Why I’m not a “friendly” atheist.
by Hanlon on March 12, 2007 at 4:37 pmI caught an article on another site that simply forced my hand in this regard. A guy who runs a site called Friendly Atheist wrote an article entitled “Why I’m Not an Angry Atheist”. In it, he attempts to explain, as the title says, why he’s not an angry atheist, apparently equating passion with anger. Such as here:
But if your religious beliefs (illogical as they may be) are doing something positive for our community and our world, and in the process, you’re not trying to stop scientific progress, impede promising research, hurt my gay friends, control another woman’s body, force your beliefs upon anyone else, ask the government to give you special privileges, or make me fear coming out as an atheist in public, why should I be attacking you?
Look, I’m a humanist as much as I am anything else. I want what’s best for people. And yes, on the surface, it’s difficult to explain why on earth someone would still be against religion if people are willing to be “moderate” about them and still accept scientific research and civil liberties. It sounds like the person simply has a vendetta and it’s more about personal grudges than societal progress.
The problem here is twofold. In the first case, we have to realize that nowhere in the Bible/Torah/Koran does it say that it’s okay to be gay or have an abortion. Everything in his list is, according to the various holy books, exactly what a believer in said religions should do. The bible says birth begins at conception, homosexuality is wrong, and anyone who worships false gods should be punished for it. Among other things. If one claims to be a Christian or a Muslim and does not do what the “Friendly Atheist” lists, then that believer is allowing sin to occur.
I often read and hear from people who start to say things like “well that’s not meant literally” or “as long as you do good, you’ll be fine.” In both cases there is nothing in the actual holy books to support that. The bible doesn’t come with a color code to signify what’s literal and what isn’t, and Jesus may be the redeemer but he didn’t disregard all sins in a blanket sweep. So what we have here is the unavoidable conclusion that religious “moderates” are letting people commit mortal sins damning their souls to hell and they have no problem with that.
The next time you talk to, for example, a Christian moderate, ask him if Jews can go to heaven. Make him answer.
Problem two is one that Dawkins and others have touched upon: the “floodgates” thought. Religious moderation, ignoring how misguided and bizarre it seems to me, still accepts religious belief and leaves room for fundamentalists. As long as we, as a society, accept the holy books as part of our culture in a true and real sense and the gods in them are real, then we are tacitly allowing people to take them literally (after all, read above) and giving them free reign to go crazy.
Fundamentalism cannot exist if we eliminate all religion, and to expect it to go away while moderate religiosity remains is a foolish endeavor indeed. We live in a society where it is considered admirable to watch documentaries of the believers who flog themselves, crucify themselves, whip and lacerate themselves in grand parades to show the depth and devotion of their beliefs, as opposed to scoffing at the insanity of beating yourself with chains to prove you really, really love the man in the sky. We, even many liberals I’m afraid to say, offer quiet admiration for those who act on such unwavering faith, and this is dangerous thinking.
And then we get into the intellectual conundrum. Too many people focus on whether “religion” is good or bad. Religious people do great things, they do terrible things. For every charity, there’s a violent militant group. But that’s missing the point. The point is that their beliefs are based on falsehoods, and maybe this is where I separate from many of my atheist brothers but I value truth over whether or not it’s good to believe the lie.
Religion is the only aspect, the ONLY aspect, of knowledge in which disagreements over facts is accepted. In history, we’re not allowed to disagree about who Socrates was or how he died. We can’t say that Christopher Columbus may not have actually sailed to America. Mathematicians can’t argue over how many the number 10 signifies, or whether or not the area of a triangle is one half its base multiplied by its height. Physicists don’t get to say that objects in a vacuum really do fall at different speeds.
Now this isn’t entirely true. Disagreements are accepted, but only when they can be proven and then the theory that is proven true is considered the new “fact”.
However, in the case of religion, we simply accept the differing viewpoints. You believe Jesus was the messiah? Grand. You believe he didn’t exist? That’s fine. You think Noah truly built an Ark with all the species on it and lived to be 950? Fantastic. You think it’s a folk tale? Wonderful. You believe Mohammad was truly inspired by an angel to write the Koran? Lovely. You don’t believe he was a real man? More power to ya. In religion only is “truth” seemingly disregarded and replaced with “respect”.
Furthermore, religion is, as many of my more extreme brethren have described, a conversation-stopper. We have a society that does not pursue interrogation when it comes to religious beliefs. An example I’ve seen is that of the conscientious objector in wartime. If you’re religious, it’s easy. If you’re a decorated moral philosopher, it’s much harder. When someone tells you that a belief of theirs is based upon their religion, our culture has decided that you can’t press on. “God” terminates all discussion.
If I say the flat tax favors the wealthy, you can insist that I support my opinion with statistics and economical evidence. If I say that the PATRIOT Act is invasive and not necessary to fight terrorism, I would not only have to explain how it’s invasive but also demonstrate how terrorism can be fought without it. But if I say homosexuality is wrong because God says so, then that’s the end of it, I don’t need to provide any more support.
To this end, while it’s true that “moderate believers” allow more freedom than “fundamentalists”, it does not stop the moderates from still acting irrationally because that same acceptance is given. When a doctor refused to see a patient because the mother was tattooed, his beliefs were his reason and as such the standard dealing with the issue was not accepted. Had it been some old guy who disliked tattoos, he would have been duly criticized and lambasted for idiocy.
Consider abortion or any other issue (stem cell research, gay marriage). Taking the stance of scientists, be they social or medical, we can have a debate between both sides to argue their beliefs. When does life begin? What kind of an effect would gay marriage truly have on society? These can be discussed rationally, with real points to be made, and perhaps one side may yield and acknowledge being wrong, and in the end the conclusion will, optimally, be one reached by rational discourse.
Not so if one side bases its beliefs on religion. When that happens, the debate is over. What rebuttal is there to “God says so”? In a debate, if one side says he believes what he does because that’s what God decreed, the other side can’t argue that maybe God is wrong or that God is not a reliable source of information (or that he’s not there at all), because that, as above, is not “respecting” religious beliefs. When that happens, all you can do is cross your fingers and hope that someone else, preferably someone in power, has different beliefs because you sure can’t do anything to change your god-worshiping opponent.
Moderate religion is intellectually dishonest and leaves the door open for suicide bombers and fundamentalist nutjobs. Simple as that.
Do I stand on street corners and yell about the evils of religion? Of course not. Do I antagonize the religious at every turn and make it a war against them? Not at all. However, do I accommodate those who cling to religious dogma even if they claim to be a “moderate”? No. I do not and will not.
“Friendly” atheism is an atheism that allows and accepts theism not because it’s what is right, but because it’s what’s easy. It’s easy to say “well I don’t believe in God but I don’t have a problem with it.” It’s easy to say “well Jesus was a great guy, I just don’t think he was the son of God.” Unfortunately, that ignores the core problems that religion presents to society. Soft and flaccid atheism will inspire no change.
I am “friendly” in that I present my beliefs rationally, without antagonizing, and in a calm and civil manner. That is all the friendlier atheists need to be.
Posted: March 12th, 2007 under religion.
Comments
Comment from Hanlon
Time March 12, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Well thank you, my friend. I haven’t written as much on this topic here, but I think I’ll do more as it’s one I’m passionate about.
I like your site as well. Think that’ll go on the ol’ list.
Comment from Rechan
Time March 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm
“I often read and hear from people who start to say things like “well that’s not meant literally” or “as long as you do good, you’ll be fine.” In both cases there is nothing in the actual holy books to support that. The bible doesn’t come with a color code to signify what’s literal and what isn’t, and Jesus may be the redeemer but he didn’t disregard all sins in a blanket sweep. So what we have here is the unavoidable conclusion that religious “moderates” are letting people commit mortal sins damning their souls to hell and they have no problem with that.”
The question in my mind is if ths individual believes those are sins or not. Just as the fundamentalists can believe in the Literality of the Bible but merely pick and choose what they follow, so too can the lazie faire Christian pick and choose their beliefs. There are a lot of Christians who pretty much are “I believe in Jesus, in God, and … that’s about it.” As in, the Bible’s teachings really don’t influence them all that much. I mean, one doesn’t have to be an atheist to look at the Bible and go “This stuff is absurd. There was no way there was a literal flood that put thousands of animals on an ark”. Those same people can believe in a Supreme being and the holiness of Jesus without subscribing to anything more than the general messages behind the parables and Jesus’s own teachings.
I’ve heard Christians say that all that matters is being a good person; that sure, non-Christians who are “good” still get into Heaven. So I really don’t think that many of the moderates are just perfectly Okay with people committing sin, because I think a goodly number may not see it As a sin in the first place. Which would force you to question their faith, but I don’t think that’s necessary at all - after all, people have the right to determine to what degree they invest stock in the Bible, just like people have the right to what degree they invest in politics or their political beliefs. In many ways, these “moderates” could be the religious version of the One Issue Voter; the environmentalist/pro-lifer/(insert random stance here); that’s all that really matters. And to them, all that matters is the belief/acceptance of Jesus.
“We live in a society where it is considered admirable to watch documentaries of the believers who flog themselves, crucify themselves, whip and lacerate themselves in grand parades to show the depth and devotion of their beliefs, as opposed to scoffing at the insanity of beating yourself with chains to prove you really, really love the man in the sky.”
I have heard many liberals who admire that Buddhist monk from the 70s who set himself on fire in protest to the Vietnam war. I admire that. I also admire the level of devotion that monks will put themselves through for their beliefs, and the level of punishment their body goes through (walking on coals and other such things) that allow them to do awesome physiological tricks. Is this the same thing? After all, I acknowledge that these feats are possible because of their strong focus, and their stubborn devotion; they are abusing their bodies as a signal of their piety.
I disagree with you entirely. I reject everything that you have said. But I’m not going to be a cock about it. And I’m not going to argue with you, because like the religious, you have decided on your opinion and it’s not going to be changed by what someone on the internet says.
Comment from Rechan
Time March 12, 2007 at 5:53 pm
The real problem that I have with “Unfriendly” atheists is that they’re atagonistic and really give atheists a bad name.
The other day on a web forum, a guy (we will call him B) said, “THERE ARE NO WITCHES.” And someone stood up and said “Uh, yeah there are. We’re called Wiccan.” So then B begins to say “Oh yeah? Prove you’re a witch. Move the remote ontop of my TV.” B goes on to cite an article that says prayer does not work, and sums up with “If the existance of your supernatural forces is identical to the non-existance of your supernatural forces, then they likely don’t exist.”
The issue here is that the Witch was not preaching. The witch was not being self-righteous, going on about how superior their moral standing are, etc. Merely stating that “This is what we call people of my religion”, and B took it upon himself to say “No you’re not, because 1) That religion isn’t real and 2) you don’t show the trappings of what witches are.” Except that with regards to #2, “witch” is merely a word created by the catholic church to oppress the pagans and keep people in line. (I could say that it’s much like black people calling one another Nigger, taking the power out of the word, but I don’t really like that line of argument).
So I ask this: How do these two scenarios differ?
Christian walks up to atheist, who is minding his own business, and says, “You don’t believe in GOD; you are wrong, immoral, and you’re going to burn in hell.
Atheist walks up to christian, who is minding his own business, and says, “You believe in GOD; your beliefs are false, you’re an idiot, and you’re destroying the world.”
The difference is that Mr. Atheist is most likely correct. But other than that, the two have exactly the same presentation style. They’re offered in a way that’s really not going to accomplish anything positive.
So here’s my point: Even if Mr. Atheist is right, even if what B says is correct, that’s not an excuse to be a dick about it. In fact, saying ot someone “You’re going to burn in hell if you don’t agree with me/you’re an idiot who believes in fairy tales” is 1) The same thing, and 2) not going to convert anyone. When you walk up to someone to berate and insult something They Consider Fairly Important In THeir Lives, they aren’t going to go “Wow, you have a good point”, they’re going to get pissed off, dismiss you for your assholish behavior, and associate everyone who holds your stance with you.
And no, Hanlon, I am not saying that you display this behavior in the least - you aren’t biligerent.. It’s more to do with the “Unfriendly atheist” idea in general.
Comment from Marc Holt
Time March 12, 2007 at 6:56 pm
You can catch more flies with honey than with shit.
If we want to convince theists that their beliefs don’t make sense, we have to engage them in debate that will convince them. Being aggressive won’t work.
I live in an atheist country, Thailand. Buddhism is a philosophy, and they don’t believe in any gods. In fact, just to test this I asked my Thai wife the other day if she believes in any gods and she just laughed and said no.
But, she does believe in ghosts and nature spirits…a holdover from the Thais’ ancient past.
People will believe in whatever makes them happy. It’s only when we come across someone who is seriously questioning those beliefs that we have an opportunity to influence them. And, as I started out, honey catches more flies.
I’m a friendly atheist when it makes sense. But I also believe passionately that the world would be better off without any religion at all.
Thanks for letting me vent.
Comment from Vinay GUpta
Time March 12, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Two points.
1> Religions without a point source - and I’m thinking of Hinduism and some of the older Paganisms / tribal religions don’t have a problem with modernity. Contemporary teachers can make rulings every bit as definitive as those made thousands of years ago. For example, contemporary Hindu leaders gave an OK on organ transplants. This approach - letting the present be as good and canonical as the past - makes a huge difference.
2> Atheism is only a *belief*. In the face of some kind of evidence - and let us note that we have “hearsay” evidence from dozens of cultures over thousands of years - Atheism would need to be re-examined. In the face of a Krishna, or a Burning Bush or whatever, atheism goes down for exactly the same reason creationism goes down against Darwin: the evidence doesn’t support it.
Given that this thought experiment makes it clear that Atheism is vulnerable to evidence, what we’re really discussing here is Agnosticism: “we’re waiting for evidence.”
What you choose to assume while you’re waiting for solid evidence isn’t worth fighting over. People who believe are, by and large, taking accounts of old evidence seen by other people as definitive. People who are atheists are, by and large, disregarding these heresay reports.
Agnosticism is still the wise man’s path: I’ll reserve judgment until something shows up. And if nothing ever shows up, the most I can say is “I don’t know.”
I happen to be a Hindu, a belief system I came to after spending several thousand hours in meditation. I chose it because the evidence I’d gathered meditating fitted closely to the information contained in the branch of the tradition I had access to.
I’m still an agnostic.
Comment from Whiteboard
Time March 12, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I actually think that the world would be quite boring without religious zealous (never mind the millions of people who have died and been persecuted throughout the years). Especially here in NYC, I can’t imagine my daily commute without hearing someone preach on the train or carry a sign that informs me that I will be going to hell. Can we just keep religion around long enough for me to retire?
—-
Shredder
http://www.monomachines.com
Comment from Jack Rawlinson
Time March 12, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Marc Holt said: “You can catch more flies with honey than with shit.”
I’d say that’s a highly debatable statement. Not to mention being a lazy soundbite that doesn’t really address a single one of the main article’s points.
Comment from Dabo
Time March 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Because not everyone is capable to live a normal, civil life without some “manual” to give them directions and comfort, and tell them what’s “right” and what’s wrong, I think that for some people religion is a necessity. I can’t try and take away the one thing that keeps them “human” without offering them a viable replacement. That’s why I will not challenge everytime I hear someone blurt out some religious nonsense, especially if I don’t feel any direct or indirect threat. I might only do that if I think they are intellectually capable of critical reasoning.
Which is why I can “live” with moderate believers.
Comment from DV82XL
Time March 12, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Hear,hear!
I am personally sick of being told that my atheism is a result of my being angry at God. My atheism is the result of being able to think, my anger comes from sharing air with adults that believe in fairytales.
Comment from Fresh
Time March 12, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I’m sick and tired of being nice as well.
Keep your silly mythology to yourself.
Religion is delusional behavior and it’s imbecilic.
People are such narcissists.
They’re all hypocrites as well- The Bible or whatever book they buy into is
pretty clear about being anti-war…It’s the basic message of the book - but
these holier-than-though morons can’t seem to unravel that mystery.
Comment from fred
Time March 12, 2007 at 9:37 pm
You believe everything in existence came from nothing
and it bothers you that people believe in God? lol!
How about mentioning all the weirdo atheist since you
mention all the weirdness of the fake and false religions?
LAME!
Comment from CMonster
Time March 12, 2007 at 10:12 pm
You make some important points about how religion can lead to/is illogical thinking, but it seems as if you are saying it is the prime motivator. Communism in Russia was patently athiestic and yet just as corrupt and violent as any world religion at it’s worst.
I think you hit on the key in that religion is a conversation stopper, that it’s not allowed to be questioned. When science was just something monks did on their off days, thousands of texts were written with competing interpretations of the bible, spirituality, and what it meant to lead a holy life. But with the seperation of science into its own world, religion is left to the “just do what I say” folks.
Obviously religious moderates can contribute something to the world- in fact, they have given us the most of the world to date. Athiesm has probably always existed, but it has never taken hold the way religion has. Why? Because religion serves some purpose in people’s lives. If it didn’t, all the highly religious people would have died out due to evolutionary forces. (Or else they really are Whoever’s chosen people).
Of course, it may only be evolutionarily neutral- neither helping nor hindering our existence. It might simply be a factor of a socially based brain socializing the universe around it. But think- an overwhelming majority of the planet believes in some deeper story beyond what they can immediately see. Until we know what it is that religion does for us as a species, it will be impossible to really change/replace it. Demanding everyone think like you won’t do it, just like telling people sugar makes you fat does shit against humanity’s long ingrained sweet tooth.
Comment from CMonster
Time March 12, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Oh, and to Fresh- read the old testament. Nobody did genocide like the OT God did genocide.
Comment from Josh
Time March 12, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I just wanted to pipe in with a quick response to your two points. I will write from my own Christian perspective, so interpret the following in that light.
First, the claim that ‘religious moderates’ are somehow wrong in allowing people to do things they believe are wrong or are ’sin’. You go on to say that we are allowing people to damn their souls to hell.
This comes about from a misunderstanding of Christianity. It is not the things that we do which damn us to hell, but rather our attitude and response to God. The Bible is quite clear that we are not to judge those who are not Christians on the basis of their behaviour. (1 Cor 5:12) It is after you become a Christian that you need to be doing what Christ says, not before. My passion is to tell you about Jesus (as you say; in a rational, calm and civil manner), not to condemn you for your behaviour.
And to answer your question on whether Jews can go to heaven; of course they can. After all, Jesus went to them and told them how, using their own scriptures.
The second issue you bring up is that religion gets a free ride in society, which therefore allows free reign for crazies.
I value the truth, and any Christian should. We should have more debate over what is true and false, right and wrong. We shouldn’t have a free ride because of particular beliefs. What you call ‘moderate religion’ is in fact a nominal, unexamined religion. It is anti-intellectual, and it is not what a Christian should be. Rather, we should be thinking about what we believe.
What do you mean by religion being the only area of human knowledge where disagreement is tolerated? If anything, we should be more tolerant of disagreement. How else does science advance? What do you do if you find evidence against a prevailing paradigm, such as heliocentric astronomy or Newtonian physics? Just accept the current ‘facts’? I think that what you mean is that we should have disagreements, but underneath it there should be the drive to find the truth. This should be true of religion as well, and it is tragic that in the general case it is not.
Why is it that the proposed solution to bad religion is atheism? I hold that the correct solution is true religion, which can only be found through a concerted search for truth.
Comment from userd
Time March 12, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I was going to read this article, but the “Subscribe” column on the left is covering the main text. Site is not viewable at 680×800.
Comment from gerald
Time March 12, 2007 at 11:17 pm
amazing, just amazing. I read the article you refered to yesterday and thought, this guy doesnt know what the heck he is talking about. and you put what i was thinking - with arguements to back up everything you say - into a beautiful article.
thankyou
gerald
Comment from conjuror
Time March 13, 2007 at 12:01 am
Jesus was the son of god. Your all going to hell to burn for an eternity. I hope you wallow in the depths of,
All right im just trying to get some flames going. 
Great article and well said.
Pingback from Took the Words… « Use Your Muse
Time March 13, 2007 at 12:05 am
[...] Took the Words… … right outta my mouth. This guy expresses my feelings about ‘friendly’ atheism better than I can, so please read HIS blog. You can do that here. [...]
Comment from SimonTeW
Time March 13, 2007 at 12:11 am
I’m afraid I’ll have to respectfully disagree with Hanlon. I don’t think it is right to diss someone for their beliefs, no matter how absurd they seem to me, as long as they aren’t trying to force their beliefs on me, attack me or control me.
Every day people have to deal with others with differing beliefs. Religion is just one of many beliefs that people hold. People can get just as heated about, say, politics as religion. Same with sports (if you don’t believe me, watch rioting English soccer fans on TV sometime). If you condemn everyone who doesn’t agree with you on everything you’ll have few friends.
It makes no difference that in the case of religion the atheists are “right”. There will be Democrats who are absolutely 100% certain they’re right. And likewise Republicans. And Christians. The certainty of “rightness” for atheists may be based on rational rather than irrational thinking, that is one difference, but the “certainty” is the same.
I would rather live in a tolerant world where everyone tries to get along than one where everyone, atheists included, are trying to ram their beliefs down each other’s throats (and yes, I know atheism is not a belief, it’s a non-belief, but that would make the sentence too long winded). Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to debate religion, or the lack of it, with anyone but I see no reason to look for a fight with someone if they’re not looking for a fight with me.
Comment from MattyP
Time March 13, 2007 at 1:08 am
Very well written article Hanlon. You made your points very clear & presented well constructed arguments for your view. As a fellow athiest this read was actualy quite inspiring and an affirmation of my views.
Thanks!
p.s. to alot of the people who replied and missed alot of the main points, please re-read the article & pay special notice to areas which make your rebuttals completely moot.
Comment from Winter
Time March 13, 2007 at 1:16 am
I Am Not A Theologian.
However, as i understand it Jews get their old deal–though there is some debate among the Jews as to what that is–but anyone who believes in Jesus gets the free ticket to heaven.
(Of course, that’s ignoring the question of what “believe in” means, and whether or not non-believers get to go to heaven and if not what does that say about the supposed forgiveness of all sins, etc, etc, etc.)
Comment from MattyP
Time March 13, 2007 at 1:16 am
oh and..
p.p.s. To all the people who said something along the lines of “HAW HAW athiest beleifs are silly too because you believe in crazy ideas”
please listen to this.. it’s the honst truth and it’s not ment to be a personal attack on yourself.
Your opinion that Athiest / Scientific beleifs are in any way “silly” or “crazy” are only an indication of your ingnorance of the scientific facts. Facts = things which are supported by evidence, are testable, falsifiably and rational.
The FACT that the earth is round and orbits the sun is a THEORY… this THEORY is supported by countless evidence, observation, experiments and documentation.
The FACT that life on earth evolved from the dawn of life over millions of years is a THEORY.. this THEORY is supported by countless evidence, observation, experiments and documentation.
Comment from Gaston
Time March 13, 2007 at 2:19 am
Religion Reality Check
Using commonsense reason to subjugate superstition
Will prove embarrassing to believe in God’s position
Thinking mans intelligence will check all illusions
Erasing fear, myth, and all apocalyptic conclusions
Real reality goes at the speed of educated fact choices
Not by ecclesiastical hypocritical authority voices
A morality gut feeling is the natural default setting
Trusting ethical intuition won’t leave you regretting
Belief, prayer, and faith lead to absolutisms incased in lies
Stabilizing and protecting fragile myths that fact denies
Most religionist are completely deranged by religious faith
Holy books are badly construed fables imbedded with wrath
Christian moderates are just as bad as jihad Muslim fanatics
Immunizing religion from rational discussion of its dramatics
The Bible story of Jesus is a phantasmagoric parable fairy tail
The Koran is a manifesto for religious death divisiveness on sale
Comment from Peter
Time March 13, 2007 at 2:20 am
“Moderate religion is intellectually dishonest and leaves the door open for suicide bombers and fundamentalist nutjobs. Simple as that.”
YES! and Marijuana is a gateway drug to cocaine and heroine. :o) Simple as THAT 
What you are doing is just as bad as what the religious fundamentalists are doing, you’re just the other side of the coin, the other side of the stick. You are not an atheist but an anti-theist. Moderation is The Way. Moderate theism TOGETHER with moderate atheism.
Anthony deMello put it best in One Minute Nonsense:
Concerning God, therefore, one cannot say anything: “The atheist makes the mistake of denying that of which nothing may be said… And the theist makes the mistake of affirming it”
we are all wrong… but at least the moderates can better tolerate each other.
Comment from Gaston
Time March 13, 2007 at 2:25 am
Picking the ancient scab of religion verses science
Christian right intelligent design of faith compliance.
Scientific left Darwinian Theory on fact based science.
Clergy quote Geneses stating Gods creation dominance.
Atheist scientist map and quantify human experience.
Tithing religionists wobble in slack jawed wonderment.
Agnosticism is beginning to grow beyond confinement.
Prayer is becoming stagnant as crime and war escalate.
No divine intervention peace God visible to participate.
Muslim terrorist bowing to Allah to justify human killing.
Christian soldiers circle in prayer before combat go willing.
Apologetics patch holes in the hypocritical gay church.
God fearing news media keeps all the public in the lurch.
Has the mortal brain fossilized into superstition and myth?
Is humanity still operating with Pleistocene chromosomes?
Technology did not alter fear thinking Stone Age brains.
Psychobiocircuitry tells man to cover body when it rains.
Some persons think smarter, electrochemically evolving.
Their offspring acquire new DNA for brains requalifying.
They become free thinkers for the betterment of mankind.
Operating from fact based educated freewill choice mind.
Self-governing self-sufficiency education need be learned.
Land ratio population birth control must not be spurned.
Mentality of commonsense must evolve to qualify reality.
Ideals of truth, beauty, and goodness being the normality.
Discarding daily apocalypse fear, myth and superstition.
Will leave room for a healthy evolving loving disposition.
Todays fear praying & worshiping religions are antiquated.
Living goes at the speed of commonsense choices anticipated.
Comment from Gaston
Time March 13, 2007 at 2:41 am
~~~RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD~~~
TAOISM > Shit Happens.
SUFISM > Shit Let’s Dance!
SHINTOISM > Shitting Now.
LUTHERN> Divided Up Shit.
JANSENISM > Shit let’s will it.
UNITARIAN > What’s This Shit?
BAPTIST > Let’s Roll In This Shit.
ATHEIST > I Don’t Believe That Shit.
CHURCH OF GOD > Shit’s Out There.
URANTIA > Can You Believe This Shit?
AGNOSTIC > I Believe Some Shit Stinks.
CHRISTIANITY > He Died For This Shit?
HINDUISM > This Shit Happened Before.
ISLAM > If Shit Happens, Take A Hostage.
Protestants> Our Shits is better than theirs.
ZEN > What Is The Sound Of Shit Happening?
CATHOLICISM > If Shit Happens, we Deserve It.
TV AVENGELEST> We Want Your Monetary Shit.
MORMON > Shit Happens Again & Again & Again.
EVANGELACALES> Faith Will Heal Your Shitter.
BUDDHISM > When Shit Happens, Is It Really Shit?
7TH DAY ADVENTIST > Shit Happens On Saturdays.
CONFUCIANISM > Confucius Say, “Shit Will Happen”.
JUDAISM > Why Does This Shit Always Happen To Me?
JEHOVAH’s Witness > Knock Knock “Shit’s Happening”.
HARE KRISHNA > Shave your Head So Shit Can’t Happen.
RASTAFARIANISM > Let’s Smoke This Sticky Cannabis Shit.
COMMONSENSE > Only You Dude, Can Stinking Shit Yourself.
Comment from Markus
Time March 13, 2007 at 3:26 am
> The problem here is twofold. In the first case, we have to realize
> that nowhere in the Bible/Torah/Koran does it say that it’s okay to
> be gay or have an abortion. [...]
And neither does it say that it’s ok in the laws and consituion of most western states. In fact, it usualy doesn’t work that way - you don’t enumarate what’s good and deny everything else by default as bad. By going ahead and claiming that those religions are against gays and abortion, you’re doing the fundamentlist’s work. You are legitimizing a certain reading/interpretation as the true one.
> Problem two is one that Dawkins and others have touched upon:
> the “floodgates” thought. Religious moderation, ignoring how
> misguided and bizarre it seems to me, still accepts religious belief
> and leaves room for fundamentalists.
Let’s see how that works in politics: Socialism etc. is moderate communism, and the only real communism is that which was done in the USSR. Therefore we must prevent people from accepting the writings of Marx, and we must long term work on eradicating anything that has even a hint of socialism, because it can turn into communism at any time, and we all saw what that lead to.
That way of reasoning is (dangerous) nonsense.
Comment from MB
Time March 13, 2007 at 6:37 am
Actually, not only does the “Bible” (Old? New?) NOT claim that life (in the relevant sense) begins at conception, the origins of the Catholic doctrine in Scholastic thought (i.e. Aristotelianism) claimed that a life wasn’t human until “ensoulment”. This usually was taken to mean something like “when the organism takes on a recognizably human form”. So, for example. Augustine would not have been against very early first trimester abortion.
Comment from Peter
Time March 13, 2007 at 6:51 am
Do yourself and other atheists a favor and read what the bible actually says before ranting lies about it. You claim: “The bible says birth begins at conception, homosexuality is wrong, and anyone who worships false gods should be punished for it.” I assume you meant “life begins at conception.”
Try and find passages to support all of this. The bible only has one passage in it that talks about when life begins, and it clearly states that life begins at or after birth. In Exodus, in the law handed to Moses, if two men fight, and one accidentally kills the others wife in the process, the punishment is death. If one accidentally kills an unborn fetus, the punishment is a fine.
The reason I hate fundamentalist atheists is that, like you, they’re clueless, don’t understand either science or religion. Like religious nuts, y’all spout stupidity with complete conviction that you’re right.
Comment from Vinay Gupta
Time March 13, 2007 at 6:58 am
I have to agree: not only ignorant of religion, but also ignorant of science.
Until scientists have a complete understanding of all phenomena, and can show them to interlink in such a way as to preclude all other possibilities and explanations, there’s still a vast unknown: why does matter exist, what is consciousness, and so on are huge, fundamental and unanswered questions.
An agnostic approach - believe in what there is evidence of - is the only fundamentally scientific belief system. No evidence = no opinion.
One can look at a hypothesis and say “that would require incredible evidence to sustain, given what else we know” - for example, the Bible, to be justified in a lab setting, would require a Second Coming. Scepticism is rational. But “there is no god” is a statement of faith.
“I don’t see any evidence, and until then, we can proceed” is much closer.
Of course, the vicious attacks by religious extremists - both on 9/11, and at abortion clinics (and don’t say there are no parallels…) - give the moderate parts of the population a lot of bad feelings towards religion. But Atheism is the wrong flag to fly on those feelings: “fundamentalists are assholes” is a much more accurate response to the problem.
Comment from RandomBoy
Time March 13, 2007 at 7:05 am
Very well written, but I disagree with you on one point. I am an “unfriendly atheist” myself but I don’t share Dawkins’ oppinion that the world would be a better place without religion. I think that the nutjobs blowing themselves up in the name of some god or another would just find another excuse if they were not religious. Generally stupid people will always find ways to manifest their stupidity, with or without religion. There is no way to magically increase someone’s IQ by convincing them to renounce religion.
I also think that atheists should use their lack of a belief system to their advantage over the 99% of the population that falls in the “religious idiots” category. People like Dawkins will achieve nothing with their attention whoring.
Comment from Steeled
Time March 13, 2007 at 7:26 am
Vinay,
Your belief that agnosticism is the smart person’s choice is where I was for the past ten years. Gradually, however, I had to start being honest: fence sitting is not the way I wanted to live my life, so I committed to educating myself - which MUST consist of doing more than reading individual opinions on the web (although my hat is of to Hanlon).
For Christmas (and yes, I see some irony here) I got myself a copy of Dawkins’ The God Delusion. For my money, he quite neatly disposes of the agnostics’ position. I highly recommend that you read it - preferably in hard copy, but you can actually find it online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9599/Richard-Dawkins-The-God-Delusion
Surf on over and read from page 46 - The Poverty Of Agnosticism. The section goes for about 10 pages and deals with the issue that while we can never be certain, we can still look at probabilities (and at what is improbable).
Hanlon - I’m divided over your post. I like what you have to say, but I can’t help looking at other (failed) attempts to remove religion - Soviet Russia, China, etc. It takes an awful lot of effort and education (and as you are aware, the concept of God seems to be programmed into us and as something we are taught from birth is a very difficult concept to stamp out). “Converting” the unwashed masses to atheism is a very difficult proposition.
So, while I admire your views, at the moment I’m not “angry”. I share my atheism sparingly and am still trying to decide how to fully integrate my beliefs with my day-to-day existence.
Comment from wacky
Time March 13, 2007 at 7:47 am
**Unfortunately, that ignores the core problems that religion presents to society. Soft and flaccid atheism will inspire no change.**
Do you believe in social equality? In whatever case extremities are danger zones. One side communism and other side capitalism.
Comment from Vinay Gupta
Time March 13, 2007 at 7:56 am
Much as I love Dawkin’s work - I’m quite a lover of evolutionary biology as applied to human matters - he’s off the rails here.
It’s not an issue of belief or disbelief, it’s a question about the philosophy of science. Falsifiability is extremely important: “there is no god” is not falsifiable.
“There is a god” is, however, completely falsifiable.
Therefore, the burden of proof in the public sphere rests with the theist. Somebody steps up and says I’ve gotta do X Y and Z because the Bible tells me so? Well, PROVE IT is a reasonable - and scientific - response.
But the converse is also true: to claim that an unfalsifiable proposition like “THERE IS NO GOD” is a scientific truth is nonsense.
Consider animals: we talk about extinction in probabilities until the critter is long, long dead, and even then there are surprises.
We have *massive* documentation - particularly if you look to religions outside of Christianity - recording people’s encounters with the Divine. Some of these encounters have moved the entire globe.
This stuff is “hearsay evidence.” Consider the Koran - the “hearsay” is the book itself plus the Hadith - these are the visible artifacts from some series of purported events. What really happened?
Well, Dawkins will say “NOTHING.” Well… prove it? Can’t because it’s not falsifiable - the event is far, far away and we have no direct access.
Hence, in the domain of the unfalsifiable, where we have *enormous* amounts of hearsay evidence, all we can say is “well, I’d need to see more than hearsay to proceed.”
Note that this is entirely different from Christianity. Christianity is, as far as evidence goes, a lousy religion: a book that’s been hacked back and forth for two thousand years, probably wasn’t written until 50 years after the principle was crucified, little or no historical supporting data etc. It’s a cold case.
Islam is a little different in that we have boatloads of historical texts lovingly preserved, letter for letter, and a great deal of hard historical data, given that Muhammad and his followers were political powers.
So again let us return to the burden of proof: if we say “there is no god” then somebody can say “well, what *did* happen in Arabia to explain all these eye witness reports of extraordinary stuff?” - where’s the burden of proof here? It’s on the person making the claim.
Vs. the actual scientific position, which is “well, 1400 years later, it’s hard to know. Impossible, in fact. However, if it happens again, call us and we’ll be right over with our equipment!”
There’s no problem with choosing not to believe: the problem is in actively disbelieving as an act of faith. At that point one has genuinely left the scientific path and strayed into dogma.
I really think that the strongest reasonable position, grounded in falsifiability, is “we haven’t seen any plausible scientific evidence for the claimed actions of god in the human domain for several hundred years, which may make the previous history quite suspect. Therefore we choose to posit that the previous observations are flawed and the whole thing is explained by as-yet-unknown psychological or neurological events.”
Substantively, this is much the same as atheism. But it’s actually still within the scientific domain, rather than making that final leap of faith and saying “BECAUSE I HAVE NOT SEEN IT, IT DOES NOT EXIST.”
Why is the tooth fairy different? Because people claiming to have seen the tooth fairy didn’t conquer the known world in its name. The power to unite people is evidence of something unusual going on, different from other myths and legends and religious stories.
Note that I’m not a Muslim, by the way. I’m a Hindu. We have a vastly more sophisticated understanding of how the pieces of this puzzle fit together than most other traditions, have been rational observers for most of the 6,000 years of our intellectual tradition. But I’m not going to go into the Hindu cosmology of belief because it doesn’t belong here.
Comment from Tom White
Time March 13, 2007 at 8:37 am
First, I’m an atheist. I don’t have invisible friends that are going to magically make me happy and be my best friend / lover in eternal paradise.
You say that “Fundamentalism cannot exist if we eliminate all religion…”, which is ludicrous. Pseudoscientific theories have been taken as gospel time and time again. Everything from Freud to Adam Smith and Isaac Newton to L. Ron Hubbard. What about the Minutemen and the KKK? Is racism religious? No.
Your points are interesting, but like so many atheists you assume all religions are like christianity or islam. What about religions that have tolerance and compassion as their core? Helping your fellow man? What about liberal christianity, like unitarian universalism, that is very much not fundamentalistic and spends all its time helping communities and people?
I agree that religions (and other institutions) that teach intolerance and hatred are a problem. I agree with you that we, as a world, will have to deal with this problem. Maybe you are right and we will be forced to make these teachings illegal. But the christians and muslims would absolutely love for that to be happened. All of them would be immediately radicalized, and the consequences would be horrible.
I don’t know what the answer is, but making all religion illegal is not the answer. We’ve tried compromising civil liberties before, in the guise of religion, and it didn’t work any better then. You’re just a fascist of another stripe.
I’m an atheist and if forced to pick a side to fight on, I am afraid it would not be yours. You sound like just another fundie to me. I’ve been where you are, I challenge you to open your mind and take another look.
Comment from Jonah Sabremesh
Time March 13, 2007 at 8:41 am
Great article. As an atheist, I completely agree that “moderate religion is fundamentally dishonest”, but would just draw attention to the ironic dual meaning of that statement (finally something a jihadist and atheist can agree on!).
But I would go one step further and say that agnosticism is fundamentally dishonest also. It is the preserve of intellectual weaklings and moral cowards.
To Vinay Gupta, who suggests “Atheism is only a *belief*”. You are wrong. It is not possible to disprove the existence of Santa Claus, but as an intelligent rationalist, I am as certain as it is possible to be, that he does not exist. According to your logic, this default position would make me a *believer*, which is of course, absurd.
However, I would point out that since you are a self-confessed agnostic about the existence of God, then logically you MUST, in the absence of contradictory evidence, be agnostic about Santa Claus too (for whom there is a great deal of supporting literature, not to mention millions of passionate believers). If, however, you are (like most adults) a Santa-atheist, this would invalidate your agnosticism and show you, in fact, to be a closet THEIST.
Comment from Christopher
Time March 13, 2007 at 8:42 am
As Vinay pointed out, an Agnostic approach to things is really the wiser way.
When it comes down to it, you’re being no better than the religious, assuming that your view is right, and EVERYONE else is wrong.
Am I saying you’re wrong? No, for all I know there could be no God/gods/higher power, that is a very distinct possibility. But what it comes down to is, no one knows. There’s no way to prove the existence, or non-existence of God/gods (with our current technology, of course. If mankind ever *does* get the technology to prove such a thing, the world could become a terrifying place).
So, until I kick the bucket, I will look at all possibilities, and while I respect your opinion that a higher power does not exist, don’t think yourself better than religious people, because your opinion is based on faith.
Pingback from Ben’s Blog » Blog Archive » Why I’m not a friendly atheist. at Hanlon’s Razor
Time March 13, 2007 at 9:19 am
[...] Why I’m not a friendly atheist. at Hanlon’s Razor [...]
Comment from Vinay Gupta
Time March 13, 2007 at 10:03 am
Ai ai ai. I typed a really long reply to this talking about burden of proof and it’s gone. Admins, if you could check the Spam Que and see if it got misfiled or something, that would be really good…
Let’s get back to the philosophical foundations of the scientific method, and the burden of proof.
Firstly, falsifiability is critical to science, but not to all rationality; rational though is possible (for example, legal thinking) without assuming falsifiability as a necessary condition. But science by-and-large rests of falsifiability. If you can’t do an experiment to prove something is wrong, it’s not a scientific statement.
E=MC^2 is *testable*: if you get a lot more or a lot less energy than the missing mass, the equation is simply wrong.
So, let’s consider the theistic claim of “there is a god.” Is this a falsifiable statement? No. In the absence of direct, commonly accepted evidence of God, the most we can say is “well, there might be but we haven’t seen it.” From a hard science perspective, this is a lot like discussions about extinct animals. “The wooly hyena is not extinct” can only be disproven - falsified - by an hyena or strong enough evidence of one.
HOWEVER, the converse statement of “there is no god” *IS* falsifiable by, say, God appearing and making itself unequivocally known. So yes, you can say “there is no god” AND WAIT FOR EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY and still be in the scientific domain.
It’s a falsifiable statement, unlike “there is a god” which is non-falsifiable.
But if you’ve stopped waiting for evidence, and moved into a position of faith, you’re in trouble.
Now, let’s consider standards of evidence: Islam has an enormously strong and well documented set of reports about Muhammad’s interactions with the Archangel Gabriel. You have a set of dialogs, recorded in the original language and preserved without a single change over time, plus the Hadith - eye witness reports and memoirs - over the entire period of the teaching pretty much. Muhammad probably has the best documented life of the period, in fact.
Furthermore, we have *enormous* political changes based on the activity of this one individual, plus a body of belief which lasts into the present with *extermely* strong lineage to those original events: you can get a pretty decent idea of exactly what was going on in the practical day-to-day sense from all of this, even if the “mystical” bits are inaccessible.
So, I’d suggest this represents “hearsay evidence” about a phenomena, somewhat like we have a lot of hearsay evidence about UFOs. When you’ve got a couple of hundred police officers who’ll go on the record as having seen UFOs, or tens of thousands of educated merchants and financiers who say that Muhammad speaks with god and this is how you can tell….
Strong evidence that *something* is going on. Now, that’s that something?
We don’t know. Existing models for religious experience, particularly those with serious documentation and political effects, are extremely poorly understood. There is no scientific model of Gandhi, any more than there is a scientific model of Martin Luther King, Issac Newton, or your cat. We have *partial models* but no complete understanding.
When you have a pile of data, but none of it is kind enough to sit down in your laboratory for complete documentation, do you just say “there’s no data?” and move on? Or do you say “well, we’ve got a bunch of stuff here, but nothing recent, nothing clear and nothing conclusive…. we’ll just have to wait and see?”
I’m a Hindu. We aren’t exactly theists or atheists - at one end of the system lies paganism, and at the other end, a very refined nontheistic philosophy of mind.
To us, this debate largely stems from epistemological problems with the English language, and the awful shadow of Christianity - a religion with such a tiny basis of teachings (what, 300 sentences uttered over three years and not written down until 80 years after the event?) It’s lousy historical data.
But Islam and Hinduism are very, very different. Our great saints have histories and biographies. Anybody who says that there’s no data should read Gandhi’s autobiography, or some of the Hadith.
Pingback from Andy Cunningham » Why I’m not a “friendly” atheist at Hanlon’s Razor
Time March 13, 2007 at 10:30 am
[...] Why I’m not a “friendly” atheist. at Hanlon’s Razor [...]
Comment from Mr me
Time March 13, 2007 at 10:42 am
If god is all-good, omnipotent and omnipresent, then when someone decides to fly a plane into a building and he does not intervene, then he is either not omnipotent (can’t do it), not all good (doesn’t care) or not omnipresent (missed it!).
You can’t badge God as being all of these things and then say that ‘he works in mysterious ways’ when evil stuff happens.
Comment from Vinay Gupta
Time March 13, 2007 at 10:55 am
Only Christians expect those three things of God, and like I said, it’s a pretty low quality religious transmission as far as access to the wisdom of the originator goes: the bible is just hard to get insight from because it’s passed through so many hands.
Other traditions - my own, Hinduism, but others - have *way* better texts, or do without texts at all and rely on living oral traditions and personal experience.
Christianity in it’s American forms (vs., say, Thomas Keating and the Centering Prayer people) is *almost* a straw man; undereducated bible thumping fundamentalists are no match for an intellect of the caliber of Richard Dawkins, say.
But there are much more sophisticated theisms which are not incompatible with scientific approaches to knowing truth - and *are* incompatible with atheism.
Comment from Hanlon
Time March 13, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Whew, a lot of responses here, I’m not sure I can get to them all, so I’ll have to be brief.
To those accusing me of not understanding religion or science, you’re missing my point (on half, anyway). What I’m saying is that dogmatic belief in religion precludes debate in the normal sense. You can’t argue with a religious wingnut about something because once you attribute it to god’s law that’s the end of it.
I also take offense to the claim that there is a such thing as “atheistic extremism” and that agnosticism is better. I may have to address this in its own entry, but here’s the short version: simply postulating a deity does not mean that its likelihood of existence is 50/50 and the believers battle with the nonbelievers in a tug of war to see who can yank the probability further in their direction.
When a religion says there is a God, it is entirely, 100% up to them to prove it exists. Failing to do so is the equivalent of proving it’s not there. One can’t disprove anything, and if I tell you that I had sex with Jessica Alba, you can’t prove me wrong. I can only fail to prove my claim true.
After all, one would also have to be agnostic to polytheism in order for the intellectual standpoint of “inability to disprove” to hold.
I’ll see what I can touch on later, fantastic discussion though, everyone!
Comment from Pegdo
Time March 13, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Gaston, that was too funny!
I guess it is as you believe it is.
Comment from Cenobite
Time March 13, 2007 at 3:05 pm
@ Josh:
“Why is it that the proposed solution to bad religion is atheism? I hold that the correct
solution is true religion, which can only be found through a concerted search for truth.”
Because religion is not about seeking the truth. Only science does that. (Through a
process called the scientific method.) All of the religions of the world share one thing
in common: facts which disprove their dogma get ignored and vilified. Need I remind you
that the Catholic Church put Galileo under permanent house arrest and burned several of
his students at the stake? All for the horrendous crime of declaring that the Sun was at
the center of our solar system instead of the Earth. This is the same church which much
later saw fit to personally apologize to Galileo — in 1980.
This fact underscores my last point: religion only bothers to acknowledge and accept
inconvenient facts (i.e. take a reality check) when the very survival of that religion
itself is at stake.
Comment from Clive
Time March 13, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Rechan - if you really believe that walking on coals is an “awesome physiological trick” made possible by a believer’s “stubborn devotion”, then how do you expect anyone to take anything else you say seriously? It’s a “trick”, yes. (Next time you meet a fire walking monk, ask him to put a big metal plate over the coals and walk on that for me instead…)
Comment from Josh
Time March 13, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Cenobite:
What evidence do you have that religion is not about a search for truth? I agree that the average person will just accept what is told them, hence the term “blind faith” so favoured by Dawkins and anti-religious people of all stripes. However, these people do this in matters of religion AND science. It is only the few who question and attempt to search for the truth, whether this be scientists or theologians,whether professional or amateur.
Your statement that “All of the religions of the world share one thing in common: facts which disprove their dogma get ignored and vilified” is a common human trait, found in all areas of endeavour. Ideally science is above this, but in practice it also happens. In genuine Christian thought, we are told to test everything and hold on to what is good. (1 Thess 5:21)
On the matter of Galileo, I’d recommend going in and reading the story closely. This is not primarily a matter of religion vs science, it is old science vs new science. A paradigm shift in the way of thinking which is obvious in hindsight, but not at all at the time. Galileo had many supporters in the church, but he insulted the Pope, the same Pope who encouraged him to write about his ideas. I will not justify the Inquisition, it was an evil time, but the same thing can happen if you disagreed with any powerful organisation or leadership, even today. What happened when you spoke out against Stalin?
So what I’m saying is that we should distinguish between human behaviour in religion and the religion itself. People will take every chance they get to obtain power, whether this be through religion or otherwise.
Hanlon:
Perhaps we agree more than I saw at first. Your comment clarifies that it is “religious wingnuts” you disagree with. Do I count, or are my statements rational (even if you hold my beliefs to not be so)? I hope you agree that we should be able to have discussions, to search out the truth, and to avoid primitive “God says so” retorts. What neither of us want is the “blind faith” which leads to gullibility and extremism.
However, your statement “When a religion says there is a God, it is entirely, 100% up to them to prove it exists. Failing to do so is the equivalent of proving it’s not there” is a logical fallacy. It might sound good, but it is not a scientific statement. To parrot the cliché: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Vinay Gupta:
While I agree with you on your statements that searching out the truth is important and the logical fallacy in asserting of the non-existence of God.
I do however, take issue with your statements about Christianity. You state:
“Note that this is entirely different from Christianity. Christianity is, as far as evidence goes, a lousy religion: a book that’s been hacked back and forth for two thousand years, probably wasn’t written until 50 years after the principle was crucified, little or no historical supporting data etc. It’s a cold case.”
While unfortunately I don’t know that much about the historical evidence for Islam, (which I will attempt to remedy), your claims are unsupported by the evidence. We have thousands of copies of manuscripts in the original languages (Greek and Hebrew), which point to these texts being preserved as carefully as is possible, not “passed though many hands” as you put it. Some of it was written by people who were eyewitnesses to the events described, and most definitely not 80 years later.
Your claims for Islam of (quote) “enormous political changes and a body “*enormous* political changes based on the activity of this one individual, plus a body of belief which lasts into the present with *extermely* strong lineage to those original events” hold equally true for Christianity! And you provide no further information to back up your claim that the whole debate “stems from epistemological problems with the English language and the awful shadow of Christianity
However, I will concur that “undereducated bible thumping fundamentalists” are a problem, but the problem there lies with the *uneducated* part, not the Bible or fundamentalists. Your claim that Christianity is somehow “incompatible with scientific approaches to knowing truth” is only because you have the wrong understanding of Christianity.
Comment from Jude
Time March 13, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Blah blah blah blah blah… grow up, people are stupid, you can’t fix it… find a better way to vent… Jesus I am so bored with the whole whose wrong and “We’re right” arguments on the web.
Instead of arguing, why can’t everyone just shut the fuck up. No discussions, no problems. Too much static noise and never will there be a solution, except for silence.
Keep quiet, choose who you deal with in life and ignore the rest. Bloody heel, why do we atheists also have to have living bleeding heart martyrs who “I am so angry with the world not seeing how stupid it’s being…”
Boo frakkin hoo… Next time, post a funny image or entertain us, your no good to me otherwise. Your opinions have been done and are redundant… It will not change a thing and by all rights it shouldn’t… life isn’t about getting everyone to conform to your ideals… frak man… change those ideals you have and bring them down from the “heavens” and you might find some sense of self again.
gOD almightY man/woman/thingy/alien, let me guess you ran into some stupid nut at work and now your frustrated at the world hoping that you can do some good… Via a website… anonymously… with no visible integrity or truth… hoping beyond hope that some sad miscreants trawling the web might be influenced by your dramatic word smithing.
Your time would have been better spent pleasuring yourself and not spoiling my evening. So… Fuck you and your sanctimonious bullshit, whiny ass attitude.
Sure atheism rocks… but your preaching man… just keep quiet. And to your religious nut cases trying to plead your fucking sad case to the world… fuck all of you and your little black books.
You bore me to tears with your simplistic beliefs and holier than thou attitudes while fondling little choir boys. Grow up, or at least do us all this one simple little favour… KEEP IT DOWN!
Jeez… your all as bad as my neighbour and his god damn house music playing next door completely ruining the quiet life here by the ocean. Go outside and explore instead of telling me what you think the world is, find out what it is. There is more than the ONE book out there you know? (And I am of course referring to Darwin’s Evolution of the Species you gaping open mouthed relative of a Neanderthal)
Here’s the simple truth… we atheist… we just do not care about your bullshit, take it to church, pray, sodomize young boys… what ever gets your “spiritual self” going… just do not come and fuck up my day cos you have an innate fear of the unknown and of death.
Fuck I recommend that all beliefs should wear a T-Shirt or something so I can simply avoid you, that would be great thanks. Then I hope instead of invading other countries you mental deviants can take each other out in gang wars in the streets. Cos your already doing it you fucks!
Let’s just throw guns into the mix and let evolution take care of itself.
Hope this pisses you all of and that you sit at home fuming while handling a pistol and blow your brains out, cry baby atheist and KKK white supremacist chriSSStians alike.
No, I won’t come back, read your posts or care what you comment. In fact updating my hosts file so I cannot access this frakkin (Yes I watch BSG so what) URL ever again…
So with that I wish you all a merry fo Fuck yourself… I’m going to bed.
From another unfriendly atheist
Comment from James Andrix
Time March 13, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Consider abortion or any other issue (stem cell research, gay marriage). Taking the stance of scientists, be they social or medical, we can have a debate between both sides to argue their beliefs. When does life begin? What kind of an effect would gay marriage truly have on society? These can be discussed rationally, with real points to be made, and perhaps one side may yield and acknowledge being wrong, and in the end the conclusion will, optimally, be one reached by rational discourse.
This is incorrect. Virtually all moral systems have irrational roots. You can rationally discuss effects, but you’d be hard pressed to find someone who can consider rationally whether there is anything wrong with murder or oppression in the first place. The closest thing to a rational view of morality that has any widesread adoption is amoralism, and amoralists are more rare and more marginalized than atheists. Even then the discussion is tainted by irrational personal preferences.
Comment from Keith
Time March 13, 2007 at 6:05 pm
A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you. Not so much any more.
One of the biggest problems with the article is that it presumes that you know more about the beliefs that, say, Christians espouse, than do practicing Christians. And that it lumps together hugely disjointed and widely varying sets of beliefs from all kinds of different cultures (say, the Islam practiced by an upper-middle class American family to that of a jihadist). It holds the One True interpretation of All Religion, and judges it to be Wrong in the face of the Truth of Atheism. Pardon me for being skeptical of an author’s omniscience.
See, it’s actually the moderate Christians and the moderate Muslims and the moderate Jews, etc., etc., and the moderate atheists who will get along. Why? We don’t have the kind of dogmatic rigidity and unwillingness to accept heterodoxy that characterizes extremism. We’re not trying to remake the world in our own image. That’s the real problem with fundamentalism.
Comment from Stetz
Time March 13, 2007 at 6:10 pm
“Moderate religion is intellectually dishonest and leaves the door open for suicide bombers and fundamentalist nutjobs. Simple as that.”
I get what you are trying to say here, but you should have explained that for fundamentalist and suicide bombers to operate there has to be a form of social polarization from the moderates. They have to relate the same belief system to of the fundamentalist in order to make the fundementalist/sucide bombers legitimate in the eyes of society. To say they do what they do solely because moderates allow it is false. What you mean to say is by acknowledging the same basic belief set as fundamentalist they are allowing the “nut jobs” enough social legitimacy to carry out their agendas. So although the moderates are not directly responsible for the actions of the fundamentalist, they are responsible for the justification of them. It is like the political parties….left –dems, middle – mods, and right-conserves…but in the case of religion it is left – atheist, middle- moderates, and right- fundamentalist. The same argument can be turned around to show that moderates legitimize atheist as well as fundamentalist.
Comment from Sam
Time March 13, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I have a question for Josh.
I was quite curious about how you achieved your views about religion. The wishy-washy version of religion does not sound like any religion I have ever heard of before.
The sad fact is, religion is not peaceful. The belief system you’re following has no base theologically. Your very own Bible commands you to do unthinkable atrocities to people for petty crimes.
History will show you that religion is the most destructive thing humans ever created. Christianity alone has countless stains in its history; Holy Wars, Crusades, genocides, the Inquisition, ECT. I hate to say it but Pope Gregory IX (started the Inquisition) read Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Every inquisitor who ordered the torturing of tens of thousands of people had read and studied the entire Bible thoroughly. As did the priests of the Puritans during the Salem Witch trials. Evidently, every single one was able to justify their actions based on scripture, often their actions were fueled by scripture.
If this is the case, I wonder what religion you follow. For every rational person today has to condemn such evil actions, yet the fundamentals of Christianity support and encourage those actions.
Comment from Gaston
Time March 13, 2007 at 8:46 pm
~Qualifying Creative Quality~
O how I wish there was a real good God
Helping us survive Earths bacterial sod
Ministering to all through sweet dreams
With an encouraging morality that gleams
Supplying a mortal frame that will not rot
Having hemoglobin that will not brain clot
Bones that bend rather than break in a fall
A body that can endure any reality all in all
This God won’t condone bacteria’s & viruses
He would be with us through any bad crises
The great God would not allow religious wars
He will not accept humans dying by the scores
Crime and corruption is not his mental making
Persons would be real in heart without faking
A real God needs not churches, clergy & prayer
If he did it right, we would treat each other fair
Using truth, beauty, goodness and loving service
A visible God can keep folks from being nervous
He must have a working universe administration
To detour big Meteorites from Earths devastation
His celestial workers could regulate the Suns heat
And stop the worlds wobble, keeping the orbit neat
I’m just a puny fragile skin & bones evolving mortal
And have the commonsense in seeing a better portal
Boiling reality down to a usable tangible conception
We’re that freewill choice person called God in action
Reality goes at the speed of choice, that be understood
Quality thoughts will evolve this world into the good
Shit I wish there was a really good God from everyone
Helping each other survive by tilling Earths sod for fun
We could actualize our sweet dreams through ministry
Our moral code would express a higher creative dynasty
Happiness and contentment would exemplify good health
Religions no longer create the poor, we would have wealth
Fear gossips, deity myths, and stupid superstition expelled
We Earthlings can enjoy life from good thoughts propelled
Want bliss? Think about this
Comment from Hanlon
Time March 13, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Keith…
“One of the biggest problems with the article is that it presumes that you know more about the beliefs that, say, Christians espouse, than do practicing Christians. And that it lumps together hugely disjointed and widely varying sets of beliefs from all kinds of different cultures (say, the Islam practiced by an upper-middle class American family to that of a jihadist). It holds the One True interpretation of All Religion, and judges it to be Wrong in the face of the Truth of Atheism. Pardon me for being skeptical of an author’s omniscience.”
I hate to say it, but I frequently find that I know more of the Bible than the Christians I argue with. I’m no expert on the Koran, but then I hardly talk to Muslims as I don’t live in an area with too many of them (though I’m doing my best to wade through when I have the free time).
Interpretations are the problem, because an interpretation is inherently a superimposition of one’s personal beliefs onto something in order to glean that which one wants out of it. There is nothing in the books that leads to these interpretations, they don’t offer any basis upon which to say Chapter X of Book Y is literal but Chapter W of Book Z is open to interpretation.
As society plods along, more and more of the books are up for “interpretation”, which to me simply means society realizes that more and more of the Bible is false, but is still too afraid to simply discard it. I’m hoping to boost the process along.
Comment from Nil Desperandum
Time March 13, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Hanlon: I think you’ve written a terrific little screed, but I have to press the point when you say that the only way agnosticism is justified is for us to be agnostic about Santa Claus and polytheism, too. The fact is, we *should* all be agnostic about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Great G’Zoo, Zeus, and so on; we *should* all be agnostic about the objective existence of physical reality, for that matter. All that I know without any doubt whatsoever are my own mental phenomena–my own thoughts and feelings and sensations and memories and so on (although I cannot know that my memories *are* memories–remember Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character in Total Recall, and realize that it is a fundamental assumption that those mental phenomena that feel like copies really are indicative of other mental phenomena’s having been experienced “at a previous time”–or that I “have mental phenomena” rather than “mentally phenomenalize”). That there are objectively real tables and chairs and oak trees corresponding to certain of my mental phenomena is a basic metaphysical assumption I make, together with the basic epistemic assumption that I can gain reasonably reliable information about that objective reality via my senses; and that other people have mental lives is another basic metaphysical assumption, along with the basic epistemic assumption that we can gain reasonably reliable information about each other’s mental states via observation of behavior and via speech. Once we have those basic assumptions, we can get the whole c
Comment from Darwinator
Time March 12, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Elegantly put. Now I’m going to have to go back through and read all your stuff. I’m look forward to it.
It’s rare that I find someone summarizing a bunch of things I agree with so succinctly.
Very well done.