Response to Ignorant Atheist Bull Shit

This is in response to a comment made on my previous post, Ignorant Atheist Bull Shit, made by a poster going by the screen name skeptic7. Due to the nature of his comment and the length of my response I thought it deserved its own post. You will want to read my previous post and his comment before reading this post (I will assume skeptic7 is a he for the time being to make things easier).

Let’s start with skeptic7’s first statement:

Jake The Angry Snake claims that 'the biggest thing in an atheist's life is that they don't believe in something'.

The article that I quoted said this. But nowhere in my post did I support, agree with, or even discuss this statement. Did he even read what I wrote? His statement is a flat out lie.

that is a rather broad stroke of the stereotypical brush.

I made no such “stereotypical brush” stroke. Skekptic7 made up a claim I never made and then labeled it a stereotype. I believe this is also known as a straw man. I have seen anti-theists do this more times than I like to count. And not to say theists are not guilty of this as well, they are, but two wrongs do not make a right. Let’s move on to the next part of his statement that started with the lie about something I never claimed.

From a lifetime of experience, not believing in something that doesn't exist is actually of very little concern. i don't waste my time on the nonexistent. I don't accept lots of extraordinary supernatural claims as fact or truth, such as The Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot, alien abductions, Santa Claus...nor a dog that speaks perfect English out of his ass, which by the way has a better chance of existing than an invisible, mute, all-knowing, all-powerful, egomaniacal baby sitter who cannot even be defined, so much as seen. We KNOW dogs exist and we KNOW they all have assholes, which is infinitely more than we know about any gods, not to mention more than you or any other theist can tell me about any god.

The existence or non-existence of a god had absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote about in my previous post. This is also something I see anti-theists do all the time. They switch away from the current topic of discussion and revert to making a laundry list of reasons they say god does not exist. I think, and this is my opinion, many of them use this tactic to try and go for a cheap and easy “win” when continuing with the current topic would require too much effort. They throw out all these reasons why they claim god does not exist knowing theists will be unable to prove otherwise. They then dance in circles acting like they just won the entire debate. However, they usually ignore the inconvenient fact that many theists are not trying to prove (a) god(s) existence and will willingly admit that they cannot do so 100%. They, anti-theists, also tend to sprinkle a generous helping of insults on top of this tactic as well. As if being derogatory somehow makes their claims more “right”. I also talked about this in my post on Accommodation and Confrontation about a post from PZ Meyers:

PZ Meyers: Religion isn't the problem, they claim, it's only the extremists and zealots and weirdos. The majority of believers are moderates and even share some values with us.
"But is a moderate superstition true?", we repeat, and "How can a myth be made more true if its proponents are simply calmer in stating it?"

Me: Since when was this about whether or not our religious beliefs were true? We believe them to be, atheists do not. The real issue here is the extremists and more importantly their actions of attempting to undermine things such as public education. It is not about if their beliefs are true or not, but how they are attempting to force their beliefs upon others.

For the anti-theists who always insist on reverting to the existence of a god in discussions/arguments with theists, let me help you out here. Theists believe in a god/higher power, atheists do not. Problem solved. You can move on now.

2. Jake The Angry Snake's analogy about basketball, while amusing, needs to be carried a bit further. Of course Jake the Snake keeps his dislike of basketball to himself. He has no reason not to. No one is trying to force him or his friends and loved ones to play the game. Neither he, nor his loved ones are being threatened, fined, incarcerated, killed or losing any liberties because they don't participate in, or at least enjoy, the game. Jake The Snake would probably feel a bit differently if this were happening. This IS what happens with religion.

Actually no, the analogy does not need to be taken further. If anti-theists were to restrict their attacks to only those groups of people who actually were attempting to force their religious beliefs upon others than skeptic7 would be correct. However, since anti-theists do not restrict their attacks but instead choose to target all of religion, my analogy works just fine with no need to take it further. This is made clear from Hemant Mehta’s comment:

We can’t “live and let live” when we see how much damage these beliefs — as silly as some might seem — have inflicted on people we love, and how much pain these beliefs have caused by people who took them too seriously.

By stating anti-theists cannot “live and let live” he is saying it does not matter if you actively push your beliefs upon others or not. If you are religious, you will be targeted regardless. This is extremely ironic considering that by taking this stance anti-theists are, in turn, forcing their (lack of) beliefs upon others. This is fairly hypocritical coming from a group who constantly decries this same behavior in the religious right.

3. I don't ever worry about being bilked out of money by superstitious claims. It has never been my money and it never will be. However, it could be my mother's money or a good friend's and i find fraud repugnant regardless of the flavor. In my humble opinion, religion sells empty promises which it never has to pay out and is impossible to collect on, so it is fraud. REMEMBER, i said MY opinion. If this faulty, fly-by-night insurance policy makes people feel better, then good for them. Drugs, alcohol, dreams and certain cranial trauma also create deluded states that make people feel better, but ultimately one usually has to deal with reality.

Let’s actually define fraud here.

Fraud: In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual – From Wikipedia.

Notice the part where it states “intentional deception” (emphasis mine). That alone disqualifies nearly every donation/tithe to a church as being fraud. And I think we can agree that the ones it does not disqualify are fairly rare as they would also be very illegal. Just because you think someone’s religious beliefs are false does not automatically make their donations on behalf of those beliefs fraud. Skeptic7 also ignored my statement about charities. Studies have shown the religious far out give to charities than non-religious. This is a fact. Many of those donations, which he and other anti-theists label “fraud”, go to these charities. And I think anti-theists are not even willing to go so far as to say giving to charities is bad.

4. Instilling the fear of Hell and eternal torture in children and/or on their loved ones is CRUEL. It is indoctrination (brainwashing) of a very loathsome kind.

Not all religions believe in Hell and eternal torture. Heck, not even all of Christianity believes in Hell or eternal torture. Again, criticizing all of religion for something not all religions do is faulting reasoning. Get your facts straight. I do not even believe in a Hell or eternal torture. So go bug someone else who actually does believe in it with that one.

My opinion, most atheists don't give a rat's ass about your silly, childish superstitions and imaginary friends. We DO care about keeping their subjective, regressive and oppressive nature from impeding our liberties and advancements in science, medicine and technology.

Your, anti-theists, actions and words, such as being unable to “live and let live”, scream differently.

KEEP STATE AND CHURCH SEPARATE. The Founding Fathers, even those who were religious and even Christian, saw the folly of allowing subjective superstition into lawmaking, politics and government. The USA is a secular democratic republic...NOT a theocracy.

Where did I even mention the separation of Church and State in my previous post? Skeptic7 is correct in that the USA is not a theocracy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Skeptic7, please try to put a little more effort in staying on topic in the future.

Ignorant Atheist Bull Shit

Pardon my tone in this post but I am really beginning to get pissed off. I hear atheists railing about ignorant theist bull shit all the time. But how about some ignorant atheist bull shit, which seems to be all I have been reading lately on various atheist blogs. And the latest example comes to us from Friendly Atheist (which now is a misnomer due to his switch to confrontationalist, i.e. all religion is bad and theists should be treated with contempt).

CFI Canada is running a campaign that states “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence”. They then have a laundry list of items they classify as “extraordinary”. A columnist responded to CFI’s campaign stating the following:

So why does he care if people believe in God, Allah or the tooth fairy? Atheists are defined by their disbelief. i.e. the biggest thing in their life is that they don’t believe in something. But rather than just go around quietly, not believing, Trottier and his pals feel compelled to make other people not believe either. Their only faith is in the rightness of not having faith.

Isn’t that just a bit strange? I don’t happen to believe basketball is that interesting. Sorry, just don’t. I tried, but it bores me. Mainly I just keep it to myself. But if I was Justin Trottier, I’d be out there raising money to run ads in subways and streetcars, trying to convince other people that basketball is boring. The ads would say: “If you think basketball isn’t boring, you have to prove it. Just like Bigfoot.”

Would that make sense? (Answer: No). And to what end, exactly? If five more people suddenly realize they also don’t care about basketball, have I achieved anything? 

Hemant Mehta, the not-so-friendly Friendly Atheist, responded to the columnist’s comments and it is his response that is part of the ever growing amount of BS spewing out of anti-theists mouths that is driving me up the wall.

We actively fight against extraordinary claims like the ones in the poster because those claims cause harm.

Those claims do not inherently cause harm! They have the potential to cause harm, but so does every single other claim/thing/belief/idea ever conceived or used by mankind. There is no reason to single out all of religion because of its extremists. Every group has extremists or the potential for extremists. Although what he says next is really what falls under the ignorant atheist BS.

They can drain your wallet.

So what! Is it your wallet? No! Was the money given willingly? Most of the time, yes! And in the times where religious believers are scammed out of their money laws are usually broken and the perpetrator can be taken to court. And the vast majority of money given to Churches will also go towards some kind of charity work instead of just going into the preacher’s pocket. Oh, and did I ask if it was your money? If it is not yours, why do you care? Getting rid of religion is not going to stop people from scamming others out of their money. Those who end up scammed probably should have seen the warning signs. As for rest of the people, those in the vast majority, they generally do not miss the small amount they tithe to their church which helps keep their church, and various charities, running.

They will waste your time.

According to who? Anti-theists who are hell bent on making others think, act, and believe like they do? This is an opinion, not a fact! For a group whose favorite buzzwords include “rational thinking” you would think they could recognize when they are giving a personal opinion as fact. I think watching sports on TV is a waste of time. But you will not see me going around telling everyone who enjoys it to stop.

They can become the basis for irrational, unnecessary, and dangerous laws.

And what cannot? This goes back to what I said earlier, any kind of idea, claim, belief, you name it, when it is taken to an extreme it can become the basis for irrational, unnecessary, and dangerous laws. Just because you happen to have an irrational hatred of all things religious does not make religion more of a catalyst for this kind of behavior.

They offer false hope that will never come to fruition.

Again with the personal opinion. When will atheists learn that just because it comes out of their mouths, it does not make it a fact? Also, in some cases the hope they offer does come to fruition. For example, there are cases where families becoming religious together have made them stronger and closer as a family. Or a person struggling with drug addiction who, through religion, cleans their life up. Could this happen in other circumstances as well? Yes. But does that make it any less valid? No. There are also the studies that have shown being religious will make you a happier person. That sure seems to be an example of hope coming to fruition.

They can make you kill or hate or injure others.

More taking the extremes and applying it to the whole. Politics can do the same thing. Should we get rid of it? In some areas of Europe wearing the wrong soccer jersey in public can get you killed. Should we ban soccer? How about we focus on the people who are actually doing the killing and the specific beliefs that are causing that behavior instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Last time I checked, religion has not made me, or any religious person I have ever known, fly a plane into a building. That kind of behavior seems to be limited to a small group with very specific types of thinking.

They make you believe in fiction.

Again, according to who? Oh yeah, anti-theists hell bent on making others think/act/believe like they do.

They make you fight against reality.

See previous comment.

They brainwash children and adults alike.

This argument has been refuted so many times it is no longer funny. Oh, and see previous comment.

We can’t “live and let live” when we see how much damage these beliefs — as silly as some might seem — have inflicted on people we love, and how much pain these beliefs have caused by people who took them too seriously.

I think one of the commenters responded best to this little bit:

Fundie Troll
Hemant, you can’t “live and let live”? Then you are guilty of the very thing that you accuse the religious of on a daily basis – forcing your system of beliefs on others.
The road that you are travelling down – and I will admit that the religious right in this country is guilty of the same thing – leads to tyranny. You MUST live and let live, because the only alternative is a society where freedom does not exist.

Fundie Troll makes a good point. The atheists who share the same mindset of this post are guilty of the same intolerance and bigotry the constantly decry in believers.


/rant

The God Virus at Purdue

Thursday the local Non-Theists Society here at Purdue sponsored a lecture by Dr. Darrel Ray, author of The God Virus. He is also the founder of Recovering from Religion. The lecture was a condensed summary of the ideas he puts forth in his book. Those ideas being that religion is comparable to a virus in how it spreads through a society and how it causes people to react to it.

Dr. Ray used many different examples throughout his talk such as comparing viral vectors to how different religions spread or how people easily get sick when their immune system is low is comparable to how some people “get religion” when their “rational immune system” is low. It was clear he has put a lot of work into this hypothesis that religion can be metaphorically compared to a virus. But I left with the feeling of “So What?”, but I will come back to this later.

He began his talk with one of things that atheists do that really annoys me, he implied “atheism” = “free thinking” when he mentioned bringing theists into the freethinking community.* Nothing like going to a talk to only have the first thing said imply your reasoning skills are handicapped. In fact, he implied theists are stupid quite a bit (at least in comparison to atheists, yes he whipped out the “atheists have higher IQs than theists” mantra). He also brought up that a person’s intelligence is negatively related to their religiosity. This one especially amused me as the exact opposite is true for LDS members. It has been shown that Mormons tend to be more highly educated than other Christians. It has also been shown that the more highly educated LDS members are, the more likely they are involved in Church.

He was also fond of talking about theist’s “invisible friends”. I generally will instantly tune out an atheist talking about religion when they bring up this phrase or any of its variations (e.g. Pink Unicorn, or FSM). But since I knew this talk was geared towards atheists, and not theists, I kept listening. Although I did not miss the irony in how he kept insisting that his fellow atheists not intentionally piss off theists when talking to one.

With a little audience participation Dr. Ray gave us an experiment to try on someone (or I should say he gave the atheists an experiment to try on theists as he claims it will not work on atheists). He told them that should they randomly meet a religious person, such as on a plane, this is something they should try. It is supposed to illuminate the inner “demon” that is caused by religion within a religious person. First, you talk with them about something they like and pay attention to how they physically respond. They will most likely make lots of eye contact and have generally relaxed posture. Then you bring up their faith. They should instantly tense up as they are unsure if you are a friend or enemy. Then, after getting a confirmation of their faith, bring up one challenge to it. The person should get defensive. Then go back to talking about something they like. This should cause the person to go back to a relaxed state. Now, I do not doubt that the reactions that Dr. Ray described in the person who is unknowingly undergoing a physiological experiment are true. I am believed him that what he described is most likely what would happen. What I do doubt, however, are the reasons for the reactions he gives, and his claim that the more secular a person is, the less this experiment will work.

He claims that the change in demeanor in the person when their faith is brought up is due to some kind of religious demon, he compared it to the demon that possessed the girl in The Exorcism, that the person has been conditioned to respond this way by religion. I think there is a much simpler and much more logical explanation; people are sensitive about things which others may have a tendency to ridicule. It is not because of some kind of complex conditioning, the person is just not sure if they are going to be made fun of or attacked. I bet if you were to tell that person you shared their faith they would instantly go back to their relaxed state. And this is not something that is unique to theists; atheists would react in the same way to this experiment. I have read comments from many different atheists talking about how they are hesitant to share their atheism for fear of ridicule.

A persons “rational immune system” is another thing he kept hitting on. He claimed that when under stress a person is more likely to “get religion” because their “rational immune system” is lowered. He compared it to when a person is more likely to get sick under stress because of a lowered immune system. I noticed how he was implying that the choice to become religious is a negative one by setting up the initial condition to be negative. Negative cause A will lead to a negative choice B. But he gave no actual evidence that the cause he gave, lowered “rational immune system”, is true. All he did was compare it to someone getting physically sick which he himself claimed was metaphorical only. He also said nothing of religious people who lose their religion during times of stress. Are their choices to become atheists also negative and a result of a lowered “rational immune system”? Somehow I think he would try and cast their choice to lose religion as somehow positive despite the fact that it occurred in identical conditions.

He also brought up Mormonism several times throughout his talk. One thing he brought up was something called the “Fear of Mormonism” being used to keep people in the Church. Unfortunately, being Mormon, I have no clue what he was talking about. Yes, we would like to have people stay in our Church but I have yet to hear of anything called the “Fear of Mormonism”. Such a thing is especially strange when you consider that the LDS faith is one of the most, if not the most, universal faiths in Christendom when it comes to salvation. We do not believe in Hell. According to us, nearly everyone will end up in Heaven regardless of their religion or lack thereof. Now, he did bring up another point about Mormonism that I have heard and do know about. He claimed drinking caffeine is considered a sin. It is not. It is true some Mormons will abstain from all caffeinated drinks but that is a personal choice. Just about every Church function I have gone to has had Mountain Dew.

Another point he mentioned was about Catholic priests and their choice to become celibate and never have children. He compared this to a kind of genetic suicide. He then said that should we ever have a disease spread through America making people infertile we would attempt to eradicate it. This struck me as very strange considering I have been reading several atheist blogs lately talking about their choice to become childless and how it is a good thing.

Now back to my reaction to his talk that I mentioned earlier. Near the end of the lecture I was thinking “So what?”. Yes, religion may be comparable to a virus in a metaphorical sense but what is the point of the comparison? It cannot be that it somehow proves religion false for that would need to assume that anything that can be explained cannot be religious, which is false in and of itself (Read Finding Darwin’s God for more on that). It was at this point that I thought he was trying to take this metaphor of religion being comparable to a virus farther than it should be. In fact, if you think about it, religion having similar characteristics to viral behavior should not be all that surprising. Just apply a little logic to the situation. Nearly all religions believe there is a genuine reason for a person to hold their beliefs, whether it is to get to Heaven or something else. So if a person truly believes in their religion then they should truly wish for others to join them. In doing so the techniques that religions come up with would logically have become perfectly suited for this purpose over time. A virus’ goal is to spread itself as well. Over time its techniques should, logically, also become perfectly suited for this purpose. Thus, it is not religion having something in common with a virus, but religion and the virus having the same underlying goal.

There are several more points I would want to address about his talk but I think this post is getting long enough already. Overall I did enjoy Dr. Ray’s talk and he did seem like a genuinely nice guy. He also had a very good point at the end of his talk, “don’t confuse the personal with the political”. I just think his metaphor of the God Virus, while having some points, tries to take things farther than there is reason to.



* I have talked about the issue of atheists implying that to be a “free thinker” or “skeptic” one must reject religion before.

Smut for Smut

 A few years ago I heard about an event that a student atheist group was holding at a particular university. It was titled “Smut for Smut”. If you gave them a copy of some religious work, such as a Bible or Quran, they would give you a pornographic magazine in return. I cannot remember exactly what school this was at but I am fairly certain it is the University of Texas at San Antonio, because they are running the event again. The Atheist Agenda group is holding their “Smut for Smut” event from March 1st through the 3rd. And to no one’s surprise they have been met with opposition, from both theists and atheists.


I heard about this year’s event over at Friendly Atheist where Hemant Mehta said he considers the event to be a bad idea, and I can’t say I disagree. The whole thing is nothing but a bad publicity stunt that is going to do no favors to the public’s perception of atheists as a whole. But what I am interested in discussing is the exact reasoning for holding the event from one of the officers of the Atheist Agenda who submitted a guest post at Friendly Atheist.

When I read Hemant’s article, I wasn’t too surprised to see an atheist disagreeing with our campaign. We have found through doing this event that not everyone agrees with us, obviously. But to see atheists not agree with us does get our minds thinking. Many claim that they are ashamed to be affiliated as an atheist because of our campaign, and to that I must say that those people are damn cowards.

It may sound harsh, but if you are not ready to stand up for what YOU believe in, and defend yourself, then you are a coward and may as well go sit in a prayer circle with all the protesters.

The first thing I noticed was the immediate set up of a “you are either with us, or against us” mentality in an attempt to polarize the issue. Joe E., the author of the guest post, tries to give his group’s event legitimacy by trying to claim that all those atheists who disagree with it are, in reality, not standing up for what they believe in. Since when does standing up for what you believe in include running PR stunts intentionally meant to insult? I would hope his statement will cause other atheists to call out his “either or” fallacy. His next paragraph about standing up for what they believe in just further adds to the illogical reasoning.

How is Smut for Smut standing up for what we believe in? It’s simple. Attention. On the surface that may not sound like a good intention, but let me explain. Without the attention of the campaign, there is no way we could have had the opportunity for people to see that we do exist. We would not have the opportunity to have discussions about not only our beliefs but other people’s beliefs also.

So they believe in attention? It seems Joe E. is mixing the purpose of the event, getting attention in any way possible, with “standing up for what you believe in” to further try and give the event legitimacy by claiming the moral high ground. He continues with trying to legitimate their actions with a claim that is completely counter to the purpose of the event.

We are not here to disestablish any religion, and we are not here to tell someone that we are right and you are wrong and that’s the way it’s going to be. We are here to simply say, “Here’s what we have to say. I respect your opinion. I don’t believe it, but I hope you respect mine.”

This statement is hypocritical to the point of being inane. Where have they given any inkling to respecting those of differing belief? Joe already made it clear the group considers atheists who disagreed with the event to be “damn cowards”, what should make us believe their opinion of theists is going to be any better? He even gives a hint that it is not better when he said the “damn cowards” should go “join the prayer circle”.

The turnout of people from our Smut for Smut campaign only proves it’s working. Never have we had a response from the student body like this before. While it may seem like a lot of negative flack, sitting at the table I have talked to TONS of open minded people who are willing to listen if I’m ready to listen. And I’ve had EXTREMELY intelligent conversations with some. Now of course you get those people that first start off like they’re gonna be intelligent about it and then end up bible thumping you in the face. But it’s through Smut for Smut that we have had the opportunity to have our voices HEARD.

It is unclear exactly what he is referring to that is working. If he is referring to the idea of mutual respect he alluded to previously, then he is just delusional. Masses of people showing up to something proves nothing except they are good at media-whoring, which appears to be their real goal. All of the “standing up for what you believe in” seems to only be an afterthought as an attempt at legitimation.

If they think this is a good way to get their voices heard I think they really need ask themselves if this is exactly how they want to be heard. They are only further enforcing the negative stereotype of atheists and are now tying porn into it.

Too often are we as the minority overshadowed and undermined by the religious majority. Too often are we subjected to just listen to what the religious try to tell us is right without having a word to say back. Too often are we judged as immoral people because we don’t have faith in some God.

Is this supposed to make others pity them? The last line is especially ironic considering this event will only further cause the extreme Christians to consider atheists to be immoral while at the same time pushing away most of the moderate Christians who would otherwise be willing to listen.

I say to those against the campaign, you try finding a way to get HUNDREDS, possibly THOUSANDS of students to be willing to actually DISCUSS with you, in a way that isn’t going to offend someone.

Well this is not to difficult. I would hope just about any college student would be able to come up with an event that is not going to purposefully offend as many of the people they wish to discuss with as possible. I will admit that you will most likely always offend someone, but that is a far cry from attempting to offend everyone as the Atheist Agenda did.

We’ve tried. We’ve tried showing “The God Who Wasn’t There” with an open panel discussion. Again religious organizations tried to get us shut down because they were “offended.” But they can turn around and have bible study and show their religious stuff with no flack? No one showed up to the panel because we flaked out and hid our tails between our legs.

Sounds like the reason they failed was because they “flaked out”. Holding discussion such as the one they attempted is nearly always going to be met by opposition from certain extremist factions. Just push by it and continue with the event. What you should not do is just give up and instead decide to come up with the most controversial event you can think of just to grab the spotlight.

This time we stand strong in our mission statement. We stand as free thinking individuals with a mindset to listen and to express. We stand not to offend or change people’s minds (although we hope in the process they are able to question possibilities).

He never actually did make clear just exactly what their mission statement is. He also did not clarify exactly where “free thinking” had anything to do with this PR stunt, aside from the reasoning that if you do not think like they do you are a “damn coward”. He did, however, make it very clear that offense was meant to be given in the hopes that they could hog the spotlight.

We are here to tell the world that we are tired of being treated like misfits, and worthless humans with no sense of right or wrong.

And they do this by acting like a bunch of misfits, wonderful logic there.

It seems the Atheist Agenda, of the University of Texas at San Antonio, is just a group of people who lack the creativity to get their ideas out there in a legitimate and respectful manner. Thus, their only recourse is to revert to a childish attempt to piss off as many people as possible all at once in the hopes that they can somehow exploit the attention they receive from it.

God Botherers

I thought this little piece was funny and worth sharing. It is by a stand-up comedian in the UK.

There's "probably no God", apparently. I read it on the back of a bus last year, courtesy of an advertisement paid for by the British Humanist Association. Mind you, then the Christian Party countered with its own series of ads claiming: "There definitely is a God." For a period last year, in fact, all my spiritual guidance came from slogans painted on buses. If confronted with an ethical dilemma, I'd stroll down the high street and wait for the number 42 to trundle past with "Morality itself being a construct, only your conscience can be your guide" written along the side.

But now that the bus wars have died down, the consensus seems to be that it's unlikely there's a God. Ever since Richard Dawkins wrote his book on the "delusion" a few years ago, the anti-God industry has enjoyed a boom period. The shelves have been crammed with titles such as God Is Not Great, 2,000 Years of Disbelief, 1,000 Tiresomely Reiterated Anti-Church Arguments, and so on.
An atheist Christmas service at London's Bloomsbury Theatre was a box-office smash. Dawkins is now the most popular God-basher since the days when Christians used to be fed to lions. You can hardly have a nativity play without the bespectacled bogeyman storming the stage, scattering the little shepherds and angels with a cry of "Where is the proof of this?!"

In short, atheists are becoming as annoying as believers used to be. 

Read the whole thing here.

Pat Robertson is a True Christian: So saith Dawkins

By now everyone has heard about the earthquake in Haiti. Some are estimating that the death toll may reach 200,000. Whenever a natural disaster of this magnitude occurs one can always count on Pat Robertson to give his, usually illogical, opinion as to why the event occurred. By now his comments on the earthquake in Haiti have been heard by most everyone as they made national news. In case you have not heard exactly what he said, here it is in all its inane glory.

They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal [...] ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other.

His comments have drawn well deserved criticism and condemnation from many groups and people, including other Christians. But, it seems, those Christians condemning Robertson’s bigotry are not in fact “true” Christians, at least according to Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins is not really the friendliest person when it comes to interactions with religion and religious believers. His work on religion generally follows the pattern of painting with the widest brush available and can be insulting even at the best of times (except when it comes to Biology which he is surprisingly good at). But this time his attempt at criticizing religion (and I emphasize attempt) has crossed from the realm of “Extremist Overgeneralization”, to the point where his criticisms become useless, to being “So Stupid, It’s Funny” in his most recent article, Haiti and the hypocrisy of Christian theology.

Needless to say, milder-mannered faith-heads* are falling over themselves to disown Pat Robertson, just as they disowned those other pastors, evangelists, missionaries and mullahs at the time of the earlier disasters.
What hypocrisy.
Loathsome as Robertson's views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition.
It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here.

According to Dawkins, Pat Robertson’s recent comments represent someone who is a “true Christian”. It is not the millions upon millions of people who claim the title of Christian and simply go about their lives trying to live them the best they can without interfering with other people’s lives, but the minority of extremists Christians who preach hatred and bigotry that are the “true Christians”. It is not the people who send thousands of pounds of needed supplies, teams of doctors, and provide much needed shelter, for Haitians who are currently suffering, but the people who claim Haiti somehow deserved the tragedy that befell the nation who are the “true Christians”.

I am not sure I have ever seen someone trying so hard to validate their bigotry. In his flailing Dawkins attempts to marginalize non-extremist Christians (you know, the majority of all Christians) in what I can only guess is an attempt to make his criticisms seem somehow valid as opposed to the overgeneralizations that they truly are the majority of the time. And his flailing does not stop there, it continues in the article.

Where was God in Noah's flood? He was systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for 'sin'. Where was God when Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone? He was deliberately barbecuing the citizenry, lock stock and barrel, as punishment for 'sin'.

I hope no one tells him about all us Christians who do not take the Bible to be infallible and completely literal. It may cause his little imaginary world he has built around Christians to come tumbling down. Although I find it hard to believe that Dawkins has yet to encounter non-literalists as they have existed for over a thousand years. Any serious study in Christian theology should reveal religious scholars have warned against interpreting scripture too literally since at least the time of Augustine of Hippo (4th Century)†. I realize this advice has not always been taken but trying to imply that it never existed is simply disingenuous.




*Faith-heads, seriously? Where did he pick this term up, an elementary school playground?
†De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408] and 2:9

No Gods Solstice Sign

This holiday season the Freedom from Religion Foundation will be, again, placing a sign upon the Illinois Capitol Hill. They originally placed the sign in 2008 as a response to a Nativity scene.

The Foundation put up its first solstice display in 2008 in Springfield in response to the state's decision to allow a religious group to plant a nativity display in the Capitol. The state granted the Foundation's permit application.
"We don't think religion, or irreligion, belongs in state capitols," noted Dan Barker, Foundation co-president and author of the book, "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists."
"But if a state is going to permit a nativity display and create a public forum, then we want to be sure that the views of the 15 percent of the U.S. population who is not religious are also represented."

First let’s start with their reasoning for putting up the sign, shown above. There is nothing wrong with thinking that religious displays should not be placed on government property. However, if they are going to be allowed, and all different views are welcome as they most obviously are in this case, what is the problem? The main point that is usually brought up in these cases is discrimination and the government forcing one particular religion. In this instance, that is not happening. The government is allowing multiple views to be represented, not just one. I fail to see how one could construe one religion gaining favor or preference when dissenting views are also allowed to be expressed.

Second, there is the exact wording of the sign itself. My main response is, “And people wonder why atheists have a reputation for being ass holes?”. When there are groups like the FFRF claiming to represent all atheists, as they do in the quote above, the general reactions are bound to be negative. For example here is one atheist’s reaction to the sign,

To me it is obviously offensive and targets religion and I think takes advantage of freedom of speech. Basically it is a "low blow" and feels like they are going to the same level of religious fundamentalists and I think we can rise above childish things like that and put something intelligent out there.

There is also the blatant lie that their sign claims to represent all atheists in the United States.

we want to be sure that the views of the 15 percent of the U.S. population who is not religious are also represented.

They do not represent the views of the non-religious in the US. They represent some of the views of the non-religious; there is a very large difference. Frankly, if they did represent all of the atheists I would be severely disturbed and slightly scared for my safety if 15% of the population held me in an equal amount of contempt as the FFRF appears to.

It is also extremely ironic, and a little hypocritical, that the FFRF would mention the Winter Solstice in their hope for “reason to prevail” this season. For in their condemnation of a modern religious celebration, Christmas, they reference an event that is, historically, even more mired in religion and religious symbolism than Christmas is today in its present state.

I wonder what the FFRF thought the reaction would be to their sign. Any religious person who reads it is going to find it purposefully insulting and the only ones who are going to fully agree with it are the militant anti-theists, basically preaching to the choir. Do they honestly think being insulting is going to cause religious groups in the future to refrain from putting up displays? If they do I would place that right at the level of second grade bully tactics. The reactionary character of their sign also intrigues me. One group is allowed to place a religious display so the FFRF must respond, and the response must be negative and insulting. It is like a child who is initially offered a toy and turns it down, yet proceeds to throw a tantrum should their sibling be allowed to play with it.

And one last note:
There is no such thing as “Freedom from Religion”. There is “Freedom of Religion”. The two are completely different as one mandates an infringement upon a person’s individual rights while the other does not. An atheist is no more free from my religion as I am free from their atheism. Stating a person is to be free from religion is equivalent to stating a person is to be free from being offended. This is ironic considering if the freedom to never be offended actually did exist than the FFRF certainly would not.

Will The Real Fundamentalist Please Stand Up

This was posted on a forum I participate on. I think it sums up the current militant-atheist vs. religion debate quite well.

Evangelizing Religious Person: "You're damned for rejecting the WORD OF GOD"!!!!

Me: "You mean the Bible? I don't reject it, I just don't read it the same way you do. I read it to try and understand....".

ERP: "DAMNED!!!! DAMNED i SAY"!!!!!!

and then....

Evangelizing Anti-religious Person: "You're deluded for thinking the Bible is the infallable WORD OF GOD"!!!!

Me: "I don't think it's "the infallable word of God", I just read it to try and understand..."

EARP: "DELUDED!!!! DELUDED i SAY!!!!!!


No really,
I don't see any difference.