What Do You Call “Those” Atheists?

Patrick, please listen very carefully. While those words you quote as being labels certainly could be used to label people, I DID NO SUCH THING. I used those descriptive terms and adjectives to describe comments, or how people are perceived based on the opinions they present, or to follow convention in order to easily identify which “group” I”m talking about (e.g. “friendly atheists”) or to point out how OTHER PEOPLE use labels (for instance I completely reject the term “uppity, angry, mean atheists” – I referred to that term to indicate how I see that other people are labeling others), or just in general how adjectives are typically used in language.

The fact that you don’t understand this really says a lot. That you have to resort to taking individual adjectives from my comments, completely out of context no less, and quote them to imply that I assigned them as labels on you or others, is completely absurd.

By that same ‘logic’ of yours, you probably think that I just now labeled you “absurd”, when I did not.

As but one, simple example, earlier on I referred to one of your comments as “utterly ridiculous”. And now you claim that “utterly ridiculous” was applied by me as a label on you. How dishonest! Your actions are dishonest (note: I’m still not labeling you).

I’m going to stop communicating with you now. I find you dim-witted and pompous (again, adjectives, not labels). Go ahead and have the last word, you need it.

Patrick, your position is inconsistent. You’ve been crying the whole time about people not being nice. Are you an atheist or are you a posing theist?

And I’m going to go ahead and use labels: This discussion is infantile. Theists have no evidence, and they will never get over it.

My goal, and I’m sure Dawkins’ and Harris’ as well, is to make theism and theology as subject to scorn and ridicule as astrology, phrenology, and alchemy. To make talk about God, Jesus, Yaweh, I AM That I AM, as socially unacceptable as talking about the reality of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.

This is not about accommodation! Who are we kidding? There is no accommodation between people who think 2+2=5, and those who KNOW 2+2 will equal 4 long after we’re dead, gone, and the universe is a burned out CINDER.

To use an analogy, it is a two-pronged strategy. In this metaphor, the Atheists are Hamas, Friendly Atheists like Hemant are like the PLO. Same goal. The utter destruction of theism! We do not recognize the right of the state of Theism to exist, and never will.

This is about systematic ridicule and exposure of your philosophical weakness. Make no mistake about it. No apologies. We take no epistemic prisoners.

The difference is, we are throwing mind-bombs, not real ones. We are unleashing the antidote for a pernicious memetic virus.

Don’t worry, we won’t try to outlaw your worship. Just to make sure you do it in private and keep your dominionist politics and your god-talk out of the public square. Just watch. It will be like cigarette smoking. In the Marlboro 1950’s who would have thought that smoking would have been banned at public events only 50 years later? Now watch it happen with religion. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Have a nice Easter pageant fantasy tomorrow, folks. 🙂

Do I understand you to say that the goal of Atheism, and that of all Atheists, is the “utter destruction of theism?” How many here agree with this assertion?

I don’t, but for the simple reason that atheism has no goal. It is just non-belief in God. It is not the same thing as rationalism. BTW, I would disagree with you that Ingersollian atheists (see above) are not real atheists for that very reason. They are not committed to trying to be rational, though they may think otherwise, but that is not the same thing as not being an atheist.

This is about systematic ridicule and exposure of your philosophical weakness.

Ridicule is a double-edged sword. First, heavy use of ridicule can leave the impression that you have nothing of substance to offer. Second, it is difficult to ridicule without being fallacious. Not impossible, but difficult. Third, you cannot expose the other sides’ weaknesses by using fallacious argument.

“Ridicule.” “Mind-bombs.” “Pernicious memetic virus.” Fascinating. It’s been so many comments that I’ve almost forgotten the topic we were discussing. Oh, yeah. Fundamentalist Atheists. I think the case can be rested here. We’ve earned this title.

I concur with Patrick. BlackSun, I think you’ve pretty much sealed the argument with your last post/manifesto. You are the epitome of a fundamentalist atheist. (Not trying to be insulting – at this point I don’t see any reason why you wouldn’t gladly own the title.)

Hey, check out Mike C’s emerging penises website. He really must be a troll – he’s got The_Bible at #45 on his “Favorite Fiction” list (add one more fiction book!):

I just subscribed to this blog – thanks for letting me know about it, Wytann Erdy. And upon careful scrutiny of its title, I see that the word is not “penises,” but is instead “pensees.” I do understand that you might see the word incorrectly, Wytann, I do it all the time.

I recommend everyone subscribe to Mike C’s blog and see what an apparently open-minded theist is thinking. If this guy doesn’t represent some stage toward the successful resolution of the Great Religion Debate, then I don’t know what does.

Usually the comments on this sight are of a higher caliber than most of what I’ve read on this issue. So many of you are talking right around the actual issues involved. Some have fear-mongered about how the atheists want to eradicate all religion. Others have railed on Harris and Dawkins for their extremism and insulting tone towards believers. I don’t recall anyone doing a good job at defining fundamentalism, and that is what is at issue here: 1) atheists are not fundamentalists, and 2) the threat we face, insofar as it is a threat, is the threat from militant and violent fundamentalist religions.

Atheist Fundamentalist: “Atheist fundamentalist” is a misnomer. Fundamentalists have a set of doctrines that they believe were given to them, not by people, but by God. Because they come from God, they are the ultimate truth and authority. They are absolutes that cannot ever change, and they are the foundation for ethical and moral conduct. To disobey them is to bring spiritual destruction upon oneself. Rational atheists (the only kind that should concern us, and the only kind to which I refer here) have no such set of doctrines. No proposition held by an atheist is authoritative based upon tradition, or sacred texts, or arguments ad populum, or any other similar basis. All claims made by an atheist are to be subjected to reason, facts, verification or falsification. Atheism has no moral teaching, no sacred text, and no divine lawgiver. Atheists do not claim to have the ultimate truth that all must accept. Atheism is not about what we do believe, but what we don’t believe. Atheists are not dogmatic as fundamentalism is dogmatic because we have no dogma. The name “atheist fundamentalist” is meant to establish parity between atheists and believers for the purpose of argument: no such parity exists. Try to see the matter from our perspective. If we are correct, then the tenets of fundamentalism are the archaic and narrowly-drawn notions of primitive cultures that may have little if any relevance to the issues that face our world today.

And since I’m at it here, let me mention the term that’s getting thrown around loosely: Neo-atheist. ‘New’ is meant to be imply ‘better’ and ‘improved,’ when it comes to household cleaning products, but when it comes to religion, or things religious, the new is taken to mean the trendy, the transitory, or the aberrant—the latest departure from the time-tested and time-honored faith of our fathers. Neo-atheism as a term is a pejorative. It’s carries an implicit roll-of-the-eyes and “here-we-go-again” condescension. In fact, there is nothing new at the core of what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are arguing. They are simply receiving a lot of much-deserved attention. That attention may be attributed to three facts: the fear of the West about Islamic fundamentalism has come to a head, the Christian Right has attempted a power grab in the U.S., and skepticism, agnosticism, and atheism are on the rise world wide.

Now, for the real threat. Atheists could care less about your religion whatever it may be. If you want to believe in many gods or no gods, as Jefferson said, that “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Atheists have no dog in that fight. Atheists have only one question for the many faiths: are you a threat to me? If you want to limit my liberty based upon the teachings of your faith, I have a problem with you. You cannot make law for me without arguing your case to me, without giving reasons—factual, evidentiary, logical reasons—to me, without being challenged by me, without negotiating with me, and without my consent.

If any of you wonder why Harris and Dawkins occasionally sound wonderfully caustic when taking on their subjects, this is why: they’re rightly pissed at the thought that anyone would threaten them and the people they love and the world they care about. That’s the issue, and that’s the only issue that counts right now.

Point taken Darryl. So what would you call someone who espouses the agenda that BlackSun delineates above? That doesn’t seem to fit your “ideal” description “rational atheism” very well.

Sad news for MikeC

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap_on_en_ot/obit_hart

Okay, let’s try this. Wikipedia (that most trusted source for everything! 🙂 ) is quite all over the map with the definition of “fundamentalism,” but let’s just go with its origins:

“Fundamentalism” originally referred to a movement in North American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism (see below, “History”), stressing that the Bible is literally inerrant, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. This original “fundamentalism” holds as essential to Christian faith five fundamental doctrines: i) the Creation (theology) of the world, ii) the Virgin birth, iii) physical resurrection, iv) atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and v) the Second Coming.

Sure sounds like this definition is well-entrenched over the involvement of the bible. Fine. Wikipedia does go on to generalize the term beyond a focus on holy books. If we go with that, we can (not unfairly, I should think) replace the word “Bible” in the definition above with, oh, say, “Richard Dawkins” and we get what we have here on this thread right now. Question: is Dawkins truly “inerrant?” Is he incapable of being wrong in any way? No Atheist here has yet picked on him (constructively or otherwise) in any manner that I’m aware of, but I could be wrong. Personally, I can say that I do support his view that theism serves no good use to humanity, but I’m just not quite up for his “sledgehammer” approach to expressing those views.

I’m certainly not trying to justify a label of “fundamentalist” for Dawkins myself, Wytann, I’m just trying to set a framework for where theists are coming from when they try to stick it on him. It is good to see that Dawkins is not considered to be some perfect superentity – my Respect-O-Meter dropped a notch when you said that he joined up with the Brights. With all due respect, Dr. Dawkins, not a very “bright” move.

“Opinions based on evidence” doesn’t quite work for me. Aside from pointing at the bible and saying “See – he IS nuts!” as we all might, can Dawkins present medical “evidence” for the “psychotic” condition he ascribes to the nonexistent biblical Yahweh? That’s one spot where we’re running into problems here. My counter-suggestion to resolve this: point out that, IN FACT, Yahweh exhibits an extreme “self contradiction” in expressing both love and worldwide floods for his human pets. “Psychotic” needs more evidence. “Self contradiction” requires only that the relevant bible chapters be read to see the reality for oneself.

From reading Mike C’s web site further, I gather he believes that, “Hell is just what it is like to have rejected the source of all life and love and joy, i.e. God.” Is that not “fundamentalist”, to believe that the absence of faith in God leaves one unable to love, or be happy? Think about the non-Christian world. There exists many happy people there who do not believe in God. I consider this evidence contrary to Mike C’s beliefs. Thus Mike C is more of a “fundamentalist” than BlackSun.

This seems like a total tangent and red herring, so I’m not really sure why you brought it up – but just to clarify: just because someone is an atheist does not at all mean that I think they have completely rejected God. I think it is entirely possible to be experiencing God, following God, and enjoying his blessings without actually believing in his existence. Just as it is possible to believe in the existence of God and yet still turn your back on his life, love and joy (as many “religious” people do).

It’s not about your metaphysics. It’s about whether you are willing to pursue the way of self-giving love or whether you pursue the way of self-centered power and greed. Every moment of our lives we have the choice to live in a hellish way or a heavenly way, and one’s metaphysics often has little to do with it.

And yet, if you paid attention to what I wrote, I don’t think God withholds his love from anyone. Even those who completely reject his way of love and choose the way of self, are still given grace and love undeserved. However, if you’ve lived most of your life turned inward, unable to give or receive love, then will God’s love feel like love or would it feel like torment? (For instance, imagine a racist in Heaven being asked to love and associate with people of all races. Would that feel like heaven to him?) Hell is not a place that you’re sent for having the wrong religious (or non-religious) beliefs. Hell is what it’s like when you’ve become the kind of person who cannot love.

I don’t know anyone completely like that in this life, but I do see people who I worry are headed down that road.

Nonetheless, I have hope that even Hell, if it “exists”, is not forever. Love ultimately can pierce even the hardest shell. Love wins.

I don’t know you to say, but it is entirely possible that you are further away from Hell, even in your unbelief, than many Christians I know. But then, it’s not my place to judge either you or them.

Everybody knows that Plantinga’s definition of “fundamentalist” is the best definition there is.

“The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use) can be given by something like ‘stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine’.”

So maybe when people say Dawkins and Harris are atheist fundamentalists, they mean something like “stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are waaaay to the left of mine.” That’s pretty much what I mean. 😉

Some of you seem to be offended by Dawkins because you think he doesn’t respect people of faith. I don’t know his psychology, perhaps he’s arrogant. Or, perhaps, as a man of science, he just can’t bring himself to respect people that think they deserve respect for their beliefs when those beliefs are based upon nothing but air. Religious people that don’t take themselves too seriously, or that are moderate, or that see their faith as a private affair, tend not to provoke the ire of atheists who are looking to make a point. But, if a believer thinks that he is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Dawkins he had better be prepared to argue on the grounds that science works from. The kind of arguments that theologians have used in the past are not going to cut it. As soon as an apologist for the faith begins to step over onto the ground of reason and evidence, he should expect two things: to get a mightly push-back from atheists, and to get scorn for abusing reason and for expecting us to respect him as a serious opponent. Apologists are tainted before they open their mouths. They are looking for those things that will support the conclusions that they have already made, and the conclusions were not made upon sound reasoning and methodology. They do not have working hypotheses that they are testing; they have convictions that they are defending. A man of science will rightly be offended by apologists masquerading as scientists. In other words, don’t think you can overlap the domain of faith and that of knowledge without being soundly chastised.

Mike C., as for BlackSun, I can’t say what kind of atheist he is, but he makes some valid points. Believers that attempt to encroach upon the public square with anti-intellectual and anti-scientific polemics will ultimately be scorned, and rightly so. They will, as they have already, discredit themselves among non-believers and more moderate believers. Don’t confuse the gist of B.S.’s arguments with his tone. He’s one of the give-no-quarter disputants that can’t resist a good taunt. Nobody’s perfect. If he lacks compassion for people that have made faith central to happiness, forgive him and thank him for keeping you honest. If I read him accurately he does not want to limit your happiness, he wants you to “keep your dominionist politics and your god-talk out of the public square.” Perhaps he has the nasty fundamentalists in mind and not the kindly moderates. I agree with Wytann Erdy, he may be feisty, but he’s no fundy. Mike, you said “fundamentalist really only refers to one dying sect of conservative Protestantism, it wouldn’t even stretch to include most evangelicals.” You’re wrong on two counts: Christian fundamentalists are not dying, they’re growing, and they do indeed include most evangelicals insofar as these evangelicals believe the same doctrines and provide cover for the fundies. You seem to be a mainline protestant. Your crowd is shrinking; but the wide-eyed evangies like the Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. are growing. Yes, they’re changing slowly for the better in some respects, but the rabid fundies and the supporting evangies together have succeeded at giving quite a boost to fundy power in the U.S. This is a problem.

Patrick Craig said “many of [atheism’s] practitioners … are botching things up completely by advocating some form or other of ‘war’ against theism. Putting one’s back into such war is pointless when every day we witness Catholic fighting Protestant, Protestant fighting Protestant, Protestant fighting Muslim, etc. ad nauseum. No one puts better “dents” in religion than religion itself.” If we’re talking tactics here, as Jesus said “you should have done the one and not left the other undone.” If theists pick a fight with science, they will get push-back, and they have to get it. Yet, you are correct; the more religious factions the better for diluting those power-hungry militants that are attempting to concentrate their power. Dawkins is a pitbull. His sledgehammer approach stirs up more controversy, more media coverage, and sells more books (don’t forget there’s money to be made here—on all sides). Love taps are not in order right now. There are plenty of kinder, gentler folks out there to put the nice face upon atheism. Dawkins is not trying to make friends; he’s kicking ass. To everything there is a season…

Macht, with all due respect, your should consider editing yourself.

You are the epitome of a fundamentalist atheist. (Not trying to be insulting – at this point I don’t see any reason why you wouldn’t gladly own the title.)

I do categorically reject the term. Because fundamentalism has nothing to do with strength of opinion. It is a description of adherence to dogma, regardless of the facts at hand. It is also a description of (usually violent) tactics.

Atheists by and large are interested in facts, and will change their views when presented with evidence. That’s the clear difference.

The reason people like me strongly oppose acceptance of theism is because of the unearned special privileges and unearned respect they demand for their points of view based on tradition and authority.

Anyhow, it’s just an analogy. If you don’t like the term fundamentalist then what would you call an atheist who espouses BlackSun’s agenda to wipe out theism?

Mike C, there you go again. Theism is a philosophy. The goal is to wipe out theism intellectually, as a valid and defensible point of view, and as appropriate for the public square. I’m quite sure this was evident from my comment. I am concerned with people who spent the day on Easter celebrating a man who got up physically 3 days after being executed, and walked away. (They need to have their heads examined.)

If I had said wipe out theists, that would be different, and then you could call me a fundamentalist, (and possibly have me arrested for making terrorist threats). But I am quite clear this is a philosophical and perceptual battle only.

My basic premise is this, and please read this carefully: “You are free to hold any kind of belief or practice any ritual you desire. Just don’t pretend it’s real for everyone else, and don’t try to make social policy or laws based on it.”

That’s not so hard or extreme, is it?

Mike C

but if that is the case then why do these New Atheists seem so keen on pushing an anti-theism agenda?

Can you even freaking read?? I said:

The reason people like me strongly oppose acceptance of theism is because of the unearned special privileges and unearned respect they demand for their points of view based on tradition and authority.

and

The goal is to wipe out theism intellectually, as a valid and defensible point of view, and as appropriate for the public square…“You are free to hold any kind of belief or practice any ritual you desire. Just don’t pretend it’s real for everyone else, and don’t try to make social policy or laws based on it.”

I’d like to address your other point, Mike C, which gets repeated by theists ad nauseam:

why can’t you just fight the politics without having to convert everyone to your metaphysics?

First of all, there is no atheist metaphysics. You may be technically correct in the traditional use of the term. But more accurate would be ontology.

Wikipedia defines the modern usage of the term metaphysics to cover: “subjects that are beyond the physical world”. A “metaphysical bookstore”, for instance, is not one that sells books on ontology, but rather one that sells books on spirits, faith healing, crystal power, occultism, and other such topics.

In this sense, there is no atheist metaphysics. The ONTOLOGY of atheism disallows any points of view or theories of reality which are not based on evidence. It’s not about converting anyone to this point of view, it’s about insisting that you cough up some evidence to support your flimsy supernatural ontology or shut the hell up trying to tell people theism provides a coherent world view, a source for morality, or an answer to the big questions of life..

Fine, metaphysics, ontology… whatever. You knew what I meant. I prefer to use the the “traditional” philosophical definitions for the terms – not how the local bookstore defines them.

Though what you described:

In this sense, there is no atheist metaphysics. The ONTOLOGY of atheism disallows any points of view or theories of reality which are not based on evidence. It’s not about converting anyone to this point of view, it’s about insisting that you cough up some evidence to support your flimsy supernatural ontology

has nothing to do with ontology either. What you’re talking about is epistemology. But again… whatever.

More accurate would be ontology! (The kinds of things that have existence.)

Main Entry: on·tol·o·gy
Pronunciation: än-‘tä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin ontologia, from ont- + -logia -logy
1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence
– on·tol·o·gist /-jist/ noun

Mike C., I addressed the main issue of fundamentalism and who should wear that descriptor in my first post, and I addressed some of the comments made by others on this topic in the second post. Now, to your response to S.B., I see that he has already given you a sound thrashing, but you’re tough and you need more. Just say when and I’ll desist.

You said “I agree, if theism (or any other worldview) is claiming special privileges in the public square or oppressing or hurting others then that should be resisted and argued against. But those political distortions are things that can be fought against without needing to wipe out theism itself. Why are you so unwilling to intellectually live and let live?” You then go on to quote S.B. and you think that he has contradicted himself. As I understand him he does not. But, let me make two points: first, not all atheists see the need to “wipe out theism,” and second, there is at least one reason why this WOULD be a good thing to do.

As Patrick said, so long as the varieties of religion are slugging it out among themselves, and, I would add, there is no clear hegemon when the dust settles, and so long as the work of science may be carried on unfettered, and the fundies are kept at bay, then there is no need to try to wipe out theism. But, this state of affairs is not guaranteed; not here, and not anywhere. Just read the press. Theism is always a potential danger to a secular state like the U.S. Moderate theists can be radicalized because they can be scared by the many demagogues of our world. They provide a fertile ground for breeding fundies, and even the most moderate and otherwise reasonable among them either prefers or can be persuaded to vote for the “values” candidate, or the candidate that “believes in God.” A well-qualified atheist hasn’t a prayer of occupying the Oval Office, does he? If the fundies in the U.S. are such a shrinking minority as you have said, then how did George Bush ever win in 2004? A whole lot of Catholics, and Evangelicals, and Jews, and you name it, voted for him in large part (and we have polls that demonstrate this) because of his moral and religious values. How many of them are fundies? I doubt most are. But all of them are theists. Now, you’re an honest man Mike, look at what Bush and his government have done: you tell me—what kind of witness does he have to the world? What the world needs now is more reason and reasoning together. Theists are magical thinkers, and magical thinkers are not the kind of people that you can reason with about all subjects. They are biased toward their own kind. They put faith above reason.

Now, honestly, quit with the fundamentalist name-calling. Arguing strongly for one’s views does not make one a fundamentalist in any sense. B.S. has correctly made this distinction already and you simply refuse to give up this jab.

Finally, “you can scoff as much as you like at my values of kindness, tolerance, mutual understanding, love, etc. but I’ve been down the road you’re on, and it doesn’t lead anywhere good. I tell the exact same thing to my theist friends – our goal shouldn’t be to get everyone to agree with us. Our goal should be to increase love and justice in the world. Until you’re doing that, I don’t give a damn what you believe.” I for one am not scoffing at anyone’s virtues—it’s not virtue that poses a threat to me and mine, and having or not having virtues doesn’t pertain to whether or not God exists. I don’t know what road you think you went down, but it’s obviously not mine, and I doubt that it’s S.B.’s. Regardless, I resent you implication that atheists aren’t virtuous. Of that you have no knowledge. We need neither a Vengeful God nor a Loving God to be virtuous. If I am right, all your virtues are coming from your own brain and nowhere else. I’ve got a brain just like you, and so does S.B. Virtue is a choice; I can choose.

This

It’s the enforced legitimacy and privileged position in society accorded people with such views I object to.

is not the same as this

But if you want to celebrate holy week, carry crosses, and have nails pounded into your hands, don’t pretend it’s anything other than pageantry. That’s what I’m saying. Don’t give it that special imprimatur of reality.

On the one hand you object to the social privilege given to theism, and I do to. But then you try to sum up this opinion by saying that what you really object to is people actually believing that their beliefs reflect reality. That goes beyond simply wanting religious beliefs to stay out of the public square.

I’m epistemically humble in the same way scientists are. It’s the only humility I think is virtuous. Epistemic humility doesn’t mean rolling over to any and every notion or unproven claim of knowledge. There are clear lines which have been drawn, regarding the “burden of proof,” and even you know damn well what they are.

I do, and yet it seems that perhaps you don’t. I can’t find any evidence that you recognize the limits of science – the fact that science is only a tool, a method for answering certain kinds of questions – and that there are many topics on which science is inadequate to speak to (and not just religious topics). Most scientists I know are far more humble than you in this regard. They know where the limits of their disciplines are, and they don’t typically claim that just because something can’t be known via their discipline that it is therefore unknowable or unworthy of further discussion – which seems to be what you are saying.

So claiming it’s about humility is totally irrelevant and you know it. What you don’t want is to have to defend your claims, which is what everyone else has to do–and I’m insisting on it.

I’ll thank you not to presume to judge my own motivations. I think I would know them better than you.

Your peers were emphatically quoting scripture (revealed), and I’m emphatically endorsing science (discovered).

And yet I endorse both. This idea that somehow science and faith are opposed is just absurd, and has been demonstrated to be false so many times that it shouldn’t have to be repeated.

I’m hoping you will finally also admit that this argument is about substance and not tone.

Sorry, you keep wanting to make it into a debate about whether theists are right or wrong, but that is emphatically not what it is about. If it was, then I would have to equally complain about all the other atheists with whom I’ve hide good, healthy debates about our differing viewpoints – but I’m not. The fact that we can have these debates without disrespecting one another is evidence that this issue is not about theism vs. atheism, but really is about how those differences are communicated and what the end goal of the debate really is – whether it’s understanding or conversion.

Because the diversion into the irrelevant question as to whether atheists were “nice, kind or compassionate” was where you went wrong in the first place.

This discussion was never about that. Stop generalizing. I’m not pointing fingers at all atheists. I’ve known plenty of atheists who are nice, kind and compassionate. I’m pointing fingers at you. You are the one who has said that you don’t care about that stuff. You are the one who has said that right beliefs are more important than respect for others. That is what this is about. I couldn’t care less whether you believe in God or not. That’s irrelevant to me – and I think it’s irrelevant to whether one is nice, kind or compassionate.

And once again, I think whether one is “nice”, kind and compassionate is infinitely more important than whether or not one believes in God.

While y’all are still spinning your wheels and wasting space here, I MAY have just become the victim of religious discrimination:

http://patrickimo.blogspot.com/2007/04/patrick-craig-victim-of-religious.html.
Of course, that silly Flying Spaghetti Monster thing is just that – silly, right?. There was no point in creating that “religion,” right? I mean, Bobby Henderson’s letter to the Kansas school board regarding ID “theory” was just stupid, right? He really should have respected the theists’ presentation of ID as real and accepted Jesus as his personal lord and savior. At minimum, he should have just shut up and let ID get into the Kansas public schools unhindered. Right?

Man, that Henderson guy must have been a Pastafarian fundamentalist or something. I can’t stand Pastafarian fundamentalists.

(BTW, sometimes when I call my rental company’s office, the “hold music” is a christian radio station. Hmmmm…)

Mike C,

“Anti-theism” doesn’t work, because there are so many other things skeptical atheists are opposed to. Including but not limited to:

1) astrology, 2) the healing power of crystals, 3) ghosts, 4) pseudo-science, 5) quackery, 6) entertainers who pretend to communicate with the dead, 7) appeals to “other ways of knowing” when evidence fails.

Basically atheists, nice or not, reject the concept of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), on which you seem to base a lot of your arguments.

You stated:

They know where the limits of their disciplines are, and they don’t typically claim that just because something can’t be known via their discipline that it is therefore unknowable or unworthy of further discussion

But those same scientists will also tell you that scriptural or interior subjective methods won’t shed any realistic light on them either. If they tell you otherwise, they are just being politically correct.

Mostly I think science would just say “I don’t know,” or “I’m not qualified to comment on that.” Which is exactly what religions do NOT say. Theists by definition claim to know things about ultimate purpose, origins, creation, etc., while atheists such as myself will say to you it is absolutely impossible to say anything definitive about such questions.

If there is EVER, EVER, EVER going to be any valid inquiry (meaning capable of revealing substantive results) made into these questions, it will come from science, not religion. Of that I am 110% certain. If you disagree, it is up to you to provide counter-examples or evidence to the contrary.

Atheism is thus inherently pro-science, pro-knowledge, and anti-ignorance. “Anti-theism,” while partially accurate, doesn’t even begin to cover it.

So if you have to have a label, perhaps “confrontational,” “political,” or “rigorous ontological” atheist would do. (Doesn’t really roll off the tongue, I know.) But anyone who is not willing to stand up for both the completeness and sufficiency of scientific inquiry (in my view) is not much of an atheist at all.

BlackSun, thank you for clarifying. I think “confrontational atheist” will have to do then. Sorry, but “atheism” is too broad of a term if it includes both people like you and people like Hemant. There need to be some additional descriptors so we don’t end up lumping all these very different approaches together.

Mike,

We’ll let others decide what I said and what you said. I think you’re just tired.

Mike,

Weak!

Wytann Erdy said:

“Faith: A systems of beliefs persisting despite a lack of evidence.”

I said (above, 4 days ago):

The most offensive thing about Dawkins is that he seems not at all willing to actually engage what religious people say. He holds plenty of dogmatic beliefs that would be easily corrected if he would bother to read a book about theology (for example, Dawkins (and Harris and just about every “new atheist”) defines faith as “belief without evidence,” but somebody who was just somewhat familiar with Christian theology would know that nobody defines it that way. Given that many of their arguments rest on that definition of faith, I don’t see them changing that belief in the face of new evidence, either.)

“It’s implicit.”

Convenient for you, but also wrong.

I’m not even sure what that means- my faith is my evidence? Huh? That makes no sense. Faith comes after knowledge, evidence, etc.

Christian faith is a lot like the faith you place in a skilled surgeon before an operation. It is a trust that she will do the operation as she said she would, that her hands will be steady, etc. This trust isn’t blind – it is based on your knowledge of her credentials, your knowledge that she’s done this surgery hundreds of times before, your speaking with former patients about her, etc. I suppose you could have a blind faith in the surgeon, but that would be really stupid, don’t you think? You might end up with Dr. Nick Riviera doing your surgery.

This is not to deny that some (or a lot) of people do have a blind faith in God – on the contrary, many people can’t give good reasons for their belief. But the adjective “blind” is just that – an adjective. But if you ask any decent theologian in the past 2000 years, they will say that blind faith is a bad faith, that faith requires knowledge. What’s that you say? You want proof that theologians have said these things. Okay, here are two examples.

Spurgeon was careful to point out that before you can have faith in God – before you can trust in Him – you have to have knowledge of Him:

“What is faith? It is made up of three things—knowledge, belief, and trust. Knowledge comes first. “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?” I want to be informed of a fact before I can possibly believe it. “Faith cometh by hearing”; we must first hear, in order that we may know what is to be believed. “They that know thy name shall put their trust in thee.” A measure of knowledge is essential to faith; hence the importance of getting knowledge.”

Calvin was careful to say the exact same thing:

“Is this what believing means – to understand nothing, provided only that you submit your feeling obediently to the church? Faith rests not on ignorance, but on knowledge. And this is, indeed, knowledge not only of God but of the divine will. We do not obtain salvation either because we are prepared to embrace as true whatever the church has prescribed, or because we turn over to it the task of inquiring and knowing. But we do so when we know that God is our merciful Father, because of reconciliation effected through Christ, and that Christ has been given to us as righteousness, sanctification, and life. By this knowledge, I say, not by submission of our feeling, do we obtain entry into the Kingdom of Heaven.” (my emphasis)

I could go on with other theologians, too, but my point is that faith simply isn’t what you say it is.

Also, feel free to ignore everything I’ve just written and to continue to say that faith is “implicitly” blind. You wouldn’t be the first and I doubt you’ll be the last. But I’m pretty sure you will not change your mind about this.

Macht,

Please stop with the definition of faith, you’re embarrassing yourself. Erdy is right, maybe we should just let this thread die a natural death.

As the thread dies, I’d like to give y’all a nice “jumping off” point for another discussion:

http://www.friendsofcwg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12921

The term “fundamentalist atheist” comes up in this forum thread. Are you guys aware of this “Conversations with God” phenomenon? It looks like a movement with massive momentum, and it certainly seems to answer an important Atheist question: is there a “Nice Guy God?” More info at http://www.cwg.org/

Not that I’m endorsing this. Actually, it frickin’ scares my ass.

you should worship the Creator

Who?

you should worship the Creator

we should all worship Hogwarts

Who? Who?