving towards a secular government where religion and state really are separate. But if you just want religious people to stop existing, I can’t help you there.

Lack of PHYSICAL evidence for a SPIRITUAL phenomena is not surprising.

Didn’t take you long to run right off the logical rails. The law of the excluded middle tells us that there are only these two possibilities: either the claimed “spiritual” phenomena have observable physical consequences or they don’t. If the former, they can be observed and studied by science and therefore actually are NATURAL phenomena. If the latter (a claim that would be highly unpopular with the vast majority of religious believers), what meaning can even be attached to the claim that they “exist”?

Hence, there is no such thing as a “spiritual” phenomenon.

Do you really think atheists haven’t already heard a lifetime’s worth of this kind of lame apologetics? Again, yawn.

You’d like a secular society? This may surprise you: So do I.

It doesn’t surprise me (I specifically professed agnosticism about your attitudes on this point) but does gratify me. I only wish there were more like you. But I still think you need to ponder something Amands posted a while back:

The Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world exist because it’s rude to challenge religious belief, and they exploit that taboo for all its worth, bundling every kind of bigotry and evil into the container labeled “My Religious Belief That’s Above Criticism”.

“The real problem with Wiki-ing any religion is that a rough-and-ready introduction to any deep philosophical concept cannot convey any real depth or truth.
Faye on 07/14 at 09:14 PM”

2. MYSTICAL MANIPULATION - The Mystique of the Organisation

This seeks to provoke specific patterns of behaviour and emotion in such a way that these will appear to have arisen spontaneously from within the environment. For the manipulated person this assumes a near-mystical quality. This is not just a power trip by the manipulators. They have a sense of “higher purpose” and see themselves as being the “keepers of the truth.” By becoming the instruments of their own mystique, they create a mystical aura around the manipulating institution - the Party, the Government, the Organisation, etc. They are the chosen agents to carry out this mystical imperative.

The pursuit of this mystical imperative supersedes all considerations of decency of immediate human welfare. The end justifies the means. You can lie, deceive or whatever to those outside the organization. Association with the “outside” is only to benefit their own cause in some way.

Some cults like Moonies and Hare Krishna’s call their deception “heavenly deception” or “transcendental trickery”.

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/cultdyn.htm

The problem, lacks of evidence itself is justified that particular believes system is true, thus the practice can be applied to wider group of people.

Yurenko, I’m sorry - I don’t understand what you mean by this. Can you please elaborate?

However, many brands of Wicca (including my own) believe in a form of dualism - that there is the physical and there is the spiritual - and the two NEVER overlap.

A view- known as substance dualism- made completely untenable by modern neuroscience and long since abandoned by serious philosophers.

Kit, “atheist commenting only”? Seriously? Wow.

Hey, Thanks!  I thought it was a decent idea after watching a few of the train wrecks that happen in the comment thread.  It looked promising and then it goes to shit.  I was looking for a real conversation instead of baiting and condescension.  It doesn’t seem like a safe place for atheists.  Which is weird, since it’s hosted by an atheist.  Oh well!  That’s why I don’t bother to try to comment.  I’m not fond of religious patter.  I’m out.  Don’t waste your time bashing me.

Yurenko, I think you misunderstood my comment to Chet. I was not implying that I have some kind of mystical knowledge that he doesn’t, just that try to capture my beliefs about the universe on a single Wikipedia page is massively limiting.

I’m pretty sure that trying to condense ANYTHING of value into a Wiki page (Dawkins, Descarte, Einstein, Mozart) means that you’re going to lose a LOT of meaningful content.

Although I do appreciate you trying to make me out as a member of a brainwashing cult. It’s really frustrating how quickly people will treat you without respect as soon as you disagree with them on something….

Steve LaBonne, I’m curious - if the physical and spiritual cannot and do not overlap, what evidence can the physical world give to show that the spiritual world does not exist?

To put it another way: How does a caveman prove that there is no life on Pluto?

Kit, I wasn’t trying to bash you, just surprised that a Pandagon commenter would recommend that level of overt censorship.

The cavemen in principle could go to Pluto and explore for the presence of life. But you have posited the “existence” of a realm which we cannot ever physically perceive or investigate as a matter of principle. Your problem, sadly, is much worse than a factual deficit; it’s complete logical incoherence. I do not believe that the idea of the “spiritual” is even a coherent concept; it’s not even wrong, it simply doesn’t make sense. To be a “rude atheist” about it, it’s a rather sad figleaf for a naked wish-fulfillment fantasy.

All of which, to be clear, has exactly zilch to do with the effect of religion as a social phenomenon. The sophists who come up with the “non-overlapping realms” stuff are a tiny and ineffectual minority of the world’s religious believers. The rest most certainly do believe that their deity or deities of choice have power over the physical world, and would hardly welcome being told otherwise by you, let alone me.

Kit, I wasn’t trying to bash you, just surprised that a Pandagon commenter would recommend that level of overt censorship.

Well….Kit is taking a page from thousands of years of tyrannical tradition…....and one well-practiced by monarchs, religious leaders including your beloved Christian fundamentalists, fascist/communist regimes, and other authoritarian types who want to tune out any contrary opinions/disagreements by creating sterile echo chambers. 

Even more ironic that it is coming from someone who is presumably fighting for a more healthy secular pluralistic society…....

Yes! Censorship in the name of strengthening secular pluralistic democracy!!!! Rah! Rah! Rah!

it’s complete logical incoherence.

Yes, because nothing that humans do, aside from religion, mendacity, and psychiatric illnesses, is ever logically incoherent.

Atheists understand that there is nothing to be gained from confidence in one’s abilities, romantic love is just a blip of the hormones and obviously not worth getting over-involved with, and most forms of entertainment are a pointless waste of time.  Atheists get exactly 8 hours of sleep each night, are always honest about their own limitations and those of their loved ones, and eat exactly the recommended number of calories each day.  They floss religiously, never gamble, and would rather use time off of work to get a head start on next year’s taxes than take a vacation away from home.

Seriously, I would guess that easily half of everything I do is fully illogical, or at least not in any way governed by perfect rational coherence.

I will add one more point, which is that purely from an aesthetic standpoint I find unimaginative fables about “spirituality” infinitely inferior to the wonder aroused by the amazing discoveries of science about the universe, or by great works of art, or by love. De gustibus, etc.

Before I could even post that last one we get the usual shopworn penny-in-the-slot bullshit from Oppoponax about those coldhearted atheists Wordsworth visualized peeping and botanizing on their mother’s graves. How predictable, and contemptible. Such stuff merely marks you out as an ignorant fool, as if your Taliban comment hadn’t already demonstrated that.

the usual shopworn penny-in-the-slot bullshit from Oppoponax about those coldhearted atheists Wordsworth visualized peeping and botanizing on their mother’s graves.

Well, hey, why not just eat our dead?  Isn’t it illogical to waste perfectly good meat due simply to superstitious delusion?

For that matter, why don’t you eat dog?  It’s just an animal, right?

Would you consider it morally acceptable to fuck your stepsister?  What about if you married your mother after she had already been through menopause, and thus you couldn’t have children together?

We are incredibly attached to a boatload of illogical things.  That doesn’t make them any easier to disentangle ourselves from.  Nor does it make it any more moral to eschew cultural taboos about death, incest, and the difference between food and a pet (or some strange dude walking down the street, for that matter). 

It’s not a matter of atheists not having a moral rudder to cling to, just a matter of logic.  If anything illogical is a delusion, we’re all pretty fucking deluded, whether we go to church or not.

As I said. You have absolutely no idea what you’re blathering about (which includes having no idea what logic is, and isn’t), so it’s a waste of time to respond further to your trolling.

The cavemen in principle could go to Pluto and explore for the presence of life.

And here I had no idea that our ancestors possessed this sort of technology. Wow. Seriously, way to miss the anology.

But you have posited the “existence” of a realm which we cannot ever physically perceive or investigate as a matter of principle. Your problem, sadly, is much worse than a factual deficit; it’s complete logical incoherence. I do not believe that the idea of the “spiritual” is even a coherent concept; it’s not even wrong, it simply doesn’t make sense.

And we’ve gone to “your religion is provably false” to “your religion makes my head hurt and I don’t want to talk about it” in three easy posts. Funny how you were so damned sure that neuroscience had discredited the concept of the spiritual…and now you can’t find any scientific data to back that up.

I agree that the spiritual cannot be physically perceived or investigated - hell, I’ve been INSISTING that all this time. YOU are the one who wants to physically prove that it does not or cannot exists - faced with the inability to, you want to take you ball and go home. And that’s fine. But don’t tell me that science or neuroscientists or little mokeys named ‘Gabe’ have proven my beliefs wrong - you can believe them or you can choose not to, but those are - at the end of the day - your only option.

Your only other decision to make is whether to be polite and treat me based on my ACTIONS or to be a dick and treat me based on my BELIEFS. You can choose to be tolerant and reasonable, or you can choose to be bombastic and intolerant. And you can probably - based on your previous posts - add in a bit of a persecution complex, just for flavor.

Well, if I’m just bloviating nonsensically, please explain why human taboos against cannibalism, grave desecration, and incest remain meaningful, but religion is pathological delusion on a mass scale.

Jumping in to say hi to some familiar names and to express my admiration for some who are new to me. Despite the efforts of a few, this is still a far less acrimonious discussion on this topic than I’m used to. Apart from that, I’d really be worried about the over-vocal straw-atheist getting the snot bashed out of him by all the concern trolling driving this thread.

This fact does not in any way invalidate Wicca as a belief.

Among the defining characteristics of belief is that no fact can possibly invalidate it!

you simply cannot prove that we are not surrounded by a spiritual divine force that exists in nature.

So what? What reason is there to extend even provisional assent to any proposition for which there is no evidence beyond the testimony of people who fervently wish it to be true? What can be done in nature with a force that evades apprehension by any natural means whatsoever?

Anything outside and apart from nature is completely indistinguishable from the non-existent.

The last thing Dawkins, Carrier, Shermer, and James Randi want or need are fans.

what evidence can the physical world give to show that the spiritual world does not exist

As an explanation for the nature of the physical world, the spiritual is otiose. Science as it is practiced, as a method, cannot make verifiable claims about the nature of the physical world employing the hypothesis that a non-apprehendible spiritual world, about which nothing can be proven or disproven in the natural world, drives events in the physical world in ways that cannot be detected physically. There is no way to show when leprechauns did or did not mess with a given experiment, so science is, as a practical matter, aleprechaunist. You want to believe in a magical spiritual world, a universe which is a vast conspiracy on your behalf? Knock yourself out. As John Lennon said, whatever gets you through the night. As Martin Gardner would add, quoting Lord Dunsany, and the night is large, and full of wonders. Religion is far too bereft of the wonder that can be found in the rapidly expanding understanding of a rapidly widening universe that science continues to reveal. That doesn’t mean I have no need for storytelling and myth-making, I just don’t see what value can be added by a childish insistence that such stories be really really true when it is enough that they are compelling and reveal something about human nature. Belief says more about the person believing than it does about the subject of belief. As for Wicca, the only observation I would like to offer is that I would prefer it if more Wiccans were capable of accepting the fact that being sky-clad is a privilege, not a rite.

Kit, I wasn’t trying to bash you, just surprised that a Pandagon commenter would recommend that level of overt censorship.

Well….Kit is taking a page from thousands of years of tyrannical tradition…....and one well-practiced by monarchs, religious leaders including your beloved Christian fundamentalists, fascist/communist regimes, and other authoritarian types who want to tune out any contrary opinions/disagreements by creating sterile echo chambers. 

___

Ha, Ha, Ha, Snort.  Are you doing a parody of Donahue on purpose or are you all for real?  Read the post again.  You are taking a page from his book and acting it out.  You are censoring the atheists and controlling the conversation as a form of censorship.  I asked for a thread to be used by atheist commenters to limit the trolls and you all took it personal.  Forget it.  You can keep the threads.  I’m not a regular reader but I’m an atheist who wanted to have a conversation relating to what Amanda had to say on the subject.  I’ll move on.

please explain why human taboos against cannibalism, grave desecration, and incest remain meaningful, but religion is pathological delusion on a mass scale.

Humans originated both taboos and religion. Ritual cannibalism is one way to view the subject that sparked all your concern trolling, the rite of communion. Cannibalism has been just fine in cultures that wanted to assimilate the virtues of their enemies. Is feeding grandma to the birds grave desecration, or formal sky-burial? Most modern people familiar with genetics would hesitate to consider having children with a first cousin, but it was the norm among the upper classes, practiced even by Darwin.

Are you trying to make the argument that morality depends on religion? In the company of the people who have thought and argued about such an assertion? Good luck.

The last thing Dawkins, Carrier, Shermer, and James Randi want or need are fans.

By this, do you mean that nobody gets to read those authors unless Teh Offishul Atheist Klub approves of their beliefs?  Or do you mean that it is presumptuous to call oneself a “fan” of those authors?  As opposed to what?  A disciple?  Or are these authors so definitive that such a term would be blasphemous, and the proper word is something much humbler like “reader” or “admirer”? 

I mean, while Dawkins is a respected Oxford don (in biology, btw, not sociology, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, or any other field that might qualify him to explain what religion is and whether it’s a delusion or not), his books on atheism are hardly academic texts.  One wouldn’t refer to oneself as a “colleague”, a “researcher”, a “scholar”, or any of the terms that are usually used when one follows an author’s career in an academic sense.  No matter how much the fans (yes, there, I said it) of Dawkins and other popular writers on atheism wish it to be so.

And here I had no idea that our ancestors possessed this sort of technology. Wow. Seriously, way to miss the analogy.

You do understand what in principlemeans. Right?

I agree that the spiritual cannot be physically perceived or investigated - hell, I’ve been INSISTING that all this time.

But you have not even begun the task of justifying an existence claim for such a realm. And a claim of belief in something IS an existence claim, or else it is just hot air. That’s simply a fact about language.

The answer I’m getting from you, frankly, is “hot air”. As I said, your “beliefs” are NOT EVEN wrong. They don’t even rise to that level. Even the otherwise muddleheaded Oppoponax seems to recognize this and doesn’t want to try to defend that ground (hence the diversionary tactics).

Now, if you simply enjoyed your ceremonies of whatever kind and found them meaningful on a symbolic level and emotionally satisfying, without trying to peddle philosophical bullshit about this vaporous “spiritual realm”, we would have no quarrel whatsoever.  (Which is the point that Oppoponax just doesn’t get.) I prefer works of art for that purpose, but you’re just as entitled to your preference.  De gustibus non est disputandum.

Humans originated both taboos and religion. Ritual cannibalism is one way to view the subject that sparked all your concern trolling, the rite of communion. Cannibalism has been just fine in cultures that wanted to assimilate the virtues of their enemies. Is feeding grandma to the birds grave desecration, or formal sky-burial? Most modern people familiar with genetics would hesitate to consider having children with a first cousin, but it was the norm among the upper classes, practiced even by Darwin.

Yes, I’m aware of all that already.  In fact, the way I see it, those facts underscore my point—all of these things are human constructs which vary from culture to culture.  Why is such a thing perfectly acceptable when it comes to something most people are still deeply disturbed by (barbecued puppy for at a 4th of July barbecue, f’rinstance), but pathological when the example is an institution which is currently falling out of favor amongst most educated liberal Westerners anyway?

If what atheists are really trying to argue here is that our culture is currently undergoing a shift in what we consider sacred and/or ritualized, and where our taboos lie, then I agree, and sure, I guess that probably makes me an atheist too in some regards.

Except that the above concept doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what any atheist I’m familiar with seems to believe.

Opoponax,
I simply mean to say that critical thinking is a skill valued for its challenge and rarity by the writers cited. To believe what they say is to miss the point entirely.

Your Courtier’s Reply WRT Dawkins is noted and duly mocked.

I’ve got children to put to bed, and curiously, despite the fact that my wife and I eschew religion, and the fact that there’s lots of good eatin’ on them things, we will treat them with love and respect and help them learn how to think for themselves to the best of our abilities while raising them outside of any religious tradition, because it is part of what gives meaning to our lives.

Virtually all modern day Wiccans accept this belief. It’s no more controversial than the idea that Christianity was invented out of whole cloth by the followers of Yeshua ben Yosef circa 50 AD.  This fact does not in any way invalidate Wicca as a belief.

I have no idea what “virtually all modern day Wiccans” believe, and I don’t think for a moment that your knowledge of Wicca extends beyond a few individuals who may or may not be representative of the religion as a whole; suffice to say that the Wiki article was unambiguous that it’s a tenant of their religion that it is an extension and modernization of a genuine medieval religion of witchcraft.

Yet, that claim is factually false.

Yes, because clearly it’s impossible to accept such a belief on a metaphorical, metaphysical, or philosophical level.

To “accept” the claim on any of those levels, rather than an actual existing level, is completely the same thing as denying the claim altogether. Like I’ve said before, if the only God you believe in is a metaphorical, conceptual God, you’re a “tarted-up atheist” as Dawkins likes to say. Accepting the metaphorical or philosophical God, and no others, is completely the same thing as atheism. I mean I’m an atheist who believes in chi, for instance; not as a literal force that runs through the body like blood (as the acupuncturists would have us believe) but as a kind of metaphor for certain states of alertness and physical arousal.

And obviously I believe that God is a metaphor; that’s where I believe myths come from, after all. All of that is what it means to be an atheist - to accept “God” only as a concept, not as a description of reality. That’s what it means not to believe in God. If you’re not seeing a lot of daylight between our individual forms of spirituality, Opp, it’s because you’re an atheist at heart. You know, like most people are.

Firstly, I have to say that I haven’t met very many Wiccans (or Pagans of any stripe) who believe that magic as it exists in fantasy novels and fairy tales really exists in a literal or scientifically provable sense.

They cast spells. The article is pretty clear on that. Those aren’t metaphors; those are rituals designed to bring about a certain outcome. Indeed, they’re organized by outcomes - “spell to find your true love”, etc.

If somebody has a “metaphorical” Wicca, where the spells are forms of meditation designed to increase self-knowledge, or something; again, that’s tarted-up atheism, not religion.

And, secondly, the word “magic” is a pretty subjective term.  It’s pretty easy to see how people in the era before WalMart believed in magic

Sure - they had not yet developed useful tools for apprehending the world around them, and were therefore ignorant of reality.

What’s hard to imagine is how people now can believe in magic. But I guess some people are determined to deny themselves the fruit of rational inquiry into the world.

Read thread.  Want refund for 20 minutes of existence that are gone forever.  Also for Donahue to stop giggling and rubbing his hands together.

Considering that what I’ve heard so far of Dawkins’ so-called critical thinking skills, I’ll pass on believing myself not worthy even to agree with him…  In fact I’m probably more likely to find my own beliefs coinciding with his by pure happenstance than to continue to disagree and yet be able to stand back and admire the brilliance of his mind.

it is part of what gives meaning to our lives.

The idea that our individual lives have “meaning” is one of the most deeply illogical and incoherent ideas known to humankind.  Which doesn’t make it wrong or bad or not worthy of our consideration, but simply that if you cannot allow people to believe that god exists because it is “illogical”, you should probably dispense with that silly “my children give my life meaning” fiction you’ve created for yourself, while you’re at it.

most people are still deeply disturbed by (barbecued puppy for at a 4th of July barbecue, f’rinstance)

You’ve never been an animator supervising overseas animators who had to look closely at the menu in Korea have you?

Cultures shift. What is sacred in one is profane in another. Syncretism works for every culture except Christianity. A soldier in Alexander’s army could say to a Hindu, “Whom you call Indra, we call Zeus,” but the typical American at the Kwiki Mart would offer, “Who you call Indra, we call Satan.” One notch below Satan, are atheists.

Except that the above concept doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what any atheist I’m familiar with seems to believe.

You could, perhaps, become familiar with some actual atheists, rather than the straw atheists of your imagination. Atheists, like agnostics familiar with Thomas Huxley (who coined the word agnostic), believe nothing for which there is no evidence. Lack of belief is pretty much the only thing atheists have in common.

The last thing Dawkins, Carrier, Shermer, and James Randi want or need are fans.

Hmm. I’ve never met anyone who knew decisively what Dawkins, Carrier, Shermer, and Randi WANT. I would, however, believe that they are likely to want fans, at least a little, since a good portion of their income comes from book sales. And, of course, Randi is a spectacular magician…

But you have not even begun the task of justifying an existence claim for such a realm.

No fucking kidding - I don’t have the intent to convert you and I don’t need to explain myself. I’ve merely shown that CHET was wrong to say that Wicca was factually false. I can’t help you if you decided to jump in and hold the line for him - and I don’t need to respond to your “well, if it’s not FALSE, then prove that it’s TRUE” childish turnabout. I don’t need to justify anything, which is what I’ve been saying. Again, you can politely disagree and assume that I’m a reasonable human being with reasons for believing the things I do, or you can be a narrow-minded “Christian” and assum that I’m deceived, delusional, and a barking idiot. It’s really your choice.

Now, if you simply enjoyed your ceremonies of whatever kind and found them meaningful on a symbolic level and emotionally satisfying, without trying to peddle philosophical bullshit about this vaporous “spiritual realm”, we would have no quarrel whatsoever.

But wouldn’t that be infinitely more hypocritical and mendacious, and thus in your eyes, immoral and pathological, than if we truly believed in what we claimed to believe in?  You really think it is logically preferable that someone go through the motions of religious observance without belief than that one simply own up and say, “frankly, I don’t believe in God.  Let’s go out to lunch instead of this bullshit maypole dance thing”?

Actually, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There isn’t a workshop full of elves at the North Pole, presents at Christmas don’t show up unless you buy them, and we don’t see sleighs flying through the air. There is an absence of evidence for Santa Clause. Proposing the existence of god is a hypothesis just like any other, as Dawkins suggests. Therefore you may construct it like so:

H0: There is no god.
H1: There is a god.

And since there isn’t any physical evidence of any deities, we must fall back on the null hypothesis. There is no god.

Steve LaBonne is correct when he states that distinguishing between the spiritual and physical just doesn’t make any sense. In order for us to interact with something, it must, by definition, exist in the physical world. For example, in order for us to see something photons must bounce off it and enter our eyes. Also, non-overlapping magisteria is just bullshit. You bet your ass that if we uncovered some haploid Jesus DNA these liberal theists would be all over it and we wouldn’t hear any more about the two separate realms of physical and spiritual.

Chet, I appreciate that you actually took the time to respond to my question. Thank you.

You’re welcome, really. I guess I’m interested in trying to show you that “you’re wrong” doesn’t have to be an insulting thing. I don’t think any less of you for believing in something I know is wrong, because you’re still trying to engage me in a good-faith, intellectual manner. And I’m interested in Wicca, to some degree. (Mostly to strip-mine it for D&D;games. Catholicism is even better for that.)

I think less of Opoponax, because he’s not arguing in good faith, but with disingenuous bullshit.

The real problem with Wiki-ing any religion is that a rough-and-ready introduction to any deep philosophical concept cannot convey any real depth or truth.

I’m aware of that; since there’s no truth to religion, any individual’s practice of it is obviously subject to a great deal of idiosyncratic variation. Like I said I apologize for having to go off the Wiki instead of tailoring a post to your individual beliefs. And, indeed, if you believe that the divine life-force is merely a metaphor for the underlying physical reality, then I apologize - because what you believe is not wrong, you’ve simply misidentified what your beliefs are. If you believe only in a metaphorical God, you’ve been an atheist all this time.

If you found out tomorrow that Darwin didn’t write Origin of the Species, but actually stole the work from someone named Bob, that wouldn’t make evolution less true.

That’s not really true. But if I found out that Darwin wrote Origin of the Species but had never seen the finches of Galapagos, which constituted (for purposes of this argument) a lot of the evidence he used to support the conclusions of the book, I might very well have reason to doubt his theory. (As it is, we’re able to support evolution with much more evidence than Darwin had access to, including molecular genetics.)

Gardner made a pretty specific claim that Wicca was a continuation of centuries-old traditions as an attempt to derive legitimacy from that tradition. If that’s a claim no longer widely held among Wiccans, I guess it doesn’t matter, but the article is pretty clear that that’s a tenant of the religion, much as it’s a tenant of Christianity that Jesus Christ died on the Cross and was risen on the third day (one and a half days later.)

If you perceive the world in a certain way, it will usually conform.

But that’s abundantly untrue. No matter how I struggle to “perceive” a full bank account and a shiny new sailboat, the universe is not going to conform to my perception. Indeed, to “perceive” something untrue about the universe is the clinical definition of hallucination (if you succeed) or delusion (if you don’t.)

For rational people, the universe is, and we make an effort to perceive it accurately. To do the reverse is delusion. I don’t know what other word there is for that.

The Flat-Earth guys really perceive a flat Earth. It hasn’t made it true.

Second, you simply cannot prove that we are not surrounded by a spiritual divine force that exists in nature.

I can prove that there is no force as described, yes. I can prove that a model of the universe that includes this force is less accurate, and makes worse predictions, than the model that doesn’t include it, which is why vitalism was dismissed by science centuries ago. It was disproven (in the scientific sense of the term.)

Considering that what I’ve heard so far of Dawkins’ so-called critical thinking skills

So, you are content to take another’s word rather than investigate for yourself.

The idea that our individual lives have “meaning” is one of the most deeply illogical and incoherent ideas known to humankind.

Humans are generally deeply illogical and incoherent, or haven’t you reviewed your own contributions to this thread? Meaning does not inhere in things. Humans assign meaning, we constellate meaning upon random spots of light and upon patterns noticed in our surroundings, sometimes usefully, sometimes fallaciously, as when we presume that something happened because of a prior event, since it happened after said event. My individual life has meaning to me. To the extent that some of what I value may be adopted by my children, my life is valued outside and apart from me, and a particular dance of culture, music, art, science, cheesy videogames comix and movies, may or may not persist after I am long forgotten.

You’ve never been an animator supervising overseas animators who had to look closely at the menu in Korea have you?

I didn’t realize they celebrated the 4th of July in Korea.  And, btw, I’m sure there is some animal in Korea that is considered absolutely taboo to even consider consuming as food, possibly even an animal we eat without a thought in the USA. 

Cultures shift. What is sacred in one is profane in another.

Yes.  What does this have to do with the entire rest of this ‘conversation’?  How does cultural relativism disprove belief in deity or the spiritual realm?  I would use the exact same point to argue that it’s no more illogical to believe that god exists than it is to believe that it’s immoral to eat a dog, or that The Children Are Our Future, or that creating a great work of art endows a person with “immortality”, or that it would be wrong to marry your sister, even if you were both women.

And again, I’ve talked to a lot of atheists, including the ones here at Pandagon (and other blogs where these issues come up frequently), and nobody has ever said that atheism is the agreement that our culture is transitioning away from belief in personal gods that impact day to day life and towards belief in abstract scientific concepts that can really only be “proven” by math most of us will never hope to understand (when they can be “proven” at all).  In fact I could even agree that this is why so many people see a conflict between science and religion.  For a lot of people they are simply two separate kinds of belief systems, out of which only one or the other should be chosen (in the way that Westerners also tend to believe you can only be Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Pagan). 

Except of course that I’ve talked to a lot of atheists, all over the place, in a lot of different contexts, and so far none of them seem to think that’s what atheism is.  They seem to think atheism is the absence of any belief in unprovable metaphysical claims whatsoever.  And while in some parts of the world you can be both Sikh and Hindu, I don’t think there’s any way to claim that you can be both an atheist and a believer at the same time. 

Syncretism works for every culture except Christianity.

Christianity is a syncretic religion.  And it has also spawned syncretic religions of its own.  Shit, I have to say that tracing European Paganism and Judaism to Christianity to Vodun, there are days I think that all religion is syncretism, possibly even that all human belief is syncretism.  Scientology, anyone?

Humans are generally deeply illogical and incoherent, or haven’t you reviewed your own contributions to this thread? Meaning does not inhere in things. Humans assign meaning

It is internally inconsistent to believe this, and also to believe that you are an atheist simply because it has been “proven” to you that a belief in god is incorrect.

Meaning does not inhere in things. Humans assign meaning, we constellate meaning upon random spots of light and upon patterns noticed in our surroundings, sometimes usefully, sometimes fallaciously, as when we presume that something happened because of a prior event, since it happened after said event. My individual life has meaning to me.
Ken Cope on 07/14 at 11:31 PM”

not all meaning system is the same tho. Specifically religious system, it aims to explain universal reality, thus it must jibe with external reality while maintaining internal coherency.

Otherwise it might as well be a collection of dada poetry.

For example, in order for us to see something photons must bounce off it and enter our eyes.

Tell that to people who drop acid regularly…

Atheists understand that there is nothing to be gained from confidence in one’s abilities, romantic love is just a blip of the hormones and obviously not worth getting over-involved with, and most forms of entertainment are a pointless waste of time.

Confidence, romance, and entertainment value only have existence is that, and only as far as they motivate human response.  That is all.  Everything else is either chemical (i.e. the hormonal blips) AND CAN BE MEASURED AS CHEMICAL, or an epiphenomena arising from human motivation (such as, say, the economics of the entertainment industry).

If you want to posit religion as just existing as a force in human response, go ahead.  No one will disagree with you whatsoever.

If you want to posit religion as something more, as something existing outside human brians and the mass communications between them, then provide proof that this objective existence can be measured, that it actually has an effect on the real world outside of people.  Or face the fact that people are going to label something that cannot even in theory be measured as being epistemologically meaningless, on a par with talking about the speed of up, or the inside of red.

Why is such a thing perfectly acceptable when it comes to something most people are still deeply disturbed by (barbecued puppy for at a 4th of July barbecue, f’rinstance), but pathological when the example is an institution which is currently falling out of favor amongst most educated liberal Westerners anyway?

Because we can have the conversation about the practical merits of grave burial, or dog-eating (which Koreans love, I understand), or what-have-you, and come to compromises that reflect principles of liberty balanced against the public interest. If you think it’s ok to dump your excess PCB’s into the groundwater, and the rest of us disagree (because we have to drink that water), we can pull in the machinery of the state to prevent your actions from harming the rest of us. If that restriction would materially harm you there’s even an opportunity for compromise and mediation.

Unless you make it a religious discussion. Proclaim it your religious expression to dump PCB’s, and now suddenly the rules are different. There’s no room for compromise; there’s no room for criticism; now it’s “intolerant” to question your freedom to poison the water for the rest of us. And the people who push against that classification are somehow “militant.”

Well, the religious may not be poisoning our groundwater, but they’re peddling poison nonetheless;  3000 people died on 9/11 in a testament to the poisonous power of religion. Maybe that sounds like a histrionic claim to you, but think about it - 19 well-educated, relatively affluent architects, teachers, and lawyers were persuaded to kill themselves and 3000 others not with coercion or torture, but with words. With a conversation.

That’s the incredible danger of religion. Once you’ve convinced someone to divorce acceptance from evidence, there’s no end to what you can get them to do. (And that, also, is the answer to those who believe the conversation between atheists and believers is of no merit and no minds will be changed. If the power of words can drive them to atrocities, the same power can drive them to understanding.)

Opoponax:

Wait, why is it that atheists have every right to tell me that my beliefs are factually wrong (a claim they have no real proof for),

Your beliefs are axiomatically neither right nor wrong. They’re just non-falsifiable. Didn’t we go over all this in the last thread?

that my beliefs make me clinically insane, that my beliefs are proof that I’m of lesser intelligence and/or morality than atheists,

Well considering how comically horrible you are at constructing and analyzing arguments, I’m going to assume that at least one of those three things is true, although I doubt your beliefs have anything meaningful to do with it.

and/or that my beliefs imply that I’m a hypocrite in league with the sort of religious extremists who would have no compunctions about having me executed?

I couldn’t possibly care less what you actually believe, and frankly, neither does anyone else. It’s not your beliefs themselves that put you there, but the way you appear to think they ought to be immune from criticism.

But then if I feel like insulting people that way is a rude thing to do, I’m accused of silencing atheists?

Why should I care if you’re insulted by open atheism, or if you think that expressing open atheism is rude? Isn’t that, you know, your problem?

Thinking that people ought to be left alone to believe what they wish is a two-way street.

Who’s the one that resembles the Catholic League more, here? The person who thinks you should leave people alone to believe as they wish, or the one who thinks others have no right to criticize their assholish proselytizing?

Well, that’s certainly a…unique…interpretation of this discussion.

You want to know who the asshole is in any discussion? Find the person who thinks that the mere expression of something that criticizes or mocks their worldview qualifies as proselytization.

At worst, it’s what drove the Taliban to destroy the Bamian Buddhas, to cite just one example.

Wait, if you’re an atheist who believes that all religion is a psychotic delusion, don’t you agree with the Taliban on that particular issue?

That’s so self-evidently moronic it’s not even worth a response.

I mean, at best, the Bamian Buddhas are the equivalent of the work of Adolf Wolfli, and at worst they’re a dangerous tool for religious indoctrination.

Or maybe they were just a bunch of aesthetically interesting statues that got blown up for a profoundly stupid reason.

Well, if I’m just bloviating nonsensically, please explain why human taboos against cannibalism, grave desecration, and incest remain meaningful, but religion is pathological delusion on a mass scale.

False dilemma.

How does cultural relativism disprove belief in deity or the spiritual realm?

Things that are real produce coherent, consistent results when independently examined. Things that are false produce conflicting, inconsistent results when independently examined.

It’s a pretty simple principle. That’s how we detect when people are lying, remember? The same principle applies here. If there were a real spiritual realm, there would be essentially one or two religions about it; instead of what we have now, which is essentially one religion per existing human being.

No fucking kidding - I don’t have the intent to convert you and I don’t need to explain myself.
Faye on 07/14 at 11:20 PM “

thus you have no argument in this thread regarding theism. (You can’t prove a key aspect of your believe, the existence of “realm”, is more than series of figment of your imagination that nobody else can understand but you. It has no connection to physical reality.)

Most people call it illusion.

I didn’t realize they celebrated the 4th of July in Korea.

That is not argument in good faith, and even you know it.

How does cultural relativism disprove belief in deity or the spiritual realm?

What moron (apart from your straw-atheist) would attempt to disprove belief in deity? People believe all sorts of things, out of nothing more than cultural tradition. If their beliefs were a result of some top-down deistic intent laid out for human delectation, cultural relativity would not exist. Secondly, nobody needs to disprove the spiritual realm, as many are taking great pains to show everybody else. The spiritual realm is non-disprovable, which makes it completely incoherent and immune to any sort of rational investigation. Ultimately, the spiritual realm reduces entirely to matters of taste and literary criticism. Who can tell the most ripping yarn about the spiritual realm and attract the biggest fan base? Atheists, who are seldom strangers to religion, but instead apostates and seekers who have come to thrive on the tentative hypothesis that there is no subject that can accurately map onto the object of any spiritual quest, are the insufferable music snobs of comparative religion.

Christianity is a syncretic religion.

The fact that Christianity has absorbed the tropes and rituals and practices of many religions does not make it syncretic, it merely makes it The Borg of religion.

Or face the fact that people are going to label something that cannot even in theory be measured as being epistemologically meaningless, on a par with talking about the speed of up, or the inside of red

Consider the fact duly faced.  Unlike some people, I have no particular investment in whether others share my worldview.  Believe in god.  Don’t.  I certainly don’t care one way or the other.

That is not argument in good faith, and even you know it.

How so?  I mentioned serving puppy at a 4th of July barbecue as one form of irrational belief virtually no Americans are willing to question, and you countered it by informing me that people in Korea eat dog.  Which is neither here nor there, since you and I both know I wasn’t positing the taboo against eating dogs as a human universal. 

What moron (apart from your straw-atheist) would attempt to disprove belief in deity?

Straw Atheist/Moron, thy name is Chet.  And Dan.  And One True Vegan.  And Entomologista.  I could list more if it weren’t getting horribly close to my bedtime.  One of the basic tropes of Militant Atheism Of The Internet Variety is the claim that the concept of deity has been or can easily be conclusively disproved.

If their beliefs were a result of some top-down deistic intent laid out for human delectation, cultural relativity would not exist.

I never claimed otherwise.  I also never claimed the existence of any sort of “top-down deistic intent”.  If a theist had to believe in either a One True Way or a thoroughly consistent worldwide understanding of deity, there wouldn’t be very many theists with educations beyond middle school.

Specifically religious system, it aims to explain universal reality, thus it must jibe with external reality while maintaining internal coherency.

When an account of universal reality doesn’t jibe with external reality, religion rejects the external reality, while science rejects that explanation. Maintaining internal coherency is useful in maintaining suspension of disbelief, which makes the meaning of stories valuable even when they don’t jibe with external reality.

Otherwise it might as well be a collection of dada poetry.</i>

You’d better not be dissing dada poetry, or I’ll subject you to Eleven Mustachioed Daughters.

you appear to think they ought to be immune from criticism.

NO I FUCKING DO NOT.

Not a single person arguing on the “theist” side of this discussion has claimed that theistic belief ought to be immune from criticism.

I’ll ask, again, if defense of one’s beliefs (or, really, the concept of belief) in the face of direct antagonism is silencing criticism of said beliefs, how are atheists any better than the Catholic League?  I didn’t realize that anybody’s beliefs were being threatened, here, and I fail to understand how atheists’ assertion that any utterance of anything that may imply that atheism is not the One True Way is “silencing them” is anything other than a rather warped sort of theocratic impulse.

If a theist had to believe in either a One True Way or a thoroughly consistent worldwide understanding of deity, there wouldn’t be very many theists with educations beyond middle school.

One more idiot (actually the same idiot) who doesn’t know the first thing about religion except some attenuated, adulterated barely-religious corner case. The simple fact is that the vast majority of believers believe that they have it right and the people who disagree are wrong about something, and that it’s all supposed to be consistent and “make sense” if you have enough faith.

But then knowing that would require Opp to actually make a good-faith effort to understand what he was talking about. I suspect we’re going to grow old waiting for him to do that.

When an account of universal reality doesn’t jibe with external reality

Not all religion attempts to describe a ‘universal reality’.  Yet again, your problem seems to be with mainstream Protestant Christianity, not with belief in general.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of believers believe that they have it right and the people who disagree are wrong about something, and that it’s all supposed to be consistent and “make sense” if you have enough faith.

Oh, sorry.

I didn’t know we were putting it up to a vote?

And on that note, I’m off to bed, never again to “silence” another atheist by participating in a thread that even remotely deals with religion, science, creationism vs. evolution, theocracy, etc etc etc ever again.

Opoponax:

Straw Atheist/Moron, thy name is Chet. And Dan. And One True Vegan. And Entomologista. I could list more if it weren’t getting horribly close to my bedtime. One of the basic tropes of Militant Atheism Of The Internet Variety is the claim that the concept of deity has been or can easily be conclusively disproved.

One of the basic tropes of the strawman-spouting fuckhead is the complete inability to read and comprehend even a single word that anyone has actually said to you, much less to differentiate between different lines of argument.

You just can’t help giving away the whole game, can you? You’re pretending not to be attacking a strawman, but then you go an fuck it up by making up a name for an opponent archetype and then CAPITALIZING IT.

I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, but you suck at arguing.

Obviously Opoponax lacks an understanding of the scientific process. Proofs are for math and alcohol; there is only evidence, or not.

I’m off to bed, never again to “silence” another atheist by participating in a thread that even remotely deals with religion, science, creationism vs. evolution, theocracy, etc etc etc ever again.

Yeah, I’m going to be over on YouTube, seeing as how you’re already on the cross.

How so?  I mentioned serving puppy at a 4th of July barbecue as one form of irrational belief virtually no Americans are willing to question

Irrational belief? or taboo? You’re really just flailing spastically here. I didn’t know I was supposed to separate Americans from people in other countries for whatever point you thought you’d try to cobble together after the fact was.

If a theist had to believe in either a One True Way or a thoroughly consistent worldwide understanding of deity, there wouldn’t be very many theists with educations beyond middle school

One of the consistent products of seminaries is a steady supply of atheists, who, having examined their beliefs, eschew them.

One of the basic tropes of Militant Atheism Of The Internet Variety is the claim that the concept of deity has been or can easily be conclusively disproved.

Ignorant strawman. Sure, we can get subtle and finesse the point that theistic claims that do not have anything to do with the natural world, are non-disprovable, but when they make claims about nature, they are as subject to scientific examination as any other hypothesis. To the extent that religious claims attempt to describe nature, they colossally fail. Religious ideas entertained as hypotheses are, at best, otiose, giving rise to no ideas that can help us in any way deepen our understanding of the nature of reality. We learn nothing from adding “goddidit” to a reductionist explanation that makes accurate predictions about the world. Religious claims can’t be, don’t even need to be, disproved. In just the same way, stories don’t need to be literally true to contain value, or have meaning. I also value people who respect discourse sufficiently to be properly informed and familiar with the terrain before going online and making things up as dishonestly as THE Opoponax has.

Opoponax:

you appear to think they ought to be immune from criticism.

NO I FUCKING DO NOT.

Not a single person arguing on the “theist” side of this discussion has claimed that theistic belief ought to be immune from criticism.

This would be a much more convincing claim if you hadn’t spent the last two fucking weeks throwing a temper tantrum every time someone criticized religion — not even your religion in particular, just religion in general — and then play-acting as if you were really reacting to the actual content of the expression, not just to the act of expression itself.

Nobody gives a fuck if atheists make you feel bad, atheists least of all, especially when it’s so clear that you couldn’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag.

I’ll ask, again, if defense of one’s beliefs (or, really, the concept of belief) in the face of direct antagonism is silencing criticism of said beliefs, how are atheists any better than the Catholic League?

I didn’t realize that anybody’s beliefs were being threatened, here, and I fail to understand how atheists’ assertion that any utterance of anything that may imply that atheism is not the One True Way is “silencing them” is anything other than a rather warped sort of theocratic impulse.

And I’ll say, again, that that’s an incredibly warped and transparently self-serving revision of this discussion.

I’m very sorry, but when your entire argument consists of strawmen and other assorted pieces of intellectual laziness and dishonesty, you don’t get to claim the intellectual high ground.

Like I’ve said before, if the only God you believe in is a metaphorical, conceptual God, you’re a “tarted-up atheist” as Dawkins likes to say. Accepting the metaphorical or philosophical God, and no others, is completely the same thing as atheism. I mean I’m an atheist who believes in chi, for instance; not as a literal force that runs through the body like blood (as the acupuncturists would have us believe) but as a kind of metaphor for certain states of alertness and physical arousal.

Hey Chet,

So you are now back to saying that even those who believe in a metaphorical God/deity/supernatural spirit or force are actually atheists. 

Funny thing is that every atheist I’ve met IRL from the militant atheists at my undergrad to the more reasonable atheist co-worker’s after graduation would all vehemently disagree with that definition. 

As far as my atheist co-workers were concerned, any belief in a theistic deity or supernatural spirit/force…even as a metaphor would be considered a theist.  No atheist in their view would ever have a need to use a theistic deity or supernatural spirit/force…even in a metaphorical sense to define their outlook on life and the world. 

To expand the definition of atheism to include these “metaphorical theists” would, as far as they were concerned, make a mockery of the very definition of atheism…and their own observance of it.  They were quite adamant in their arguments that such “metaphorical theists” were just as wrong about their beliefs as the “sky-fairy theists”.  The thought that those “metaphorical theists” could be considered atheists tend to first result in unrestrained mocking laughter at the thought and anyone who made such an argument.  This would be immediately followed by long scornful rants about how only someone clueless about the basic definitions of atheism would come up with something so ridiculously idiotic. 

In short, their definition of atheism coincides far more with The Opoponax’s statement:

They seem to think atheism is the absence of any belief in unprovable metaphysical claims whatsoever.

than with yours.

Could we stop with the term “militant atheist” please? Outspoken might be better. Strident, even. Out and proud. But since theists have been the only ones thus far to strap bombs to their chests, theists look pretty fucking stupid calling atheists militant.

They seem to think atheism is the absence of any belief in unprovable metaphysical claims whatsoever.

I would advise reliance on a definition of atheism neither from co-workers nor from THE Opoponax. The simplest definition of an atheist is one without theism. A Christian is atheistic toward Odin or Zeus, atheistic toward any other religion’s pantheon, but then that leaves atheism open to charges of mere belief in the absence of gods. As to atheists withholding belief in unprovable metaphysical claims, that isn’t really close enough for a cigar. You may learn after investigating for yourself, that the practice of science is methodological, rather than metaphysical, naturalism. Proof is not a scientific concept (proof is for math and whisky). Scientists, long used to displacing theoretical models with better ones that make superior explanations and predictions while also explaining why the previous model seemed to be accurate, are cautious around loaded words like belief and proof. The best anybody informed by the scientific method can do, is to assign provisional assent to the current, reigning scientific consensus, and if they’re really doing exceptional work, supplant and displace that with an explanation that better and more accurately maps onto observations and evidence. To be an intellectually honest atheist, informed by the current scientific consensus, means living with a great deal of ambiguity. Con artists like Deepak Chopra and that ilk turn that upside down, taking the liberty of believing whatever they feel like pulling out of their ass, and justifying it with quantum woo.

As far as my atheist co-workers were concerned, any belief in a theistic deity or supernatural spirit/force…even as a metaphor would be considered a theist.

I doubt that even Joseph Campbell would support your co-workers. To require that anybody who employs metaphor be classified as a theist is as ignorant as one who would claim that a myth is a lie. Myth is metaphor. Theism is the degradation of metaphor, reducing it to dry journalism, demanding that a myth be a literal and historical dry fact. Metaphor is a useful creative tool.

This reminds me a bit of conversations I’ve had with certain very political bisexuals…

This can’t go anywhere good.

...who think we should refer to both straight people and homosexual people as “monosexuals” and chastise them for their hidebound thinking - because if only we tell them often enough we need to jump the fence, maybe they’ll wake up from their stupor. Of course, suggesting that this is a) unproductive, really and b) more about trying to be the smartest, hippest person in the room than any actual change is “silencing”, “saying we should go back in the closet” and “justifying oppression”. And of course if you don’t suck it up and work with them like siblings, you are “taking your ball and going home”.

And it doesn’t.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you’re harboring unexamined prejudice about both bisexuals and atheists. It’s that, or you just happen to know what is best for these groups of which you are apparently not a member.

Look, I’m not in favor of chastising people for not referring to straight and gay people as monosexuals. Hell, I’m happy when they graciously refer to me as a bisexual, rather than trading in the variety of popular slurs—which include denial, insanity, and as you referenced, trendiness. Even so, I often use the term monosexual when I’m talking about straight and gay communities together—usually in the context of biphobia. Maybe the bisexuals you know are really are just a bunch of jerks, but that seems as likely as the ex-girlfriends of men’s rights activists really being duplicitous succubi.

Mythago, you’ve got some serious prejudice you need to work through.

Seriously, “if we tell them often enough we need to jump the fence”?

Bigot.

Could we stop with the term “militant atheist” please? Outspoken might be better. Strident, even. Out and proud.

Entomologista,

When I use the term “militant atheist”, it is to denote the atheists I’ve encountered at my undergrad who openly taunted and harassed religious and agnostic classmates on their supposed “inferior intelligence” solely because of their religious/theistic beliefs.  The fact they were the dominant majority at my undergrad campus at the time I attended meant that most religious classmates ended up being intimidated into concealing their beliefs in order to avoid being taunted and harassed. 

Those campus atheists at my undergrad were far more than merely “outspoken”, “strident”, or “out and proud”.  In many ways, their behavior was not far removed from those of Christian fundie students who taunted and harassed my atheist co-workers at more mainstream secular universities and religiously affiliated colleges or vicious bullies from the elementary and junior high world I thought I had left behind. 

But since theists have been the only ones thus far to strap bombs to their chests, theists look pretty fucking stupid calling atheists militant.

Avowed atheists may not have strapped bombs to their chests, but many were involved in Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, and Maoist regimes….avowed atheistic movements with a bloody murderous history only exceeded by the Axis Powers during the Second Sino-Japanese War/WW II.  In historical terms, avowed atheistic movements and the many atheists involved were at the very least, just as murderous and bloody as their religious counterparts.  Whether it was the Stalinist purges or the millions killed in the wake of the Maoist Cultural Revolution…an event a branch of my family experienced and survived…..I don’t think atheists can say they were morally any better/cleaner than their religious counterparts and remain honest to the historical record. 

Even the atheist co-workers I’ve befriended and conversed with after graduation IRL had no trouble acknowledging this point.

In before:

“They weren’t real atheists, their god was the state.”

exholt:

There can be evil atheists, just as there can be evil people in any group, but atheism itself does not encourage brutality or slaughter, even if some might use it as an excuse to do horrible things.

Exholt, what the fuck is your point? None of us is responsible for the behavior of any other atheist.

Granted, the lack of any faith doesn’t teach any manners. Duh. To the extent that we get together, HERE is where we get together.

The point, obviously, is that what we share is an absence of a common belief. To most it must seem that we share a disability, that our lack of belief is like a missing limb. To us it feels like a loosened shackle.

I used to work just down the street from a low-security prison. I’ve been around inmates just after they’ve been released, and they tend to be raucous. “I’m outta jail, woo hoo! Gimme a beer and a pack of cigarettes!”

There really aren’t any deep conclusions to be drawn from such behavior.

Also, could we just lay off the Opoponax for just a bit? Just because we like having her around?

I was looking forward to a nuanced discussion of P.Z. Myer’s provocation (yeah, right) and instead everyone resumed their simmering resentments. Maybe Pandagon needs more actual trolls; people want to fight, and they shouldn’t beat up on their friends.

Two scattered thoughts.

#1. The Catholic church opposes the death penalty in almost all circumstances. Justice Scalia - and for that matter all the other Supreme Court justices who are Catholic - are wildly out of touch with orthodoxy, and in a world where the seriousness of deviations wasn’t held hostage to political concerns, they’d all be out of communion. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for Bill Donahue to go after them.

#2. The insistence that calling other people’s religion wrong is just weird. There are people who do physical and mental disciplines originally inspired by a religious doctrine who don’t have any opinion about their truth, but that’s not worship, that’s calisthenics. If it is wrong to say anyone else is wrong, then the world is solipsistic. And I’m not a solipsist. Therefore, neither are any of you.

In summary:

1. Trolls appeared and claimed that all religion was provably false and stupid.
2. Believers logically showed that belief is not provably false and not automatically stupid.
3. “Moderates” wrung hands at the Believers, claiming that they were attacking ‘straw-atheists’ and conveniently choosing to ignore the original Trolls.

How intellectually honest of you ‘moderates’.

This would be a much more convincing claim if you hadn’t spent the last two fucking weeks throwing a temper tantrum every time someone criticized religion — not even your religion in particular, just religion in general — and then play-acting as if you were really reacting to the actual content of the expression, not just to the act of expression itself.

There are differing types of criticism Dan.

“The Catholic church has principles unfounded in physical evidence and some of those principles can be misused to support violence,” is very different from “Everyone who is a Catholic is a pedophile.” Now, try to follow me here - I’m not saying someone posted the latter! It is, however, an example that there is good-faith critcism and there is bad-faith criticism.

Most of the criticism in these threads that Opo and I have taken issue with fall in these categories:

1. Religion is provably false. (Not true.)
2. Religion is stupid and only stupid people believe in it. (Bombastic.)
3. Religion of ANY kind means you’re very nearly a terrorist. (Untrue twice - most religious people are peaceful, and some atheist are not. Both groups have evil people A PRIORI, not because Teh Religun, of any kind, brainwashes otherwise awesome people into cold-blooded killers.)
4. Religion of the ‘right’ kind is really atheism, whether you consider yourself an atheist or not. (Intellectually dishonest.)

These are the categories that I (and I believe Opo) do NOT take issue with:

1. There is no physical proof for religion. (True.)
2. Religious claims should be open to examination and intellectually honest criticism. (Agreed.)
3. Religious actions should be open to legal repercussions when necessary. (Absolutely - Death threats and assault deserve jail time no matter why they did it.)
4. Everyone should have the right to believe what they choose about god without harrasment from other groups of believers. (Agreed.)

So, you see, when you say Opo has been arguing against criticism of religion, you’re right and you’re wrong. It’s like arguing against someone who uses the whole, “We urge Sen. Obama to stop beating his wife” - that’s not an intellectually honest position and it’s right to call the troll out on it. Now, of course, if the Senator really IS beating his wife, then Opo and I are right there to criticize with everyone else. Does that make sense?

Bruce Baugh,

1. And I would love to see Donahue pick that battle. Unfortunately, I get the impression that he’s a Republican before he’s a ‘good’ Catholic, hence the creationism thing. Sigh.

2. Thank you - that is exactly the sort of polite statement that I can get on board with. Can we make some floats or a parade or something?

Yet another train wreck thread.  This time the wreck looks like exactly like:

Original post topic:  There’s a man out there who thinks women just don’t deserve rights.

Woman A:  This guy is such an idiot and pisses me off.

Woman B:  I’m not surprised since every man I’ve met has his head up his ass.

Man A:  Woman B, you are incredibly rude and insensitive to men who could totally be your allies.

Woman C: Man A, you’re sitting on a heap of privilege and we’d really like it if you’d stop trolling these threads.

Man A:  Oh here come the militant feminists out of the wood work, always complaining about men oppressing them.  SOME men do, but others like me are their allies in fighting the patriarchy.  If the asshole men had their way, us nice men would be the next up on the wall right after the women.  Especially the gay male allies.  Remember the Holocaust?

Woman D: Here they come again, the “what about the menz” trolls.  Next they’ll say we’re stupid for not understanding how nice they really are, blah blah…

Man B:  Yeah, here we are the men who want to help you but you’d rather accuse us of “oppressing” you and defending ourselves is now “slurring” you and “we might just take our balls and go home” and blah blah blah blah

...and then the thread turns into a women-vs-men virtual brawl.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to get some of the liberal religious folks around here to see their behavior here like that above, even when it was quite gently being asked early on in the thread.  And yes, in this particular thread the atheists got to the griping first, but then the atheist “allies” jumped on board to continue the ongoing argument.  Absolutely no different from parents trolling childfree forums, Nice Guys(tm) trolling women-only spaces, and white liberals trolling anti-racism threads.

(Funny thing is that I self-identify most closely as an atheist Christian (originally Catholic, went through a neo-pagan phase in my teenage years, and now not too far away from the Christianity described by Marcus Borg), so my god is a metaphor for a lot of things but is definitely not a conscious entity that can violate the laws of physics.  I’m not unhappy with other people using the atheist label for me (in fact I would prefer to use a different word than Christian but I’m still looking for it) and I don’t insist that I get to define atheism as anything more than disbelief in literal gods or supernatural powers.  It mystifies me a bit that others here who seem to have somewhat similar spiritual paths as mine must absolutely get all up in it as soon as they see other atheists blowing off steam.)

When an account of universal reality doesn’t jibe with external reality, religion rejects the external reality, while science rejects that explanation. Maintaining internal coherency is useful in maintaining suspension of disbelief, which makes the meaning of stories valuable even when they don’t jibe with external reality.
Ken Cope on 07/15 at 12:04 AM

Most often the problem is this “suspension” of belief to maintain coherency when faced with external reality. Let’s face it, one can’t just change religious “explanation” or the whole story every other time it faced with new reality. Religion has structure, bureaucracy and involves planning and investment.

Otherwise it might as well be a collection of dada poetry.//
You’d better not be dissing dada poetry, or I’ll subject you to Eleven Mustachioed Daughters.
Ken Cope on 07/15 at 12:04 AM

the main point of dada is rejection of meaning and meaning container, thus revealing the absurdity of meta narrative. Religion IS about meta narrative.

1. There is no physical proof for religion. (True.)
2. Religious claims should be open to examination and intellectually honest criticism. (Agreed.)
3. Religious actions should be open to legal repercussions when necessary. (Absolutely - Death threats and assault deserve jail time no matter why they did it.)
4. Everyone should have the right to believe what they choose about god without harrasment from other groups of believers. (Agreed.)
So, you see, when you say Opo has been arguing against criticism of religion,
Faye on 07/15 at 08:00 AM

oppo is just being stubborn after taking random reactionary position that she can’t possibly defend, she doesn’t have a point except being a prima donna. Hence why she is harassing people demanding poster to act like she wants it, despite not being able to justify her reasoning.

The key problem, which you also seems to refuse to recognize, is religious narrative foundation when it comes to justifying itself. Specially on forcing others to accept what it wants. When rubber meets the road, it comes down to good old wealth and power, controlling interest. And that is the domain of politically active.

Of course nobody really cares if theres/there is no “spiritual realm”, the problem of course…what comes after one justify specific argument/behavior based on the existence of “spiritual realm” . In this thread of course if one agree with your assertion of “spiritual realm” a whole set of justification is allowed. (including a lot of oppo’s dubious claims, including her demand for people to act according to her ridiculous standard)  It’s a sketch of what happens in larger scheme of thing.

“Republicanism” or “Conservatism” has become a de facto religion of its own, which helps explain why it’s so frequently a problem. (I’m not intending offense to religionists, just recognizing that “fervor” or “zealotry” is often a recipe for trouble.)

MickEss, I really think that you are onto something there - I do feel that FOX news has a sort of “cult dogma” feel about it. Questions are not allowed, and “answers” to common questions are presented in such a way as to prevent the actual opposition point from getting through. Very kool-aid feel.

Oh, and to wrap up the atheism debate:

Yurenko, I honestly don’t know how to respond to your posts because they don’t make sense to me. I’m sorry, but for some reason your sentences just don’t make any sense to me. Sorry.

Chet, I’m not trying to ignore you, but I also don’t want to be accused of turning this into an Introductory Wicca thread. To answer your question as shortly as possible, I do not believe it is factually incorrect to see Wicca as a continuation of earlier religious beliefs, as long as you see religion as being subject to the basic laws of evolution and adaptation as every other social policy or belief. While some religions - Christianity comes to mind - have a certain “influence fear” and need their religion to be uninfluenced by other religions, Wicca is extremely eclectic and regularly accepts new ideas and discards old ones. Thus, we see our “religion” as being one of many paths that evolved out of the earliest ‘sky-god’ religions that our ancestors postulated - and we believe that all religions have evolved over time. Only Christians, to my knowledge, insist that their religion is static.

I do think it’s amusing that you mock Wiccans for a belief in magic (a belief you admittedly know little about, outside of fantasy novels), yet you let drop that you believe in Chi. You may be a Chi-believing atheist, but there are plenty of atheists out there who would deride you for your belief in something “provably false” for which there is no “positive evidence”. You don’t recognize your bias - YOUR belief in Chi is reasonable, but MY belief in <anything you disagree with> is not reasonable.

I’ve also noted your main points revolve around:

1) Redefining the “right” religionists as “tarted-up atheists”.
2) Insisting that “good” religionists should participate in the rituals they won’t let go of, but at least stop believing in those rituals (in other words, become atheists).
3) Stating that religionists cannot be your “allies” in politics because your one goal is to remove religion from everyone.

It looks to me, if I may be allowed to do some backseat psychology, that you have a very strong interest in redefining all intelligent normal people in being atheists and therefore like YOU. Do you have such low self-esteem that you doubt your own beliefs if other normal people have different beliefs? Or do you just need to “belong” to the winning team? This isn’t an us-versus-them fight - or at least it doesn’t need to be. Why define me as Wiccan and yourself as Atheist. We probbaly have many things in common, and many other things not in common. Can’t we all just get along without you needing to berate or convert me?

While some religions - Christianity comes to mind - have a certain “influence fear” and need their religion to be uninfluenced by other religions, Wicca is extremely eclectic and regularly accepts new ideas and discards old ones. Thus, we see our “religion” as being one of many paths that evolved out of the earliest ‘sky-god’ religions that our ancestors postulated - and we believe that all religions have evolved over time. Only Christians, to my knowledge, insist that their religion is static.

I would agree, and add that within a Wiccan context, it’s possible to understand that Gardner “invented” Wicca, but that since he used both the input of others who may really have been aware of extant remnants of pagan practice in Britain and the written record of research on other kinds of Pagan practice that Garder certainly had access to, Wicca does in fact follow in the footsteps of pre-Christian European paganism.  Even though it’s not an unbroken or perfectly organic progression.

Even though it’s not an unbroken or perfectly organic progression.

Agreed, and that last statement is particularly telling, because there’s certainly also the Jungian narrative to consider when understanding why some religions have common themes. For instance, Robert Price points out many similarities between Buddhism and early Christianity, but there is not real evidence that the one consciously borrowed from the other, so it seems more likely that these similarities evolved because the religions evolved in answer to some of the same questions. Really, I think all religion at the core attempts to answer basic psychological questions, such as the nature and motivation of what we perceive as evil, what we face after death, and how we can/should live our lives. The answers for these are different between Christianity, Wicca, and atheism, but they are still answering the same questions.

I think anything else is probably chaff that got piled on. Things like this host issue with Donahue - the communion is supposed to be a form of literal communion between god and believer. And that’s fine. But if unbeliever takes of communion, then presumably there would be no communion because the unbeliever does not believe in god. Therefore, no harm is done, because communion cannot be “faked” and god - if one exists - can certainly take care of him/herself. This elevation of the FORM of communion (the host) to the importance of the MEANING of communion (believer and god in holy communication) is to elevate the letter of the law above the spirit of the law. (I think we all agree that Donahue is only doing this to promote himself, which adds new levels of sleaziness to the picture.)

In my opinion, the only reasonable response to this issue would have been to explain the Catholic beliefs to Cook (if he wanted to hear them), and allow him to make up his own mind as to how to treat the “cracker”. If he does believe in god, he cannot harm god by misusing the host. And if he does believe in god and wish for communion with him, let him consume the host as he sees fit in his own personal space. IMO.

I don’t know about Amanda, but if your stance isn’t ‘Expropriate the churches, sell their gaudy wasteful expensive art crap and use the proceeds to turn them into useful buildings for the People, like homeless shelters or soup kitchens’, you’re no fellow traveller of mine. And I won’t apologize for it.

`So I say to you, go ahead and preach and earn your pay, but for goodness’ sake leave the working class alone. You belong in the enemy’s camp. You have nothing in common with the working class. Your hands are soft with the work others have performed for you. Your stomachs are round with the plenitude of eating.’ (Here Dr. Ballingford winced, and every eye glanced at his prodigious girth. It was said he had not seen his own feet in years.) `And your minds are filled with doctrines that are buttresses of the established order. You are as much mercenaries (sincere mercenaries, I grant) as were the men of the Swiss Guard. Be true to your salt and your hire; guard, with your preaching, the interests of your employers; but do not come down to the working class and serve as false leaders. You cannot honestly be in the two camps at once. The working class has done without you. Believe me, the working class will continue to do without you. And, furthermore, the working class can do better without you than with you.’
- Jack London, The Iron Heel

I honestly don’t know how to respond to your posts because they don’t make sense to me

Faye on 07/15 at 09:40 AM”

ok. let’s take that statement you just made for eg.

you claim any religion/social organization viewed as evolution and adaptation is “incorrect” then you go on saying ...  we believe all religions “evolved”. Well ? so what is “evolved”? is it the same as evolution and adaptation that you rejected? (that’s internal coherency. To casual observe, you are full of shit)

second. I seriously doubt a middle age level of civilization actually have concept such as “evolved”. The concept that an organism can change after time is VERY modern. Let alone combined with concept such as “social organization”.

That’s like trying to explain the bible using quantum physic and claiming that is what original christianity is about.  (Yeah and I would like to have discussion of photonic entanglement with Jesus.)
If you are allowed to insert Hegel into Wicca, I want Neils Borh mixed with my Jesus talk.

But if unbeliever takes of communion, then presumably there would be no communion because the unbeliever does not believe in god

I have to say that this is something I’ve never understood about Catholicism, and probably one of the reasons it never seems like an attractive set of beliefs for me.  I grew up in a church which believed that all Christian communion was legitimate, and if you find yourself in a church outside your own denomination and feel comfortable taking communion, you should participate if you want to.  Then I got sent to Catholic school, where I was told that my participation in the eucharist at school masses was a sacrelige, and that I was forbidden to ever do it.  Simply because I grew up episcopalian (which, btw, has virtually identical beliefs about eucharist to that of Catholics, transubstantiation and all).

Even as a preteen, I was pretty much like, “wow your god must be pretty weak if you honestly believe that someone who has identical beliefs to yours would irreparably contaminate the eucharist with their participation, simply because they let their priests get married ...”

But if unbeliever takes of communion, then presumably there would be no communion because the unbeliever does not believe in god

I have to say that this is something I’ve never understood about Catholicism, and probably one of the reasons it never seems like an attractive set of beliefs for me.  I grew up in a church which believed that all Christian communion was legitimate, and if you find yourself in a church outside your own denomination and feel comfortable taking communion, you should participate if you want to.
The Opoponax on 07/15 at 10:18 AM

Because it is a ritual. It has steps, each step are attached to larger tradition. Without membership, there is no sacrament, without sacrament, there is no eucharism. without eucharism there is no “body of christ”

The point of organisation it has “organ”, body of knowledge, tradition and rules…. (dogma and cathecism. Theology and bureaucracy to sustain them all.)

otherwise it will be just wafer with empty calorie with boring speeches from medieval time.

Opoponax, if you take the belief (as I do) that the Catholic communion issue here is a problem of “form over meaning” or “law over spirit”, then I believe it stands to reason that Catholicism, which has been around a lot longer than Protestantism, is more likely to have internalized forms over meaning, because this happens when believers become lazy or complacent and prefer to ‘believe’ what they are told, rather than work out the meanings for themselves (and then decide if they agree with those meanings). I believe that Protestant Christianity is on this path, and I also caution fellow Wiccans against complacency in this regard. The majority of American Wiccans are Wiccans-by-choice, not Wiccans-by-upbringing and - since their religion was a conscious choice - they accept that other people make the same types of choices and are not actually wrong. But when you are “raised” to believe something, you are less likely to consider that other people may have valid reasons for their beliefs, too. And if you’re “raised” to a tradition, it can be easy to conflate the form of that tradition with the reason for that tradition.

you claim any religion/social organization viewed as evolution and adaptation is “incorrect”

Huh? Where did I claim that?

I don’t know about Amanda, but if your stance isn’t ‘Expropriate the churches, sell their gaudy wasteful expensive art crap and use the proceeds to turn them into useful buildings for the People, like homeless shelters or soup kitchens’, you’re no fellow traveller of mine. And I won’t apologize for it.

I’ve never met a Real Life atheist who doesn’t respect personal property rights, so I’m going to assume that you’re a fundamentalist Christian trying to give atheists a bad name. You also don’t make much sense - the biggest impediment to homeless shelters and soup kitchens isn’t a lack of money, it’s a lack of volunteers. Maybe we’ll staff the soup kitchen with slave labor from the local garden club you also don’t approve of? Bah, nevermind, I know better than to feed trolls.

Opoponax, if you take the belief (as I do) that the Catholic communion issue here is a problem of “form over meaning” or “law over spirit”, then I believe it stands to reason that Catholicism, which has been around a lot longer than Protestantism, is more likely to have internalized forms over meaning, because this happens when believers become lazy or complacent and prefer to ‘believe’ what they are told, rather than work out the meanings for themselves (and then decide if they agree with those meanings).
Faye on 07/15 at 10:42 AM”

except what you want to believe is called “Apostasy”. Either one believe the dogma or one doesn’t. It’s the point of being a member of a religion. There is organizational mechanism to regulate the interpretation of holy script. One doesn’t get to interpret dogma whatever one wants.

That’s religion.

There is no “i want my religion mixed with whatever kooky idea I find amusing and pick my interest at this particular point of time”. That’s modern show business.

So you are now back to saying that even those who believe in a metaphorical God/deity/supernatural spirit or force are actually atheists.

Right, because to be a metaphor is to not literally exist, and if you believe that God doesn’t exist, you’re an atheist.

QED. I’m not “back to” saying it, because I’ve never not said it. The belief in God where “God” is just a metaphor for human feelings, or for goodness, or for other noble qualities or aspects of the human experience is nothing more than a kind of window-dressing for atheism; it’s how a lot of atheists get by - even with themselves - in a culture where irreligiousness is identified with sociopathy.

To expand the definition of atheism to include these “metaphorical theists” would, as far as they were concerned, make a mockery of the very definition of atheism…

It’s neither a mockery nor a particularly radical definition of atheism; it’s just a recognition about what the word “metaphor” means and implies. And one of the things it implies is nonexistence. If your metaphor is something that actually exists, it’s not a metaphor at all; it’s literal. The problem is that we live in a culture where people say “metaphor” when they mean real, and “literal” when they mean “metaphorically”, like when people say “he literally puts his ass on the line for us every day.” (Literally? His ass is literally on a line?)

In short, their definition of atheism coincides far more with The Opoponax’s statement

They’re not different, though. “Metaphysical” isn’t synonymous with “metaphorical”, for one thing; indeed, it’s not clear what “metaphysical” is supposed to mean. It’s a cipher, a word used to obscure meaning, like “supernatural.”

Avowed atheists may not have strapped bombs to their chests, but many were involved in Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, and Maoist regimes….

This has been amply proven false.

>>I’ve never met a Real Life atheist who doesn’t respect personal property rights

You live a pretty sheltered life. Not all of us are Objectivists or merely liberals. The fundamentalists may say ‘all atheists are communists’, but the correct rebuttal isn’t ‘no atheists are communists’, but ‘not all atheists are communists’. I am an anarchist (which by definition also makes me a communist) and I don’t make excuses for existing.

As for the soup kitchen comment, I might have said ‘burn them down and use the land for affordable housing’ instead. I don’t really give a shit what you do with them, as long as religion dies the ignominous death it needs to die. Better live on your feet than die on your knees.

“Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”
- Denis Diderot

If I were a psychologist, I suppose it might be interesting to wonder what deep-seated insecurities motivate muddleheads like Oppoponax and Faye to thread-crap this way (despite their utter inability to sustain anything resembling an argument, to understand the meanings of words like"metaphorical” and “metaphysical”, to understand even the barest rudiments of scientific thinking, and indeed their complete lack of any actual point), and even to drag out those ancient wheezes like “Commies and Nazis were atheists so there nyah nyah!” as though we haven’t all heard them 100 million times before.

Since I’m not a psychologist, though, it’s just mind-fuckingly boring and repetitive. So all I’ve learned from it is that participation in religion comment threads around here is a complete waste of time, because they will be taken over and derailed by insecure thread-crapping trolls. Live and learn.

Chet, I’m not trying to ignore you, but I also don’t want to be accused of turning this into an Introductory Wicca thread.

That’s fair enough, and I think you’ve done yeoman’s work already in terms of being open about your religion.

To answer your question as shortly as possible, I do not believe it is factually incorrect to see Wicca as a continuation of earlier religious beliefs, as long as you see religion as being subject to the basic laws of evolution and adaptation as every other social policy or belief.

It’s factually incorrect if there are no facts to support it. Do you kind of see the “feature creep”, here? How belief in your self-stated “unverifiable, undisprovable divine force” has crept over to taking a verifiable claim at face value with no evidence?

I’m afraid that’s the danger of religion. People who believe in a divine entity on the basis of no evidence - even if you think that’s a “safe” belief because “God is unprovable” (which I don’t believe) - leads them to believe in things like “abstinence-only education is effective at preventing the spread of STD’s among teens” even in the face of contrary evidence, because they’re in the habit of believing in things without evidence, already.

I do think it’s amusing that you mock Wiccans for a belief in magic (a belief you admittedly know little about, outside of fantasy novels), yet you let drop that you believe in Chi.

Did you read how I don’t actually believe in Chi - I’m a a-chi-ist, as well - but that it is a metaphoric model that, I believe, has some merit as a shorthand for complicated mental and physical states?

Do you see how that’s substantively different than your belief in a literal “divine life force” that is said to actually exist in the Universe? There’s only one of us proposing something that is actually in the universe, and that’s you. My position on Chi is that it doesn’t, in fact, exist. It’s just a kind of shorthand I’ve come to believe is useful (and I’m open to be disagreed with on this point.)

The acupuncturists believe in a literally existing chi. I don’t. the chi I believe in is a metaphor, and that’s why I’m still an atheist who rejects the supernatural. If that’s your position on “magic”, then I submit to you that you have no more belief in magic than I do.

Insisting that “good” religionists should participate in the rituals they won’t let go of, but at least stop believing in those rituals (in other words, become atheists).

No, I’m not saying they should become atheists, I’m saying that they are atheists, and they should be allowed to recognize that they have the freedom to, say, sleep in on Sunday morning and not feel like they have to participate in a ritual that they know isn’t real for people to think they’re a good person.

There are a lot of people who struggle with faith, like my father. I think the majority of the religious struggle with it. I know his religion doesn’t make any sense to him, and it tears him up inside because he sees his struggle as a personal failing - if only he believed “hard enough” the doubts and confusion would go away - and that bothers me, a lot. Religion’s defenders would have us believe that, even if it’s a lie, it’s a harmless or even beneficial one, but that’s nonsense. I see what it does to people to wonder why they seem to be the only ones who don’t “get it”; why they seem to be the only ones who wonder if this stuff is really true.

It’s hurting people. It’s not a beneficial lie; people can’t knowingly try to believe lies without self-injury. It just doesn’t feel right to believe in something you know isn’t true.

Can’t we all just get along without you needing to berate or convert me?

Can you get along with hearing me say, on the internet, that you have factually incorrect beliefs? I don’t see that as “berating” you. I see it as a statement of fact. If you can not be offended when I state facts then we can get along, yes.

Straw Atheist/Moron, thy name is Chet. And Dan. And One True Vegan. And Entomologista. I could list more if it weren’t getting horribly close to my bedtime. One of the basic tropes of Militant Atheism Of The Internet Variety is the claim that the concept of deity has been or can easily be conclusively disproved.

I’d just like to go on record that I’m not Chet. And I don’t believe that deities are “falsifiable.” The trope you just invented doesn’t apply to my atheism. So i’d appreciate it if Opo could just be honest for a second and only attribute things to their speakers…not just to everyone she particularly despises.  Unless she wants me to start makin’ shit up ‘bout Wicca.

I would agree, and add that within a Wiccan context, it’s possible to understand that Gardner “invented” Wicca, but that since he used both the input of others who may really have been aware of extant remnants of pagan practice in Britain and the written record of research on other kinds of Pagan practice that Garder certainly had access to, Wicca does in fact follow in the footsteps of pre-Christian European paganism

Dang. If there’s anybody in the world that is “really [...] aware of extant remnants of pagan practice in Britain” (assuming you mean genuine survivals from the pre-Christian period rather than made-up stuff), then there’s a small army of archaeologists, historians and anthropologists who would really, really like to hear about it. Stuart McHardy (amongst others) has argued that some aspects of traditional Scottish culture show evidence of such a survival, but it’s really hard to demonstrate, and he doesn’t really try.

It’s bad enough trying to understand Christian practice in the early mediaeval period, and they left documentation. What evidence there is for pre-Christian practice is so fragmentary and equivocal that interpretation is almost impossible - which is a real pain is the ass if you’re interested in that sort of thing.

Then, of course, there’s the small problem that a fair bit has changed in our understanding of pre-Christian Europe since Gardner’s death.

There is a terrible tendency to assume that paganism is paganism, as exhibited by the more recent tendency to try and reconstruct “celtic” belief and practice from surviving forms of shamanism as practised in northern Finland and Siberia. The devil (no pun intended) is, of course, in the details - and it’s the details that have been almost completely lost.

Exholt, what the fuck is your point? None of us is responsible for the behavior of any other atheist.

Bad Jim,

I was responding to Entomologista’s elevating atheists as more “holier than thou” and “pure” than religionists/theists because they didn’t strap on bombs for their beliefs….and in so doing…also implied that atheists never used bloody murderous violence to advance their interpretation of atheism. 

My reply is the latest of many replies calling BS on such arguments as they do not accord with the historical record.  Such apologia is even more galling considering the similar tendencies among many Christians I’ve encountered in order to minimize and even deny Christianity’s responsibility for its bloody murderous legacy in events such as the Crusades or their role in facilitating Western Imperialism in non-western societies by saying “They were not “real” Christians” or “They were not living according to the teachings of Jesus Christ”.  Moreover, considering how recent in history and how massive the scale of killing was in avowed atheistic Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, and other Marxist-derived regimes….there is really no excuse for this form of historical amnesia/revisionism.

If anything, unless someone can correct me, Wiccanism, Jainism and the Bahai believers have far cleaner/purer records on this account than many religionist…or some atheistic movements for that matter. 

There can be evil atheists, just as there can be evil people in any group, but atheism itself does not encourage brutality or slaughter, even if some might use it as an excuse to do horrible things.<blockquote>

Depends on which interpretation of atheism you’re talking about.  The avowed atheist Marxist derived regimes did so in the name of “preserving the revolution” and to persecute and suppress any “counterrevolutionaries” which included those who believed in any theistic belief as that ran counter to the avowed atheistic aims of Marxist derived ideologies to regard any such belief as an effective prop of the capitalistic ruling classes.  Marx did, after all, say that “Religion is the opium of the people”. 

<blockquote>‘Expropriate the churches, sell their gaudy wasteful expensive art crap and use the proceeds to turn them into useful buildings for the People, like homeless shelters or soup kitchens’, you’re no fellow traveller of mine. And I won’t apologize for it.

BlackBloc’s argument here was one of the arguments used by the bloody murderous Marxist derived totalitarian regimes to persecute and suppress those who were religious. 

From examining the history of a few Marxist-derived regimes….it does not take much prodding from such regimes to then go from persecuting and suppressing religious folks to persecuting and suppressing everyone else.  In the case of China’s cultural revolution, the Red Guards didn’t stop respectively at annihilating or brutalizing religious people and artifacts as they were deemed “counter-revolutionary”....they also imprisoned, brutalized, and even killed many other “counterrevolutionaries” such as individuals whose difficulty in understanding the current state of Maoist orthodoxy got them in trouble*, intellectuals working in schools, universities, and research institutes, and even senior officials from the same avowed atheistic Marxist/Maoist regime.  Like the Stalinist purges, the Maoists ended up consuming their very own in the name of “preserving the revolution”. 

* Considering how most American undergrads…even at topflight institutions tend to have much difficulty in wrapping their minds around Marxist/Maoist theory…..imagine how many were caught up because they had such difficulties…and had, at best, a limited elementary or intermediate school education followed by vocational training to become a factory worker, day laborer, or farmer.

exholt—Re the murderous Marxist regimes - Wasn’t one of the problems their lack of true atheism?  They just used secular, cult-of-personality type gods to supplant the more traditional ones already in place.  The treatment of Lenin or Mao was essentially the creation of a secular godhead.

Religion is provably false. (Not true.)

Not true.

Where religion makes claims about the natural world it is provably false.

Where religion makes claims about a supernatural world impervious to natural investigation, it cannot be disproven, which is worse than provably false—it is inchoherent.

Religion is stupid and only stupid people believe in it. (Bombastic.)

The most hospitable environment for religion is an unexamined life.

Religion of ANY kind means you’re very nearly a terrorist. (Untrue twice - most religious people are peaceful, and some atheist are not. Both groups have evil people A PRIORI, not because Teh Religun, of any kind, brainwashes otherwise awesome people into cold-blooded killers.)

Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.

If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr’s death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?

There is no doubt that the afterlife-obsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile, and its guidance system is in many respects superior to the most sophisticated electronic brain that money can buy. Yet to a cynical government, organisation, or priesthood, it is very very cheap.

Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. “Mindless” may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.

It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.

4. Religion of the ‘right’ kind is really atheism, whether you consider yourself an atheist or not. (Intellectually dishonest.)

Metaphors, metaphysics, what’s the diff?

It would be interesting to find out who started this whole “paganism” vs “feminism” thing. I always thought it’s a convenient device to quickly take out paternalistic religion from woman movement and introduce alternate construct of world view that doesn’t depend on larger established religion. A nice short cut.

Sort of methadone for opium of the mass kind of thing.

Except the idiots are addicted to methadone now instead.

Moreover, considering how recent in history and how massive the scale of killing was in avowed atheistic Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, and other Marxist-derived regimes….there is really no excuse for this form of historical amnesia/revisionism.

“God is the State; the State is God.” How can that be reconciled with atheism?

It cannot. A movement that deifies state power and purports it to be supernatural - to the extent of marching parades in front of paintings - is not one that can be described as “atheistic.” That’s the historical record, and it shows that, whatever the faults of Soviet Russia and Maoist China, they did not stem from a commitment to use only evidence to support conclusions.

From examining the history of a few Marxist-derived regimes….it does not take much prodding from such regimes to then go from persecuting and suppressing religious folks to persecuting and suppressing everyone else.  In the case of China’s cultural revolution, the Red Guards didn’t stop respectively at annihilating or brutalizing religious people and artifacts as they were deemed “counter-revolutionary”.
exholt on 07/15 at 11:31 AM

that would be some aspect, result of critical analysis of class struggle and historical materialism. (that historical forces is human creation and can be shaped. That item like religion is not just “metaphor” but actually device to oppress people.)

but atheism vs marxism has as much in common as a cow and a cheesesteak.

Of course during cold war, the easiest way to control the mass is doing Jesus talk and waving flag to fight communism. (Is not like people know the difference what’s what. Just put out some sloganeering about Jesus is the cure for communism or something. The left over is still with us. Older generation less educated section of population are still singing the atheism is communism tune.)

[Marxist States and their religion of Nationalism] did not stem from a commitment to use only evidence to support conclusions.

How many here have even heard of Bertrand Russell?

The question of how to define Rationalism is not altogether an easy one. I do not think that you could define it by rejection of this or that Christian dogma. It would be perfectly possible to be a complete and absolute Rationalist in the true sense of the term and yet accept this or that dogma.

The question is how to arrive at your opinions and not what your opinions are. The thing in which we believe is the supremacy of reason. If reason should lead you to orthodox conclusions, well and good; you are still a Rationalist. To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one’s arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.

There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the Homeric God. I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious consideration. Therefore, I suppose that that on these documents that they submit to me on these occasions I ought to say “Atheist”, although it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go.

even to drag out those ancient wheezes like “Commies and Nazis were atheists so there nyah nyah!” as though we haven’t all heard them 100 million times before.

Ok.  Please point out any quotes of mine where I actually said anything about Nazis being atheists.  That’s absurd considering how many Nazis were still Christians, how the Nazi movement was supported and strengthened through the support of many Protestant and Catholic religious establishments in Germany/Austria, and how the Nazis hoped to supplant the Christian/Catholic religions with their own religion complete with Gods derived from their own interpretations of the Nordic legends. 

As for the commies….damned straight.  As much as some atheists want to deny it….the murderous legacy of the avowed atheistic Marxist derived regimes is a part of atheism’s legacy due to what actually transpired in history, no matter how much some atheists would like to deny it through the same types of equivocations, semantic games, or denials practiced by Christian apologists…..or the various historical revisionists from what was once the former Axis powers attempting to whitewash history by painting Japanese militarism, Italian fascism, and Nazism as movements of misunderstood do-gooders who brought nothing but rainbows and sunshine to all.

Chet, I understand your frustration regarding your father. I know it hurts to see the people you love struggle internally. May I suggest, though, that yuor father’s problem isn’t with religion but with external pressure regarding what he “should be” which he has internalized? I see the same thing with people who were raised Republican and feel just awful that they have Democratic leanings. If only they tried harder, if only they watched FOX news more, they’d be good Republicans, but instead they are failures.

The most important thing a person can do for themselves is find the self-confidence to allow themselves to believe beneficial things that their parents or society may not consider acceptable because they do not fit with tradition. A Christian should have the self-confidence to leave Christianity if they so choose - and society should accept that choice as valid. A Republican should have the self-confidence to live with themselves should they choose to vote Democrat - and their family should love them and accept that their beliefs and values are valid and acceptable. A gay person should be able to come out as gay and be accepted as such, and so on. The problem here isn’t that Religious People are intolerant - the problem is that All People can be intolerant and some of those people are also religious. (But don’t think that there aren’t atheists who hate gays, or that Christians are all Republicans. It doesn’t work that way.)

In fact, there’s a huge amount of intolerance in this thread. Self-proclaimed atheists want to define what makes a “true Christian” or a “true Wiccan”. Maybe that’s good for fundamentalists, but I’m no such thing. I take what I need from any religion that I want, and I identify my collection of beliefs according to the name that best describes that collection, but don’t think that because someone, somewhere set down a list of “rules” to be a certain religion, that doesn’t make it so.

The most hospitable environment for religion is an unexamined life.

Ken, if you are interested in reading, and you’re willing to keep an open mind (by “open” I mean, believing that religious people can be smart, introspective ones), may I recommend the works of Robert Price? He’s put a lifetime into showing that the Bible is not literally true or inerrant, but he still believes in god. His “Reason Driven Life” is about introspection, self-examination, and embracing the religious beliefs that most work for your life - if at all. He is a perfect example that an examined life can be a reilgious one, if the person so chooses.

This is not necessarily an indictment of religion.  The fact is, whenever power is concentrated in the hands of the few, the majority will often suffer as a result, and worse there will always be some minority group singled out for particular abuse.  That, unfortunately, seems to be a basic feature of human beings…

MickEss, I agree. I do not believe that religion makes you more likely to be a bad person; I believe that there are many bad people out there, of many religious (and atheist) persuasions.

I believe that a Wiccan government could be just as totalitarian as a Christian government. I believe that an Atheist government could (and likely would) murder and oppress its people just as much as every other totalitarian government. That is why I do not believe a government should have a religious affilitaion - keep it separate, and let people believe what they will about god’s existence or non-existence.

If there’s anybody in the world that is “really [...] aware of extant remnants of pagan practice in Britain” (assuming you mean genuine survivals from the pre-Christian period rather than made-up stuff), then there’s a small army of archaeologists, historians and anthropologists who would really, really like to hear about it.

I personally don’t believe that there is anyone currently alive in Britain who has first-hand knowledge of extant pre-Christian pagan practices within Britain.

But it’s not entirely impossible that Gerald Gardner did.  He lived close to a century ago, and certainly would have known people during his lifetime who were far older than himself)    . The evidence on both sides is hopelessly muddled by the research that was available at the time (this was generally before Madeleine Murray’s research was debunked), the desire for secrecy by anyone who plausibly could have had such knowledge and communicated it to Gardner, and the fact that until the 1950’s British law considered witchcraft a criminal activity.  Verifying Gardner’s sources is kind of like trying to verify exactly how crack found its way into American cities.  Everyone is dead now, research from the period is unhelpful, and the activity in question is criminal, so it’s unlikely that any surviving legitimate sources would speak out with full disclosure.

You also have the fact that any verification of Gardner’s sources depends on Gardner himself, and he is A) dead, and B) was not exactly Mr. Transparent even when he was alive.  Add to that the level of infighting between early participants in Wicca—there are as many different True Stories on that as there are True Stories on the Kennedy assassination or exactly what role various figures played in the Stonewall Riots.  Not to mention, again, that most people who are in any real position to shed some light on the matter are dead. 

None of which is to say that I think there existed Pagan remnants in postwar Britain, but that there is still a certain degree of doubt on the matter.  It can’t be verified either way.  We will probably never know the absolute truth about it.

I must admit, I’m a bit confused. Opponax is saying that he/she doesn’t care whether anybody think his or her beliefs are false, but insists on theists being able to “defend” their beliefs to atheists without being told that, in truth, we atheists think that those beliefs are silly. A further big deal is made about the fact that said religious spiritual beliefs are non-falsifiable, and that it is therefore not silly, inconsistent or particularly stupid to have such beliefs and that we, the meanie atheists, should recognize that and lay off.

But that seems like the crux of the matter, to me: we are saying that the very fact that such beliefs are non-falsifiable renders them epistemologically meaningless and, therefore, rather silly. Metaphor and ritual are all well and good, but a non-falsifiable claim about reality simply doesn’t make sense.

I’m not going to say that anyone who disagrees with this premise is stupid, though I believe that they are incorrect, but this seems like to me like a rather fundamental disagreement. Given that a big part of the problem is the very notion that is sensible to believe in a non-falsifiable claim about reality, what coherent defense of belief does Opponax think that believers should be “allowed” to mount? What purpose would it serve? And why should atheists care?

It seems to me that saying that your faith is non-falsifiable renders it, on principle, indefensible, not in a moral sense, but in a logical sense. I don’t mean so much that no defense of it holds up against The Superior Logic and Intellect of atheists as that there doesn’t seem to be any point in mounting a defense at all. Furthermore, if Opponax doesn’t care what others think about belief, why the need to defend it in the first place? Really, my point is, what’s so special about spiritual belief? Anyone who believes that non-falsifiability means that it’s consistent and reasonable to hold religious beliefs, please, continue to do so. We atheists will continue to see that as foolish. That gap isn’t going to be bridged, and it seems pretty self-evident that there is no sense in “defending” religious belief to atheists. This is the reason that it is extremely difficult for us to parse Opponax’s argument as anything different from “you’re making me uncomfortable, which I think is rude, stop!” and, in my opinion, a big part of why this debate has been so frustrating. We get it - your belief cannot be proved or disproved. Please stop insisting that this should somehow interest us.

all I’ve learned from it is that participation in religion comment threads around here is a complete waste of time

“Around here”???

If you’ve found a place where a religious comment thread did NOT deteriorate into a shouting match, keep it to yourself because it is unique in all the land.

It would be interesting to find out who started this whole “paganism” vs “feminism” thing. I always thought it’s a convenient device to quickly take out paternalistic religion from woman movement and introduce alternate construct of world view that doesn’t depend on larger established religion. A nice short cut.

Two interesting writers who focused on the notions of paganism, feminism, goddess religions vs. patriarchal religions are Riane Eisler, and Matilda Joslyn Gage. Both write about a vanished golden age; for Eisler, men and women shared power while Gage’s golden age was a “matriarchate.” Eisler is probably not the first to see stories of the bestial conquests of Zeus as vestiges of the local goddess being supplanted by the male warrior usurper—in Catholicism Marian worship keeps goddess worship alive.

Matilda Joslyn Gage is rather more interesting. She was the theoretician working with Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton whose face will never appear on a coin. When she refused to align herself with the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the mother-in-law of L. Frank Baum nearly vanished from the nineteenth century’s suffrage movement

The stronghold of the church has ever been the ignorance and degradation of women. Its control over woman in the two questions of marriage and education have given it keys of power more potent than those of Peter. With her uneducated, without civil or political rights, the church is sure of its authority ; but once arouse woman to a disbelief in church teachings regarding her having brought sin into the world; once open to her all avenues of education, so that her teaching of the young in her charge will be of a broader, more scientific character than in the past and the doom of the church is sealed.

exholt—Re the murderous Marxist regimes - Wasn’t one of the problems their lack of true atheism?  They just used secular, cult-of-personality type gods to supplant the more traditional ones already in place.  The treatment of Lenin or Mao was essentially the creation of a secular godhead.

Using that definition, then one could consider the excessive celebrity adoration of figures such as the “Brangelina” phenomenon to be a religion….and Pitt and Jolie….the theistic deities.  One problem I and the atheist co-workers I’ve conversed with would have with this is that Pitt and Spears are essentially the same flesh and blood human beings like the rest of us…..only with much more media exposure and scrutiny….not supernatural beings with supernatural powers/magic. 

The same could be said of most theocracies as well.  The major difference being who the perps and victims are, and in whose name the persecutions and other atrocities are commited.  See European history, especially almost any country since the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity until modern times.

That was my point in my reply to Entomologista’s and other similarly minded atheists’ attempts to paint atheists as morally/ethnically “purer” and “cleaner” than your religionists….which I felt was complete utter BS. 

Of course during cold war, the easiest way to control the mass is doing Jesus talk and waving flag to fight communism. (Is not like people know the difference what’s what. Just put out some sloganeering about Jesus is the cure for communism or something. The left over is still with us. Older generation less educated section of population are still singing the atheism is communism tune.)

Difference being that I have not only studied such movements in depth academically, but also discussed it at length with relatives and neighbors who grew up and lived under such regimes…in some cases for decades.  Considering the sources, I think I’ll take the word of those relatives and neighbors over that of an American/Westerner who never lived under such regimes firsthand, never had close family and friends who did, and/or is a possible apologist for such regimes. 

It cannot. A movement that deifies state power and purports it to be supernatural - to the extent of marching parades in front of paintings - is not one that can be described as “atheistic.” That’s the historical record, and it shows that, whatever the faults of Soviet Russia and Maoist China, they did not stem from a commitment to use only evidence to support conclusions.

The state may attempt to use religious trappings and declare itself to be supernatural all it wants….but if the vast majority knows it is 100% BS, then it cannot be religious/theistic….no matter how much those leaders may wish it so.  If these regimes were really as effective as that, they wouldn’t have to frequently resort to bloody murderous terror through persecutions, domestic spying, imprisonments, and the use of naked force to brutalize and kill an astronomical number of their own citizens.  More importantly, leaders such as Stalin and Mao would never had the need to be as paranoid and fearful enough to order the massive imprisonment and killings of many of their own citizens in order to maintain their power if that were the case.

In fact, there’s a huge amount of intolerance in this thread. Self-proclaimed atheists want to define what makes a “true Christian” or a “true Wiccan”.
Faye on 07/15 at 12:10 PM

well whatever it is, Christians don’t believe in metaphorical Jesus like you claim. lol
The fact somebody point out that sort of ridiculous idea doesn’t make one intolerant.
Of course you can bring more rigorous argument with assorted links,  but I seriously doubt you can. )or even realizes how utterly dubious your claim is)

But then again, probably this is “metaphorical christian” we are talking about. ..(good grief. ... this is beyond lunatic)

  but once arouse woman to a disbelief in church teachings regarding her having brought sin into the world; once open to her all avenues of education, so that her teaching of the young in her charge will be of a broader, more scientific character than in the past and the doom of the church is sealed.
Ken Cope on 07/15 at 12:22 PM

well that part obviously doesn’t work does it? The idiots just pick another mode of mysticism and go back into the cave.

Opponax is saying that he/she doesn’t care whether anybody think his or her beliefs are false, but insists on theists being able to “defend” their beliefs to atheists without being told that, in truth, we atheists think that those beliefs are silly.

Do you see an appreciable difference between saying “I believe your beliefs are false” and “Your beliefs are stupid and so are you”? Because that’s what started all this. Do you see an appreciable difference between saying “It is false that your sister is a virgin” and “Your sister is a slut”? One is a statement of FACT, the other is a VALUE judgment.

A further big deal is made about the fact that said religious spiritual beliefs are non-falsifiable, and that it is therefore not silly, inconsistent or particularly stupid to have such beliefs and that we, the meanie atheists, should recognize that and lay off.

Non-falsifiability was ONLY brought up because a few posters said that it had been “proven” that all religious belief was wrong. If you want, as a sensible person, to point out that there is no evidence for religion, go ahead - you won’t get a disagreement from me.

But that seems like the crux of the matter, to me: we are saying that the very fact that such beliefs are non-falsifiable renders them epistemologically meaningless and, therefore, rather silly. Metaphor and ritual are all well and good, but a non-falsifiable claim about reality simply doesn’t make sense.

A non-falsifiable claim is not automatically silly. I think there is life somewhere out in the universe. Currently, we can’t prove or disprove that, and it’s an interesting theory but not automatically stupid or crazy.

I’m not going to say that anyone who disagrees with this premise is stupid, though I believe that they are incorrect, but this seems like to me like a rather fundamental disagreement.

And that’s fine. We really aren’t asking for special treatment - we just want enough respect to NOT be called “stupid” because we are open to the idea of a god. We try to point out that by calling us “stupid”, you just alienate us and make enemies out of people who would like to be your friends - especially against fundamentalists who want to kill us both.

It seems to me that saying that your faith is non-falsifiable renders it, on principle, indefensible, not in a moral sense, but in a logical sense.

I agree. No one is trying to “defend” their religion so much as defend their right to have a religion and still be treated like a thinking, intelligent person. I do not believe my religion is defensible in a logical, scientific sense, I would just appreciate that atheists not scream “STUPID!” every time I mention I’m a Wiccan. If you feel that way, too, then we are friends.

That gap isn’t going to be bridged, and it seems pretty self-evident that there is no sense in “defending” religious belief to atheists. This is the reason that it is extremely difficult for us to parse Opponax’s argument as anything different from “you’re making me uncomfortable, which I think is rude, stop!” and, in my opinion, a big part of why this debate has been so frustrating.

No. Questions about my religion do not make me uncomfortable - rude, nasty “You are stupid and your house should be burned down” statements make me uncomfortable. If you want to question my religion politely, I will ahppily answer anything you like. And if you don’t want to know, I respect that too.

We get it - your belief cannot be proved or disproved. Please stop insisting that this should somehow interest us.

We aren’t insisting it is interesting to atheists - ATHEISTS are insisting that it is interesting to them. Every “you can’t disprove it” post from a religionist in this thread has come IN RESPONSE TO a “it’s been disproved, stupid” post from Chet or someone else claiming to be an atheist. I get that you, personally, don’t care, but I’m not pointing out it can’t be proven to you - I’m pointing it out to Chet. I can’t help it if you also read my response to him - it’s a message board, after all.

Christians don’t believe in metaphorical Jesus like you claim.

Some do. Check Robert Price. He doesn’t believe Jesus probably existed at all, and he’s still a Christian.

Religion is more complex than you would like it to be.

Again, it would probably be helpful to differentiate the concepts of materialism, skepticism, and atheism. While many people people are all three, not all atheists are materialists, not all materialists are skeptics, not all skeptics are atheists and so on.

Which is not to say that the arguments can’t get mixed. For example, a mild skeptical argument for atheism would run:

I can believe in an infinite number of things
Some of these things exist other than as objects of my belief (i.e. an idea, like a unicorn)
In order to determine which is which, I’ll assume that something exists only as an object of my belief until I have some reason to assume otherwise.
Since I have no reason to believe any of these variety of gods exist, I’ll assume they exist only as objects of my belief.

And yes, I probably think your religion, even your liberal non-christian religion is hokum.

Faye, stop digging. The last one pretty much sink your entire argument beyond salvage. They don’t make sense when combined with previous posts. It’s total wtf moment.

And yes, I probably think your religion, even your liberal non-christian religion is hokum.

But do you need to use perjorative terms to say so, or do you just get a rush in being rude and verbally combatative?

Which is the point, really.

Would it really kill any of the atheists in this thread to say something like this,

“I don’t believe in your beliefs, but I don’t agree that you need to be abused and called ‘stupid’, or ‘superstitious’, or ‘hokum’, and I don’t agree with other atheists which use those terms. I do not believe your property should be taken or detroyed because you have beliefs different from my own. These terms are inappropriate, rude, and inconsiderate and belong to the domain of bullies, not intellectual arguments about something as complex as the nature of the universe.”

And, really, isn’t that the sort of denouncement we’d like to hear from Christians with regards to Donahue? Moderates should call out the militants, not hide behind them so they don’t have to get their hands dirty.

Some do. Check Robert Price. He doesn’t believe Jesus probably existed at all, and he’s still a Christian.
Religion is more complex than you would like it to be.
Faye on 07/15 at 01:03 PM

LOLz…

that’s like meat eating vegetarian. IT DOES NOT EXIST.
By definition a christian believes in actual existence of Jesus.

By definition a christian believes in actual existence of Jesus.

Actually, no. May I suggest the following books:

The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man
The Jesus Puzzle
Jesus is Dead

Two of the books are written by a Christian who does not believe Jesus existed. The other provides evidence that many early Christian churches also did not believe in a literal, physical Jesus. There is, in fact, a school of thought that Jesus wasn’t imagined as a “real” person until 100-200 years after his supposed death - Check out The God Who Wasn’t There. A Christian who believes in a metaphorical Jesus may still self-identify as a Christian, and I don’t believe it’s your place to tell them they are wrong…

Do you see an appreciable difference between saying “I believe your beliefs are false” and “Your beliefs are stupid and so are you”? Because that’s what started all this.

Does “hokum” count as “false” or “stupid”?

On another note, I think most atheists are so used to people getting defensive on hearing just that we’re atheists (and thus IMPLICITLY that we reject their beliefs) that we may as well have said “anyone who believes what you do deserves to spend their life digging ditches, they’re so stupid.” So, we skip straight to that so at least we can get some joy out of the interaction.

I do believe that human beings and fish can coexist peacefully.

Jesus H. fucking Christ on wheels. In 980 Vladimir the Baptizer decided that since all the other governments had a religion associated with them, and since it worked out so well for them, that he’d better get Russia a religion. No more of this Pagan stuff. So he chose Christianity, mostly because he liked to eat pork and drink vodka. Moscow became the 3rd Rome, St. Cyril wrote Russian down for the first time, they fought over whether to cross yourself with three fingers or two, and a little something called divine right came about. Even though there was a Metropolitan, the Czar became the mouthpiece of God. So therefore, when it came time to overthrow the current power structure, it was necessary to dismantle the Orthodox Church in addition to the monarchy. 100 years later Russians are right back in church (services are chanted in Old Church Slavonic and are beautiful, even if you’re not a believer) and idiot Americans flock to the former Soviet States in droves to convert the atheists and when told that Russia is a Christian country, they don’t believe it.

Lysenkoism is a good example of how the USSR was not at all concerned about evidence. Darwin was way too much like capitalism, and that was just totally unacceptable. Actual scientists were executed. Russian communists were concerned about not being like the Czars and they were concerned about not being like the US. Again, this is what happens when you’re ready to believe things contrary to the evidence, which is exactly what we’ve all been arguing against in this thread. And yes, this is a tired argument that we’ve hears time and again, and had to debunk time and again. It’s annoying. So please, stop insulting our intelligence.

Yes it is my place. Because it doesn’t make sense. lol.

(I am sorry, but I find this truly hilarious. I can understand higher criticism. I can understand skeptic. But a Christian who doesn’t believe in actual “Christ/God” is not Christian. One can call him expert of Christianity, but certainly not a “Christian”)

On the one hand, I can see Yurenko’s point. In order to be a Christian isn’t it necessary to accept Jesus as your savior? It might be possible to be culturally Christian, but not a believer.

On the other hand…no true Scotsman.

Hi, pepito.

Does “hokum” count as “false” or “stupid”?

The term seems perjorative to me. Maybe it’s a context issue and it’s only perjorative where I grew up. Probably there are places where “slut” isn’t a perjorative word either. I think it’s better to use clear statements (I don’t believe those beliefs) than loaded words that might be misinterpreted.

On another note, I think most atheists are so used to people getting defensive on hearing just that we’re atheists (and thus IMPLICITLY that we reject their beliefs) that we may as well have said “anyone who believes what you do deserves to spend their life digging ditches, they’re so stupid.” So, we skip straight to that so at least we can get some joy out of the interaction.

I understand completely what you mean. Certainly, being a Wiccan and a Democrat in the religious southwest, you run into a lot of prejudice. I would hope that I’ve made it very clear that I do not dislike atheists, I support many atheists financially (I own Dawkins’ book, anyway), I believe atheists should have the Right to express their beliefs (even if they express them rudely - there’s a difference between a Right to be rude and a Preference that you not be rude), and I also believe that atheists make for a very fun barbeque party - they bring the best music. I will also - here and now - say that while I choose not to take their “I won’t believe it until I see evidence for it” attitude, I do admire it, and I wish that more people would apply that attitude to certain areas of life - there would be fewer con artists and internet spam if people did. So please don’t think - if you are an atheist - that I have ANY bad feelings about you whatsoever.

I do believe that human beings and fish can coexist peacefully.

I believe so too. Even if I don’t see much evidence for it.

But a Christian who doesn’t believe in actual “Christ/God” is not Christian.

On the other hand…no true Scotsman.

Can you see where someone might believe that the Christ aspect of the trinity exists in heaven - the same way that God exists in heaven - without actually coming to earth? Can you see how someone could believe that the story of the crucifixtion (for which there is precious little historical evidence) could be seen as a metaphor for the Christ’s love for humanity? Can you see how, as a metaphor, the story becomes much less ‘barbaric’, because it means that god didn’t actually use ritual murder to save his people, and the Jews aren’t actually to blame for “murdering Jesus” (pre-emptively cutting off anti-semitism)?

Many Christians believe this version.

That doesn’t even count the Christians who believe that Jesus was a human, but that the Christ was a spirit that possessed him during his adult life. As I said, religion is complicated.

And, Entomologista, while I realize (in retrospect) that the “Can you see…“s sound kind of snotty, I’m not trying to be. Internet communication, so sloppy. Must. Use. More. Smiles.

May I suggest, though, that yuor father’s problem isn’t with religion but with external pressure regarding what he “should be” which he has internalized?

There’s no difference, it’s all the same. The pressure is religion. That’s what religion manifestly is; an external pressure to believe in something that reason cannot support.

I see the same thing with people who were raised Republican and feel just awful that they have Democratic leanings. If only they tried harder, if only they watched FOX news more, they’d be good Republicans, but instead they are failures.

Yes, exactly. That’s what faith-based thinking leads to. That’s what happens when you have an organized system of people being expected to believe in things they can see aren’t true. That’s the kind of psychic tension that gets created. Every religion recognizes it; they construe it as “struggling with faith” or “wrestling with doubt” as though those feelings are a symptom of something bad, when it’s really just your own mind resisting the attempt to force falsehoods into it.

A Christian should have the self-confidence to leave Christianity if they so choose - and society should accept that choice as valid.

Religion persists because it has the power to coerce society not to accept that choice. Part of that coercion is what you and Opp are wrapped up in - the way you construe the arguments of atheists as “impolite”. It’s an attempt to de-legitimize freedom from faith, and the reason you as a Wiccan try to do it is the same reason Christianity and all the rest do it, the existence of a supportive, legitimate anti-faith community is a threat to the existence of your beliefs.

I take what I need from any religion that I want

The best part about arguing with believers is that, sooner or later, they give the game away. Let them talk long enough and they’ll reveal the fact that they believe because it’s what they want to do, not because it’s true. It really makes me wonder - have you never heard the term “wishful thinking?”

The most surprising thing about atheism is how few atheists actually wanted to be atheists. I mean, when you think about it, a universe with a magical cosmic referee would actually be a pretty nice place! It would be great if most of the gods worshipped by theists actually existed. Even some of the evil ones. There would be a certain clarity. Probably some magic, too.

But we’re atheists not because we “take what we want from it”, but because atheism is true. The arguments are compelling, and that is only brought into stark relief against the disingenuous attacks of the religious. (I mean, there’s nothing so ridiculous as the ontological argument, but that seems to pop up every time you challenge the existence of God.)

Can you see how someone could believe that the story of the crucifixion (for which there is precious little historical evidence) could be seen as a metaphor for the Christ’s love for humanity?

See above. If the God you believe in is just a metaphor, you’re basically an atheist.

As for a non-literal Christ - the problem with that and being a “Christian” is that that name literally means “little Christ”, and the point is that you’re following the teachings of the “philosopher” (as Bill O’Reilly likes to call him) Jesus Christ. But if Christ never existed, then whose teachings are you following? If Jesus was not the original speaker of the words of Christ in the Bible, what reason do you have to privilege them over any other text? How can you follow someone who never existed?

When I hear of Christians who deny the existence of Christ, I begin to suspect that I’m looking at another fig-leaf meant to conceal atheism. Such fig-leafs abound, which is why I’m convinced that a lot more people are atheists than will admit it.

...and the Jews aren’t actually to blame for “murdering Jesus”...

Eh, the whole thing was a Xanatos Gambit anyway: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit

Using that definition, then one could consider the excessive celebrity adoration of figures such as the “Brangelina” phenomenon to be a religion….

Exholt, you’ll have to show me where anybody’s been marching their parades in front of pictures of Brad and Angelina.

That was my point in my reply to Entomologista’s and other similarly minded atheists’ attempts to paint atheists as morally/ethnically “purer” and “cleaner” than your religionists….

Using evidence, and not faith, to arrive at conclusions is manifestly purer and cleaner, and has always been so throughout history. The one thing that it is worse at is in concentrating temporal power in the hands of a few, which is why such thinking has been roundly rejected by the world’s religions. Sure, it’s ok for those other guys to do it, says the Bible. But not for believers. That’s why “doubting Thomas” is rebuked by Christ.

The state may attempt to use religious trappings and declare itself to be supernatural all it wants….but if the vast majority knows it is 100% BS, then it cannot be religious/theistic…

Oh, so now it’s up to the majority to decide what is religious and what is not? Then there can be no such thing as religion, since for any given religion, the members of all the other religions constitute a majority who believe it to be BS.

The fact that the religion of state communism may not have had a large number of adherent doesn’t make it not a religion; it just makes it a cult.

If these regimes were really as effective as that, they wouldn’t have to frequently resort to bloody murderous terror through persecutions, domestic spying, imprisonments, and the use of naked force to brutalize and kill an astronomical number of their own citizens.

Plenty of the world’s religions did exactly the same thing, remember? Or did they not count as “religion”, either? No True Scotsman, indeed!

That’s what religion manifestly is; an external pressure to believe in something that reason cannot support.

Certainly that’s not what my religion is - I believe what I believe for reasons that are separate from logic, but no less valid. And there’s nothing “external” about it - in fact, I have to keep my religion a secret for fear of external violence. Fortunately, it’s easier to appear to be an ‘acceptable’ religion than it is to appear to be an ‘acceptable’ race. But I don’t blame religion for bigotry - I blame bigots.

Every religion recognizes it; they construe it as “struggling with faith” or “wrestling with doubt” as though those feelings are a symptom of something bad, when it’s really just your own mind resisting the attempt to force falsehoods into it.

You’re hanging with the wrong religionists. Check Robert Price (again). He’s a Christian, but he believes that continued growth in religion is always a good thing for a person. Doubts? He embraces them as a form of growth. Faith? He believes what he finds beneficial to believe. If he woke up as an atheist tomorrow, he wouldn’t have a crisis. Neither would I. I believe what I believe because I believe it - not because someone told me I had to believe it. And if next year I believe something different (like maybe “There is no god”), well, I’ll believe that then, won’t I?

You are pointing out a real problem (Dogmatic Relgionists) and applying it to religion as a phenomena. But that’s like me pointing out totalitarian governments and then insisting that anarchy is the only thing that will work because ALL forms of government are totalitarian.

It’s also unfair of you to co-opt political ideology into “religion” just because it will undermine your point otherwise. An atheist Democrat can exert just as much pressure on an atheist Republican and that perssure would still be wrong.

Religion persists because it has the power to coerce society not to accept that choice.

Religion exists because people find it personally meaningful. It’s the same reason that stamp-collecting exists.

The best part about arguing with believers is that, sooner or later, they give the game away. Let them talk long enough and they’ll reveal the fact that they believe because it’s what they want to do, not because it’s true.

Huh? I’ve been saying all along that religion is not “true” or “false” in the sense that you and I understand, because no physical evidence can support it either way. Not everyone bases their beliefs based on ‘facts’ - in fact, it would be impossible to. We have all sorts of moral, ethical, and cultural distinctions that have nothing to do with what is ‘true’. Should cousins be allowed to marry, if they are sterile? What about parents and (adult) children? What about sisters and brothers? There’s nothing “true” to evaluate here - a decision must be made based on something other than truth, since truth is not applicable. Religion is the same way - in the absense of “truth”, we must use other determining factors to make up our minds.

That doesn’t even count the Christians who believe that Jesus was a human, but that the Christ was a spirit that possessed him during his adult life. As I said, religion is complicated.
Faye on 07/15 at 01:41 PM

Just because I believe Jesus works in Chevys Fresh Mex next door DOES NOT make me a Christian.

When I hear of Christians who deny the existence of Christ, I begin to suspect that I’m looking at another fig-leaf meant to conceal atheism. Such fig-leafs abound, which is why I’m convinced that a lot more people are atheists than will admit it.

Or perhaps, the world isn’t as black-and-white as you would like it to be.

It’s pretty irritating the way you think you know better what people believe than those own people do. I mean, the whole “I can read your mind and decide what you REALLY are” thing is not respectful.

Just because I believe Jesus works in Chevys Fresh Mex next door DOES NOT make me a Christian.

I don’t really see how that is similar to Gnosticism.

See above. If the God you believe in is just a metaphor, you’re basically an atheist.

Fisrt of all, you are not the arbiter of the “atheist definition”.

Second, I said they believe God/Christ is real but that the crucifixtion story is a metaphor. Which is not the same thing as God = Metaphor. If your dad tells stories, does that mean your dad doesn’t exist any more than the stories he tells?

Would it really kill any of the atheists in this thread to say something like this,

“I don’t believe in your beliefs, but I don’t agree that you need to be abused and called ‘stupid’, or ‘superstitious’, or ‘hokum’, and I don’t agree with other atheists which use those terms. I do not believe your property should be taken or detroyed because you have beliefs different from my own. These terms are inappropriate, rude, and inconsiderate and belong to the domain of bullies, not intellectual arguments about something as complex as the nature of the universe.”

What a stupid thing to demand. The accusation that atheists are about taking and destroying property is a ludicrous and ignorant insult.

I’ll defend your right to believe any damned fool thing you like—as Jefferson said, “...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg,” except of course, when the State enables the Church to pick my pocket while inciting believers to break the legs of the unbelievers. Check PZ Myers’ inbox for the deaththreats for threatening a magic cracker. As for asking me to refrain from characterizing your beliefs? Mencken has that one covered: “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” Then there’s Han Solo: “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” but then, the Lucasverse is so full of hokum that it’s probably pretty stupid to be an atheist, although the midichlorians messed that up quite a bit. OK, I don’t want to know why you would think I would have any trouble saying this and meaning it: “I do not believe your property should be taken or detroyed because you have beliefs different from my own.” That’s the American social contract, the Constitution’s first amendment that the Donohues want shredded, because it protects the atheists along with the Christans, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans and Jedis. As far intellectual arguments, your bronze-age born again paganism lacks the explanatory power of the fusion of elements in the deaths of stars, and is no match for the elegance and power of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. I’m sorry if science and reason and basic cognitive skills elude you, because you have been failed by those who should have known better, but I can only respect your right to your willful ignorance, while refusing to respect your beliefs, which are not above criticism and analysis any more than mine are. That is apparently too much for you to grasp.

Second, I said they believe God/Christ is real but that the crucifixtion story is a metaphor. Which is not the same thing as God = Metaphor. If your dad tells stories, does that mean your dad doesn’t exist any more than the stories he tells?
Faye on 07/15 at 02:08 PM

yes it does. Because then the so called “crucifixion” never happens, the son of God never makes the sacrifice, salvation doesn’t exist but a story, and ultimately the promise of hereafter are also metaphor/fictional. Everything is not real.

Then one can go on, saying the church foundation is nothing more than fictional story. And the entire enterprise is a sham. Nothing more than group therapy of some sort rather than effective eschatology.

Why not write better story then? Church of feel good movie.

What a stupid thing to demand. The accusation that atheists are about taking and destroying property is a ludicrous and ignorant insult.

Ken I didn’t make it up - read BlackBloc’s posts. He claims to want all religious property and iconry (all privately owned) to be stolen, sold, melted down, or burned down.

I’m not creating strawmen, I swear. I’m asking you to disagree with BlackBloc since he claims to represent atheists.

ARGH, I had a response to you all ready to go, Faye, then managed to delete it. Gah.

Well, the salient points I wanted to make were that it seems rather insidious that virtually every criticism of belief is taken as a personal attack upon the believer. Yes, beliefs get mocked. Tough. That doesn’t mean that atheists, as a group, think that all believers are big dummies just because they have beliefs that we think are foolish. Yes, there are some jerks out there. I’ve even heard that there are feminist women out there who really do hate men. Not only does this tell us absolutely nothing about the merits of a non-monolithic group of people, it doesn’t even constitute sufficient reason to assume that their contributions to the discussion are not useful!

I also wanted to address your argument here: A non-falsifiable claim is not automatically silly. I think there is life somewhere out in the universe. Currently, we can’t prove or disprove that, and it’s an interesting theory but not automatically stupid or crazy.

First of all, you will never induce me to agree on the fact that a non-falsifiable claim is not automatically silly. Second of all, your analogy of religious/spiritual belief to a belief that life exists elsewhere in the universe is entirely false. Falsifiability is an empirical principle; the state of available evidence and our current or future capacity to gather matters not a whit. What’s important is that we could, in principle, demonstrate that there is life or that there is not life elsewhere in the universe, given sufficient evidence. We even have some pretty good ideas as to what that evidence would be. Your particular spiritual belief, however, doesn’t merely lack current evidence. It lacks any sense in which there COULD be evidence at all. I hope that this distinction is clear.

I should add that we do have some pretty good indirect evidence to suggest that the possibility of extra-solar life exists, and even that it is pretty likely. Our sun is unremarkable; there are billions upon billions of stars like it in the universe. We know that there’s nothing special about the chemistry in our solar system. It’s not only possible, it’s quite likely that there is a sun-like star out there somewhere with an earth-like planet and other conditions necessary to support life. There is absolutely no sense whatsoever in which a belief in your divine spiritual force and a belief in extra-solar life are similar, or similarly reasonable.

Lysenkoism is a good example of how the USSR was not at all concerned about evidence.

True….but they did not support Lysenkoism in the name of a supernatural deity/spiritual force, but in the name of science in the service of the communist political ideology and state.  Hence, your point does nothing to refute/minimize the avowed atheism of Marxist derived regimes. 

Again, this is what happens when you’re ready to believe things contrary to the evidence, which is exactly what we’ve all been arguing against in this thread. And yes, this is a tired argument that we’ve hears time and again, and had to debunk time and again. It’s annoying. So please, stop insulting our intelligence

I see we’re moving away from the “atheists don’t strap on bombs/are not as predisposed to being bloody murderous monsters of the similar types as their religionist/theistic counterparts” to implying that “anyone who is irrational and engages in wishful thinking in any context cannot be atheists”.  I’m sorry, but my experiences with fellow members of the human species are that all human beings are, at many points in their lives, susceptible to being irrational and prone to wishful thinking.  Those tendencies are not the exclusive domain of the religionists/theists as you seem to be implying here. 

One clear example of this was how some of the socio-economically and racially privileged “militant atheist” classmates at my undergrad thought themselves to be of “superior intellect” solely due to their atheism only to be dramatically proven wrong when their academic underperformance ended up getting them suspended/expelled from our institution while many religious classmates managed to graduate in good standing….with some attending some of the most topflight graduate programs in scientific fields like Neuroscience. 

And yes, this is a tired argument that we’ve hears time and again, and had to debunk time and again. It’s annoying.

Yep….the exact same argument and attitudes I get from many Christians when I point out Christianity’s long bloody murderous history through examples like the Crusades and its involvement in facilitating Western Imperialism…...or a tiny handful of Japanese right-wingers I’ve met who were pissed that I was not buying their historical revisionist BS about how the Japanese Colonialist enterprise was really the Japanese imperial militarist government’s efforts to “liberate” Asia and bring rainbows and sunshine to all Asians.** 

* Thank goodness most Japanese I’ve met have enough awareness and sense to not subscribe to such revisionist BS. 

** Especially considering all of my older relatives and parents were old enough to remember the Japanese occupation of China and other Asian countries.

Christ on a motherFCCing Crutch:

read BlackBloc’s posts. He claims to want all religious property and iconry (all privately owned) to be stolen, sold, melted down, or burned down.

BlackBloc quoted a character’s monologue from a one hundred year old Jack London novel, expressing a socialist impulse that is far from exclusively atheist. Blackbloc probably wouldn’t respect my respect for those works of art, or for the cathedral building that kept towns full of craftspeople and artisans expressing themselves artistically and creatively, and would probably also decry my hope to live long enough to see a lunar colony constructed by Japanese robots, seeing such things as wasteful. Humans do things because we can, whether it makes sense or is maximally equitable for all concerned. To my mind, while I can present a formal analysis of the art from the first cave paintings through the baroque resplendence of the Vatican, I consider the metaphors and messages they encode to be criminally sexist and stupid. YMMV.

>>As for the commies….damned straight.  As much as some atheists want to deny it….the murderous legacy of the avowed atheistic Marxist derived regimes is a part of atheism’s legacy

Considering the way the Orthodox Church and the Party intertwined in Russia, it’s almost droll to still see this ‘Marxist atheist regimes’ cannard still being trotted out. The USSR was secular at best. Not atheistic.

It’s also very interesting to see the supposed continuity in the mind of many Western capitalists between the largely independant mass uprisings of the October revolution with the next phase when the Bolsheviks forcibly took over the movement by eliminating all opposition, followed with the continued purge within the party during the Stalin years. As though A necessarily led to B then C.

I wish we could peer into the press of an alternate universe where the British won during the ‘American Sedition War’, and see the apologists of colonial monarchism chastise the ‘murderous legacy of avowedly atheistic and deistic derived democracy’.

Ken, I do not have much problem with the idea of lunar colonies constructed by robots, if these same colonies aren’t merely the excreta generated by the process in which a moneyed minority bilks the rest of us of our birthrights, then have to find ways of getting rid of surplus wealth that they wouldn’t have to waste if everyone had bread to eat. Technology is not a passive impartial tool, it is socially constructed.

Yes, it made me want to spit or burn something when I saw my friend being eulogized in a building in which the pews I sat were worth more than all he owned, and to see con-men priests recuperate his life of social activism by saying he was ‘like Jesus’, when he had been an atheist all his life.

Will this work? Trying to post from the office has been inoperative the last couple of days.

One clear example of this was how some of the socio-economically and racially privileged “militant atheist” classmates at my undergrad thought themselves to be of “superior intellect” solely due to their atheism only to be dramatically proven wrong when their academic underperformance ended up getting them suspended/expelled from our institution while many religious classmates managed to graduate in good standing….with some attending some of the most topflight graduate programs in scientific fields like Neuroscience. 

Exholt, I’ve seen you use this argument about a dozen times in the past week. We get it, you went to college with some assholes. I too was a dick when I was 19.

To elaborate slightly - many Christians, liberal as well as conservative, have made the argument that Christianity endows a sense of morality - and thus righteous behavior - on its members, and thus is a beneficial force in the world. When Christians are shown to have done bad things (child molestation being a modern example, the Spanish Inquisition an older one) it breaks the model that Christianity embodies all that is good in the world and that Christians can do no wrong.

Atheism makes no such claim, so when people talk about this nasty atheist who likes kicking puppies, or that nasty atheist who enslaved and murdered millions of people, it doesn’t track back to atheism, because atheism doesn’t make any claims about good people and bad people.

He believes what he finds beneficial to believe. If he woke up as an atheist tomorrow, he wouldn’t have a crisis. Neither would I. I believe what I believe because I believe it - not because someone told me I had to believe it.

And “wishful thinking” as a phrase is meaningless to you?

Religion exists because people find it personally meaningful. It’s the same reason that stamp-collecting exists.

But they’re manifestly different - not the least of which because society doesn’t privilege philately the same way it privileges religious belief.

Also, there’s the fact that nobody’s been killed because they refused to worship the Franklin Z-Grille.

I’ve met a lot of religious believers, from all walks of life, and only a small number found it meaningful in any way. The bulk of any religious membership is people who believe because that’s what they’re “supposed” to do.

I’ve been saying all along that religion is not “true” or “false” in the sense that you and I understand, because no physical evidence can support it either way.

You’ve already been shown how that’s not true. There’s a difference between unprovable and provable claims, of course; but the majority of religious claims are of a historical, potentially factual nature - Jesus Christ/Mohammed existed, Scripture is a more reliable source than man’s intelligence, Earth is the center of the Solar System, etc - and, indeed, most popular conceptions of God render themselves disprovable simply by virtue of God’s supposed interaction with the universe.

You proclaim a “divine life force” that exists in the universe; that’s an inherently testable claim because you’ve proposed the existence of a thing. Gods who are just metaphors can’t be disproven, obviously; but they don’t exist, either. (That’s implicit in being a metaphor.)

The things you propose don’t become unprovable just because you declare them so.

There’s nothing “true” to evaluate here - a decision must be made based on something other than truth, since truth is not applicable.

And religion makes it impossible for society to resolve those questions, because all of a sudden, an individual’s position becomes something we can’t demand compromise on. Because we can’t tell someone they’re wrong.

It’s pretty irritating the way you think you know better what people believe than those own people do. I mean, the whole “I can read your mind and decide what you REALLY are” thing is not respectful.

No, look, you’re completely wrong Faye, which makes me wonder if you’ve even been paying attention.

“Atheist” is a pretty simple category, and as such, I can evaluate whether someone belongs in that category independent of their own identification - once they’ve told me what they believe. If somebody came to you and said “I’m a Christian, but I follow the Buddha, believe in reincarnation, and dispute the historicity of Jesus and the awesomeness of the Bible,” would it be “arrogant” and “irritating” of you to suggest, politely, that they had identified as the wrong religion?

Words like “Christian” and “atheist” have meanings (and no, I’m not the one who decides what the meaning is) and while I’m prepared to give considerable privilege to someone’s self-identified religious affiliation, they don’t gain the privilege of ignoring what words mean. I’m aware of the No True Scotsman fallacy, but it’s equally fallacious to say that there’s no criteria by which we can tell that someone isn’t a Scotsman. (Not being from, nor having ever been to, Scotland would be a start.)

True….but they did not support Lysenkoism in the name of a supernatural deity/spiritual force, but in the name of science in the service of the communist political ideology and state.

Which was the supernatural force. Parades in front of paintings, remember? Explain how that’s different than praying to an icon?

I’m sorry, but my experiences with fellow members of the human species are that all human beings are, at many points in their lives, susceptible to being irrational and prone to wishful thinking.

Sure, but why embrace it? People are going to be occasionally dishonest and stupid, too. Does that mean we should worship dishonesty and stupidity? Being rational is a process, not a destination. But to be religious is to give up altogether.

Exholt, you’ll have to show me where anybody’s been marching their parades in front of pictures of Brad and Angelina.

You’re mistaking the trappings/attempts by the state at self-promotion in order to compel loyalty from their citizens with manifestations of actual devotion.  Similar to mistaking the portrayal marketing departments of a given product put out as the actual reality of said product.

If anything, the “Brangelina” phenomenon is a far stronger example of being a religion according to your own argument than Marxist derived regimes precisely because they can gain such a high degree of fan adoration and loyalty without having to resort to putting on such a crude bombastic displays of self-promotion backed up with the guns of the state in order to gain and maintain it.

Oh, so now it’s up to the majority to decide what is religious and what is not? Then there can be no such thing as religion, since for any given religion, the members of all the other religions constitute a majority who believe it to be BS.

Admittedly, I should have been clearer with my point.  I meant to say the vast majority of nominal adherents of Marxist derived regimes and its ideology.  That would mean the vast majority of the population within the given Marxist-derived regime ruled country….especially those in government service and many key and highly prestigious professions/industries where one has to be a party member to be hired or considered for further promotion. 

I’m making this argument mainly to attempt to differentiate the difference between being religious/theistic…and being a devoted ideologue to ideologies such as those of a political and/or philosophical nature. 

Neither the atheist co-workers I’ve conversed with nor I would agree with the muddling of the two….especially if those ideologies are not centered on the belief in a supernatural God or spirit/force with correspondingly supernatural powers/magic. 

Plenty of the world’s religions did exactly the same thing, remember?

Not to the same astronomical scale or degree of intrusiveness in the lives of all citizens.  I will grant you that a large part of that was due to the fact theocratic regimes of years past did not have the technological, bureaucratic, and ideological structures/mechanisms and the extreme ruthlessness necessary to match the bloody murderous atrocities of their totalitarian fascist or communist regime counterparts.  Thank goodness.

<i>Not to the same astronomical scale or degree of intrusiveness in the lives of all citizens. 
exholt on 07/15 at 03:23 PM<i>

The roman empire at its late stage control some 60% of world population. The medieval europe all the way till 30 years war involves almost all part of europe. German population was reduced by some 30%.

The dark age was brought about by religious war which bring social stress/plague.

Plenty of modern theocracy state as example too, including the use of religion to move mass.

Considering the way the Orthodox Church and the Party intertwined in Russia, it’s almost droll to still see this ‘Marxist atheist regimes’ cannard still being trotted out. The USSR was secular at best.

When I was talking about Marxist derived regimes…I wasn’t only talking about the USSR.  The fact you thought so and that you feel that the Soviet regime is the be-all and end-all of all Marxist regimes shows not only ignorance of other Marxist derived regimes, but also a degree of Eurocentric blinkering.

Also…the USSR is secular at best??? The USSR went far beyond that when it created a society where any religious/theistic belief was considered a sign of being “ideologically suspect” and thus, discriminated against in areas of employment, housing, socializing, and even allocations of basic necessities compared with those who were not considered as such.  Some of the people who’ve encountered such discrimination firsthand include classmates, co-workers, and neighbors who emigrated to the US, in part, to escape such discriminatory treatment.

The roman empire at its late stage control some 60% of world population.

That may be true, but their limited bureaucratic structures, ideological, and technological capabilities meant that that control was far looser and less intrusive than your 20th century totalitarian regime. 

In fact, if I recall correctly….one of the factors in the collapse of the roman empire was that it expanded to such a great extent that the central government in Rome had increasingly greater difficulty in asserting its authority….especially on its frontiers.  This is manifest through the ways various roman military commanders and civil bureaucrats were able to build enough independent power bases in military commands/regions under their control that they were able to mount effective challenges to that very central government in Rome.  In some periods…especially toward the latter part of the Western Empire….such challenges seemed to be a frequent roman…and later….Germanic/Gothic/Vandalist pastime.

As for the medieval period, yes there were massive deaths due to wars, persecutions, and pestilence…..but one cannot plausibly argue that the governments or even individual lords were as intrusive to the same extent and scale as their 20th century totalitarian counterparts due to the same limited bureaucratic structures, ideological, and technological capabilities.

I work with a dude like exholt. He’s super worried that people will think he’s stupid because he’s Christian.

Sigh. Stalin’s cult of personality was little different from the divine right of kings. The major difference being that Stalin himself was to be worshiped, rather than him being god’s instrument. That was the province of the czars. So while it was technically atheistic, people were definitely worshiping Stalin. Icons were replaced with pictures of Stalin and Lenin, churches were torn down to erect massive tributes to the State. In fact Marx has this to say about the cult of the individual:

From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me… Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute.

I work with a dude like exholt. He’s super worried that people will think he’s stupid because he’s Christian.

Entomologista,

I’m not so worried about that….so much as exposing the obvious fact that atheists, like religionists/theists or anyone else for that matter are equally capable of becoming violent bloody murderous power-hungry tyrants….no matter the equivocations, semantic games, or denials by some atheists like yourself…the same ones I keep hearing from overly defensive Christians who attempt to prothletyze…or the tiny handful of right-wing Japanese who attempted to sway me into believing actions in the cause of Japanese colonialism was anything but a bloody atrocity-ridden murderous enterprise that it was. 

You’re the same flesh and blood human prone to the same irrationalities and f&^kups as the rest of us.  Being an atheist…or an adherent of any other religion, philosophy, or ideology does not automatically, by itself, confer automatic immunity from those irrationalities and f&^kups.

Trust me, nobody gives a shit that you went to school with some assholes or that your religious friends are all brilliant neuroscientists. I don’t recall every saying that I was immune from making mistakes. I certainly have made my fair share. However, like Chet says, why should we embrace the worst aspects of human nature?

exholt-

Atheism says nothing, NOTHING, about how to treat people, how to be moral, etc… what some atheists have done, the responsibility for their actions are entirely on their shoulders.

Some religions on the other hand do lay out a moral code and do say how people should be treated, and are accountable for whatever destructive interpretations their followers believe and act on.

I’ll add that blaming atheism for brutal regimes sounds a lot like blaming the theory of evolution for genocides.

And blaming math for ballistic missiles.

I suppose we can all agree that humans are FCCed up, whether we’re abusing authority dressed up as a religious state or an anti-religious religious state. Where do you suppose Stalin, a seminarian, learned the tools of his trade? Other religions were challenges to his authority. So, where do you want us to go with this, exholt? Atheism leads to man’s inhumanity? Worshippers of the cult of the Emperor lead to man’s inhumanity? The Church leads to man’s inhumanity? I can’t see how you’re arguing against anything other than dogmatic ideology employed in the abuse of authority. Inhumanity is a stupid human trick. Are you trying to get us to make some fallacious conclusion from consequences, that because some assholes were atheists, there is a god or gods? At the same time many of your friends were escaping to America to be free of religious oppression, the Reagan administration had happy Ollie North working out of the White House basement paying for “freedom fighters” (“does that mean they’re fighting freedom?”) to mutilate nuns in Central America who were working as a consequence of liberation theology, but hey, we’re the good guys, so I guess that’s OK.

What people believe about gods, goddesses or quantum woo says one FCC of a lot more about them than it does about the nature of reality. What does the fact that people are messed up have to say about gods or goddesses? How are people who are religious more or less moral or virtuous than people who eschew religion? Or do you just want to repeat yourself for another few posts, exholt?

Atheism says nothing, NOTHING, about how to treat people, how to be moral, etc…

True, but when some atheists assert that no atheist/atheistic movement has ever been as violent, bloody, or murderous as their religionist/theistic counterparts, I have to call out that statement as 100% BS and a sign of deep historical ignorance/amnesia as it does not accord with what transpired in recent history.  Avowed atheistic movements like the various Marxist-derived regimes and their atheistic leaders and followers, in fact, were so violent, bloody, and murderous in their actions that the scale and ferocity was only exceeded by similar actions by the Axis powers during the Second Sino-Japanese War/WW-II (1937-1945). 

In comparison, the practitioners of the Bahai, Jainist, and Wiccan theistic belief systems had nowhere near as atrocity-ridden and murderous legacy as that of the avowed atheistic Marxist-derived regimes…..

True, but when some atheists assert that no atheist/atheistic movement has ever been as violent, bloody, or murderous as their religionist/theistic counterparts
You’ve brought up your counterexample (many regimes only exceeded by the Axis powers in the Second Sino-Japanese War/WWII) twice in this thread and a dozen times over the past week. I’ve yet to see someone assert that atheists are all sweetness and light.

>>In comparison, the practitioners of the Bahai, Jainist, and Wiccan theistic belief systems had nowhere near as atrocity-ridden and murderous legacy as that of the avowed atheistic Marxist-derived regimes…..

Give them some time, population growth, and state power.

So, atheism is a belief system that leads to violent, bloody, murderous regimes with body counts exceeded only by the Axis powers, whose belief system was no Swiss picnic, 11?

Do tell, what else do atheists believe, exholt?

I’ve yet to see someone assert that atheists are all sweetness and light.

Entomologista stated on this very thread that no atheist ever strapped bombs on their chest for their cause.  Reading between the lines of such an assertion, she is implying that only religionists/theists are capable of bloody murderous violence in the advancement of their beliefs.  I called it for the complete utter BS that it is…and she and some similarly inclined atheists on this thread did not appreciate my pointing out that their fellow atheists’ shit reeks just as much as…if not more than some of their religious/theist counterparts. 

Bahai, Jain, and Wicca to name the three with cleaner stools in this context. 

she is implying that only religionists/theists are capable of bloody murderous violence in the advancement of their beliefs.

I think she was specifically talking of SUICIDAL bloody murderous violence - which is often more devastating because people can do more damage if they don’t care about their own life.

As BlackBloc says, with state power comes state abuses. I don’t want to name the major example of a previously-pacifistic and enlightened religious group being given the reins of a country and the disaster that that has continued to be, but it’s happened.

Well, seriously. Wicca has less adherents than there are atheists in the world, and it’s about 50 years old.

And Bahai and Jain are minority sects or offshoots of more mainstream religions. If people are gonna pin the crimes of certain political beliefs that are minority offshoots of secular humanism (which itself is but one philosophical branch of atheism), it makes as much sense to pin the larger crimes of Muslims and Hindus, respectively, to Bahai and Jainism.

The attitude of liberal religionists who are given the vapors by vigorous expressions of disbelief is reminiscent of people who are “OK” with gay people as long as they “don’t flaunt their sexuality in public”.

Which is followed soon after by a comment by a liberal religionist:

The atheists I know off the internet generally don’t do that, though, so I’m willing to give 99% of atheists (“polite atheists”, if you will) a pass.

In general, a “rude” atheist is an atheist who has the—gasp—audacity to say that religion or some aspect of religion (veneration of a cracker) is asinine.  “Beliefs” should not be immune to criticism; criticism of a belief isn’t rudeness.

As for the idea that loud or obnoxious atheists alienate potential allies, I say, so what?  The role of this kind of atheist—again someone who actually dares to note that the dogma smells a lot like fairy tales—isn’t to make friends with theists.  Instead, their main job is to embolden folks like myself, folks who didn’t realize that there were so many other people out there who also thought religion was ridiculous.

Basically, somebody has to start the discussion and get the ball rolling.  Quiet, “Ahem, ahem,” throat-clearing atheism doesn’t accomplish anything except reinforce the notion that atheist have something to be ashamed of, that our lack of belief makes us pariahs.

I acknowlege that there is certainly a role for the more diplomatic atheist.  But the point is, until the issue sees the light of day, and it won’t if all atheist continue to be “polite,” there is no place for the diplomat.

In reality the diplomat and the rude atheist need each other and both serve necessary roles.

But then if I feel like insulting people that way is a rude thing to do, I’m accused of silencing atheists?

Well, the crux of atheism is that there is no supernatural sky daddie/mommie who controls the weather, the location of my missing socks, or the day to day activities of humankind.  Therefore, telling an atheist that he or she can’t dissect the contradictions and logical fallacies of said sky parent, is paramount to telling an atheist to “shut up.”

But do you need to use perjorative terms [such as ‘hokum] to say so [that you do not believe in god], or do you just get a rush in being rude and verbally combative?

More unexamined privilege.

Yes, I do need to use words like hokum. This is the problem, you see. There’s no way to say “I think that the central claim of your moral and spiritual life is based on a falsehood, and an elementary falsehood at that, which is demonstrable thusly…” without being rude, and there’s no way to say “I am an atheist because” without saying that. I could use words other than hokum, I suppose, but hokum is what I am saying, so my claim will always be rude. Furthermore, I see no need, especially in a thread about atheism, to pretend that atheism *doesn’t* claim that people who believe in the existence of gods are wrong.

You want atheists to join in the unspoken truce of the religious where we don’t press faith claims too strenuously, but atheists (or at least the atheists who are skeptics) have no reason to do so, if it were even possible. We not only don’t have a stake in that game, we don’t even have the cards to play it. Of course there is a universal need to be polite, but the rules of etiquette that prohibit atheists from saying claims of theism are hokum do nothing but preserve the privilege of the religious. We really, truly, don’t believe in the gods to which you attach such importance. At all.

In what other context, Faye, would you think it was appropriate for the group with an undeserved privilege to dictate the terms of discourse about that privilege to the group over whom they assert it?

exholt:

You seem missing a point. There’s no compulsionary element in atheism, such as threat of divine punishment, that would encourage an atheist to act in any way.

So saying some religions are responsible for atrocities committed for religious reasons is valid.

Saying atheism is responsible for atrocities committed by atheists is not valid, and neither is insinuating that all atheists bare responsibility for what some atheists have done.

Saying that atheists wouldn’t strap bombs to their chest for their cause isn’t really correct, I think atheists could, and maybe they could think that they’re doing it to fight religion or to advance an atheist cause (though atheism itself has no causes or agenda), but it isn’t atheism itself that made them do so.

The “shit-whose-cleaner” game your trying to play doesn’t even apply here, there simply aren’t the links. You just wrong.

“You’re” I mean.

Atheists can’t use grammar correctly. r.t. is all the evidence we need.

I think she was specifically talking of SUICIDAL bloody murderous violence - which is often more devastating because people can do more damage if they don’t care about their own life.

She said that in the context of asking some of us to stop using the term “militant atheist”....and my understanding of militancy is that it is far more than merely strapping bombs on your body and carrying out suicide attacks.  Militancy encompasses a wide range of behaviors and actions ranging from taunting/harassing behaviors such as those of the atheist majority at my undergrad to violent atrocity-ridden actions by avowed atheistic regimes like the Marxist-derived regimes. 

Heck, you can’t get much more militant than Stalin who carried out his purges or Mao whose Cultural Revolution killed unknown millions.  I can even cite how the Khmer Rouge killed an estimated 1.5-2 million of their fellow Cambodians.  Wouldn’t these atrocity ridden actions constitute those of “militant atheists”??

I don’t want to name the major example of a previously-pacifistic and enlightened religious group being given the reins of a country and the disaster that that has continued to be, but it’s happened.

Don’t worry….I’ve always been quite skeptical of Christian claims of Christianity being a pacifist religion.  Their long bloody murderous history combined with the way most Christians I’ve met behaved has added to that skepticism…..further reinforced by seeing news programs about the “Macho Christian theological Complex” where machoism is emphasized in order to fight declining male church attendance, dominance of women in church leadership positions, and attempting to make sermons more “macho” by playing up “macho” and playing down/ignoring “sissy” aspects like “love” and “forgiveness”. 

In fact, I’ve found one good way to piss off most obnoxious Christian fundies is to state that their religion is a pacifistic one…..really tends to set them off….especially the dudes.

I wonder….is Donahue’s visibility and bombasticness part of that very complex…....

exholt:

This is what your argument sounds like to an atheist:

Regimes that didn’t believe in unicorns, a-unicornistic regimes, murdered millions of people, so therefor people who don’t believe in unicorns have “smellier shit” then say perhaps people who believe in purple unicorns.

Ridiculous, but that’s what it sounds like.

pepito-

I’m sorry that I upset you for not properly proof-checking my writing. I will try to do better in the future.

Atheists can’t use grammar correctly. r.t. is all the evidence we need.

Pepito,

Grammatical mistakes are clear evidence that the English language itself is bug-ridden. 

dominance of women in church leadership positions

I’m sorry, which Christianity are you talking about? I hear that the Anglican church decided to allow women to rise to the rank of bishops LAST WEEK. Catholics won’t let women be priests.

The difference between religious violence and “atheist violence” is that

Oh, and the religion (that was great until it had control of a country) I was talking about wasn’t Christianity.

Pepito,

Oops…I should have said perceived female dominance in church leadership positions.  My bad. 

Just relaying what I caught on TV news about the increase in more “Macho Men” movements in mostly fundie Protestant denominations like the Promise Keepers to encourage more men to become regular church members. 

Oh, and the religion (that was great until it had control of a country) I was talking about wasn’t Christianity.

Any hints you can give?

Any hints you can give?

Be empirical, exholt. Follow your nose.

Be empirical, exholt. Follow your nose.

Sorry.  I have not eaten that excessively sugared cereal in over 2 decades…...

Opoponax:
Well, hey, why not just eat our dead?  Isn’t it illogical to waste perfectly good meat due simply to superstitious delusion?

For that matter, why don’t you eat dog?  It’s just an animal, right?

Would you consider it morally acceptable to fuck your stepsister?  What about if you married your mother after she had already been through menopause, and thus you couldn’t have children together?

There are actually no very good reasons to consider any of these “immoral” let alone violations of something “sacred”. If there were reports of a student being harassed at his university for violating the dog-eating taboo, it would merit the same ridicule as the cracker debacle.

Eating dead people should be discouraged because of prion diseases, though (and because it would take the fun out of zombie movies)

PS:
Surviving childbirth after every woman who came before you in your family failed to do so feels pretty magical, too.

If it had happened I would suspect magic too :D

Eating dead people should be discouraged because of prion diseases, though (and because it would take the fun out of zombie movies)

Agreed.  As for eating dogs…..don’t knock it until you’ve tried it. 

As for eating dogs…..don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.

My understanding was that carniverous animals don’t taste good, which is why we don’t tend to eat them. But as I haven’t eaten one, I can’t be authoritative on this.

My understanding was that carniverous animals don’t taste good, which is why we don’t tend to eat them. But as I haven’t eaten one, I can’t be authoritative on this.

Depends on the animal and individual taste.  Also, keep in mind that the dogs used for culinary purposes are usually from different breeds than ones people commonly keep as pets….notwithstanding the disingenuous Eurocentric cultural imperialistic campaigns against consumption of dog meat in Asia by Western celebrities like Brigitte Bardot….

Donohue is a media assassin, period.  That said, I view your situation, Amanda, and that of Cook and Myers as entirely different.  What Cook did and (unless he was joking, which is very hard to tell) Myers proposed was to undermine the private business of the Catholic Church (its religious services held for its own membership) by deception and at least arguable theft (i.e. larceny by trick.)  Distinguished from your statements which were made a) presumably in complete honesty and b) did not involve the property of others.

Had Cook bought and burned 1,000 Bibles, I might have offered the thousand-and-first to add on the pile.  Ditto Myers.  But suggesting that people should deceptively pretend to be faithful Catholics, bogart their religious sacraments and mail them for Myers to “desecrate” (he didn’t specify how) is reprehensible.  Cf. your comments which were harsh and rude as satire and parody can be, but involved no con, no sneak, no implicit fraud at all.

I don’t know if it’s been mentioned on any of the previous threads, but PC World reports that Melenie Kroll has been fired.

I personally don’t believe that there is anyone currently alive in Britain who has first-hand knowledge of extant pre-Christian pagan practices within Britain.

But it’s not entirely impossible that Gerald Gardner did.  He lived close to a century ago, and certainly would have known people during his lifetime who were far older than himself) . The evidence on both sides is hopelessly muddled by the research that was available at the time (this was generally before Madeleine Murray’s research was debunked), the desire for secrecy by anyone who plausibly could have had such knowledge and communicated it to Gardner, and the fact that until the 1950’s British law considered witchcraft a criminal activity.

Yeah, but even accepting that there were extant remnants of mediaeval witchcraft, that’s still a heck of a long way from pre-Christian paganism. Based on the available archaeological and historical evidence, witchcraft as practised throughout Europe in the Middle Ages bears virtually no resemblance to what little we know of pre-Christian pagan practice. That’s not to say that a degree of continuity is impossible, just that it seems fairly unlikely given the differences that we know of. Of course, it’s quite possible that what we now think of as “pre-Christian paganism” (in the sense of a formal, organised religion) was more restricted to the upper classes of society, and it’s possible that elements of European witchcraft derive from the unrecorded folk beliefs of the ordinary people of that period - but it’s not like anybody has ever found anything like a witch bottle in an Iron Age context. Votive offerings, head-hunting, and human sacrifice to local, tribal “gods” - these are the hallmarks of “formal” pre-Christian paganism in northern Europe. While I don’t know much about Wicca, I’m pretty sure I would’ve heard about it if they were practising the three-fold death.

Anyway, we seem to be having a completely different conversation here to everyone else in this thread… Fascinating as it is, it’s getting a little hard to follow.

Give them some time, population growth, and state power.

You could say the same thing about atheist and other non-religious philosophical/ideological movements….the atheistic Marxist-based regimes are more than enough proof of that….

In short….atheists are no more immune from being just as violent, bloody, and murderous than their religious counterparts.

Though religion and its interpretations has been a catalyst for such actions and traits, the same could be said for many interpretations of philosophies, ideologies, as well as the absence thereof. 

Personally, I am in agreement with commenters that being violent, bloody, and murderous is more an indication of the less noble aspects of being a member of the human species…...and the awareness of such aspects is one way we can all be on guard to hopefully prevent and/or attempt to stop violent atrocities from happening.  Contrary to some atheists on this and other related threads….being an atheist….as with being an adherent of any supposedly “enlightened” religious/theistic faith, philosophy, or ideology does not, by itself, confer automatic immunity/exemption to those sinister tendencies of our species.  To believe that is not only an act of great hubris, but also the epitome of irrationality.

And Bahai and Jain are minority sects or offshoots of more mainstream religions. If people are gonna pin the crimes of certain political beliefs that are minority offshoots of secular humanism (which itself is but one philosophical branch of atheism), it makes as much sense to pin the larger crimes of Muslims and Hindus, respectively, to Bahai and Jainism

Unless those crimes preceded the 9th century BCE, you don’t really have much of a case of pinning larger crimes of Hindus on Jainists.

the atheistic Marxist-based regimes are more than enough proof of that….

I hear their atrocities were only exceeded by the Axis forces in the Second Sino-Japanese War/WWII.

Pepito,

True….but far above those of the Jains, Wiccans, or Bahais….three theistic faiths….

True….but far above those of the Jains, Wiccans, or Bahais….three theistic faiths….

Which exholt can ascertain, by virtue of having perfected the art of ideological stool sniffing.

The argument I make is not that widespread atheism and the end of religion is a *sufficient* precondition of eliminating human atrocities. It is that it is a *necessary* precondition of such.

The existence of irrational yet secular philosophies does not change the fact that religion is necessarily irrational.

Exholt-

I don’t see how you can pass some faiths and people of faiths but then condemn all atheists for the actions of some atheists.

You’re talking about all atheists as if we belong to the same more of less formal group, which we don’t, the only thing atheists fundamentally share in common is atheism, which is merely a lack of belief in the supernatural.

If you’re lumping all atheists together holding them responsible for the actions of some of them because they share that simple idea, the lack of belief, which it sounds like, then anyone of faith, ANYONE who believes in the supernatural, should be responsible and blameworthy for the actions of some of them.

So your Jains, Wiccans, or Bahais, because they have faith in the supernatural, which makes them just Christians who believe in supernatural, should be accountable for the horrors committed by all peoples of faith.

So your Jains, Wiccans, or Bahais, because they have faith in the supernatural, which makes them just Christians who believe in supernatural, should be accountable for the horrors committed by all peoples of faith.

Not so fast! What does exholt think of the smell of their stool? We know he’s been checking it twice.