Ask Richard: Christian Concerned About Her Husband’s “Fundamentalist” Atheism

Man, I’m still just learning about this myself!

I mean, I’m atheist and my girlfriend (of about one year, oddly enough) is baptist. We kind of had a shaky start like that; I’d literally just uncovered the atheist blog scene, and my own derision of those religious people who take it to absurd lengths was in its full swell for the first time. So it used to really irritate her, because I would phrase things the way this lady’s husband does. XD It’s a tough lesson to learn in a few ways, but generally no tougher than making oneself pick up any other good habit.

Another good side-effect is it’s helped her grow more comfortable with discussing her faith, a topic she didn’t like at all when we first met. Compromise FTW.

Oh no we don’t love to argue, and here are my reasons for saying so:

1. Screw you, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
2. Did your mother dress you this morning?
3. I don’t start arguments, but if someone pushes me, I’m not afraid to push back.

@Skeptics Wife,
Your husband is a very lucky man. Hopefully, he appreciates you and the effort you’ve made for your relationship. Few would go to the trouble to search out atheist sites and write in like you did.
Yes, definitely show him this post.

I’m interested in how you came to the conclusion that there were ‘fundamentalist atheists’. That requires a complete misunderstanding of either fundamentalism or atheism. A lot of other religious people seem to have come to this conclusion as well and it’s a theme that’s oft repeated.

I think it would be an enlightening experience for you to read some of these books that your husband has found to be convincing so that you can understand the difference between dogmatic claims from demagogues.. and reasoned arguments from skeptics. In my experience, it only sounds ‘aggressive’ because it isn’t something you want to consider.

Your letter really hit home with me. I too am an atheist who is married to a Christian for less than one year and we too are going through a learning curve similar to yours. I suppose in some sense I would have to categorize myself as a militant atheist in that I also read Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, et al and I participate in atheist groups, read atheist blogs, and write letters to government officials when I see violations of the separation between church and state. My wife is a very moderate Christian of a Southern Baptist family. She doesn’t attend church any more, nor do her parents, but her sisters, and the rest of her family do. I consider her more level headed with regard to religion than most of her family members, but she does still believe in God. We’ve had lots of discussions on the subject of religion and both thoroughly understand each others point of view. I can’t understand her willingness to believe in that which has no evidence, not just God, but ghosts, reincarnation and a host of other things I think are silly. I may never understand why, but I have learned to accept that she does and nothing I say is likely to change her mind. I also understand now, that it’s not my mission to change her mind, only to love her and accept who she is. And I do.

My advice to you is to discuss this issue with your husband and let him know how you feel. I made some of the same inclusive statements that also offended my wife, without ever really intending to offend her, or even knowing that I had. Communication, love and respect solved the problem.

I will never respect my wife’s beliefs because they are unwarranted and often silly, in my opinion; however, I do love and respect my wife very much. I don’t have to respect her beliefs, just her rights and dignity as my equall. I don’t make statements like that anymore and am much more careful about how I chose my words. Some Christians are frankly nuts, insisting on prayer at gov’t meetings, public schools and get insulted at the concept of secularism. My wife is not one of those Christians and I am careful to never include her in any group I may be arguing with at the time.
Let him know how you feel. Ask for the same respect you’ve given him. I’m sure he will see that some of his blanket statements can hurt you and consider your feelings before opening his mouth, as I have.

The problem with fundamentalism isn’t that it uses strong language. It’s not that it tries to convince people via argument.

If it were just words, I (and I imagine many other atheists) wouldn’t care.

Instead, the problem is that it leads people to do horrible things.

Given this, the letter-writer’s line, I call it that because of the striking resemblance its members and community leaders (like Dawkins for instance) bear to the aggressive, cultish, right-wing elements of the church. Apparently they call themselves “skeptics.” is a massive red flag for me.

Dawkins isn’t pushing to end Christian marriage. Hitchens isn’t trying to slip atheism into schools.

Given this, the only way atheists resemble fundamentalists is if substance is being completely ignored, in favor of superficial things like tone. This is not an intellectuality honest position.

“For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind’s greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn’t have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.” Stephen Hawking 1993

For what it’s worth, I think you’re on the right track, Skeptic’s Wife. My wife and I have been together for more than ten years; I’m a recent “convert” to atheism and my wife is still a liberal Methodist. We’ve traveled the proverbial road of religion and faith together, all the while openly and honestly discussing our personal beliefs and validating our thoughts with each other. This “journey” has brought us closer and given us a better understanding of each other. I know how important my wife’s faith is to her and she understands that the fundamental indoctrination of my youth (seventh day adventist) needed to be purged from my life for me to become the best man, husband and soon to be father I’m capable of being.

Make sure you two keep talking.

Like herding cats? Whats so hard about that? All you have to do is open a can of cat food! Fortunately, I’m not in a Xian/Atheist relationship but my wife and I don’t agree on a lot of things. One of the problems with beliefs is that beliefs lead to actions or in actions. I try to address my comments to actions but the problems begin with beliefs. My beliefs included!

I’ll add, that I too was a little put off by the (paraphrasing) “he is not the one with a science degree or PhD…” comment. That is a very condescending thing to say, and disrespectful.

Just because he doesn’t have degree X or Y doesn’t mean his intelligence, thoughts, or opinions are of less value than person that holds a higher degree. People have more dimension than simply what degree or profession they chose, and often times a degree is in a very specific field of study.

S.W.’s mention of that makes me a little concerned as to why it was used as an argument.

Seems like a good example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem.

Skeptic’s Wife,

I encourage you to let you husband know about your letter so he can see Richard’s response as well as all the comments. It can only help you two gain a better understanding of each other.

I’m an atheist who has been married to a moderate Christian for over 15 years. We get along because we don’t try to convert each other nor do we make blanket statements that all Christians are like this or all atheists are like that. We just tell our kids that “mom believes this and dad believes that”. We stop short of saying which is the correct way to believe or think. Of course my view-point allows us to sleep in on Sundays. ?

In our culture the term “Christian” can sometimes mean just “good person”. At other times it means someone who thinks and votes consistent with carrying a sign that says “God hates Fags”. Hopefully your husband can understand that the term “Christian” as a label encompasses a whole lot of people and lots of different variations on belief. Also, you should appreciate that your husband is probably just thinking of a more narrowly defined definition of Christianity when he uses the term.

Finally, I have a Ph.D. (in a scientific field) and I can say that being religious is not an impediment to scientific research. People are quite capable of compartmentalizing their brains to hold faith-based beliefs about subject X and rationally explore subject Y with the scientific method. We all do this to varying degrees. And although I fancy that I know more about my own narrow subject of study than the average Joe, I don’t claim that distinction about any other field.

Good luck with everything. The mere fact that you have written to Richard is a very good sign that things will only get better between you and your husband. IMO, the “new atheism” movement is simply a long belated reaction to religion over-stepping into the public sphere. As the movement becomes more successful in strengthening secular institutions, the atheist evangelical component will die down.

It seems redundant at this point, but I just wanted to add my voice to those decrying the use of the word fundamentalism. At its heart, fundamentalism is believing something because you’re told to (by a person, book, or what have you) and refusing on any grounds to consider any other position, regardless of evidence. It seems to me to be the exact opposite of scepticism. Openminded scepticism calls for a person to be open to any new idea, but to also require reasonable evidence before taking that new idea as fact. (It’s also worth noting that a lot of people have used the term “fundamental atheist” as a straight up insult, and the rancor from that tends to bother people. On the other hand, “militant atheist” is a term that I’ve heard at least a few people take for themselves.)

All that said, it does sound like your husband has done a bad job of communicating with you and others. Richard’s advice, as usual, seems to be spot on. Sometimes it can feel like a couple is speaking two different languages; heck, I think sometimes they actually are. I wish you the best and hope that you can successfully work through this with your husband.

And on the off chance you decide to stick around, or your husband does, welcome to the community!

Skeptic’s Wife,

One of the challenges of belonging to a majority population is when a minority group speaks up about perceived wrong. Even the lightest criticism can be interpreted as shrill, unreasonable, or even abusive. As others have noted, even the most assertive atheists can’t compare with extremist theists when it comes to behavioral malfeasance or hateful language. But it can seem that way because having one’s majority position questioned can be psychologically distressing.

The recent increase in volume from atheists isn’t really about philosophical disagreement, it is (for many of us) an expression of frustration grounded in what we see as bad behavior from a great many theists—behavior which often affects us or people we care about directly (e.g. discrimination against gays, degrading science education, child abuse, violence of all sorts, etc…it’s a long list). That doesn’t make it right to judge every Christian with blanket condemnation, of course. But it can sound like atheists do that because on blogs and whatnot it is more efficient to say “Christians” or the more inclusive “theists” than to constantly acknowledge the relative differences within those groups.

With this in mind, it is possible that any verbal aggression your husband might be directing at you could be redirected frustration and anger towards Christians in general. If so, I’m willing to bet he isn’t aware he’s doing it or how it’s affecting you personally. Some insight on his part would likely go a long way towards improving the situation. At the same time, it sounds like you aren’t fully aware of why so many atheists are speaking up as they are or why your husband is so passionately in agreement with them. You don’t have to agree with us, but trying to see things from our point of view might give you some healthy perspective. You might try asking him to point you to some material that reflects his own viewpoints, not to convince you of anything, but so you can know him better.

I wish you luck!

Alright, I’m not about to argue the semanitcs of “fundamentalism”. OK… yes I am (because, I DO love to argue).

From Merriam-Webster:
“a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles”

It says nothing about going bat-sh*t crazy and killing people.

People like Dawkins and Harris genuinely believe the world would be a better place without religion and conduct themselves accordingly. Therefore, I feel SW is perfectly right in using the term, though it is not the one I would have chosen.

What I really want to emphasize, however, is that she apparently has a misunderstanding about the term “Skeptic”, equating it with “fundamentalist-atheist”. That is really too bad, as SW strikes me as someone who would really enjoy the skeptical movement and it’s science-based view of the world (it might even be something she and her husband can further bond over). I suggest she take a listen to the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast. Her husband clearly wants to take a science-based view of the world, so this is something he might also enjoy, as well as a place where they are likely to find common ground. On top of that, the show I mentioned does a excellent job of pointing out logical fallacies, and may make her husband see his errors in thinking when he describes a trait as belonging to “all christians”

Something I seriously wonder about is why people like “Skeptic’s Wife” consider it an affront to be called out about their lack of skepticism of their own beliefs, especially when they have the tools (knowledge and training in the scientific method, etc) to test those beliefs for truth or falseness?

Does it mean that she, or anyone else in a similar position, are unfit for their job or career in scientific research? No, certainly not. It should though, cause them to question why they aren’t willing to touch that one area of their lives – to seriously question why they cling to it, either irrationally without reason, or somewhat more rationally with unquestioned reasons.

Seriously – if their beliefs and/or knowledge of their beliefs is the truth, or represents a truth, asking questions about those beliefs, up to and including using the scientific method in an attempt to gain better understanding of them, couldn’t hurt anything, could it?

Furthermore, this goes double for those who call themselves athiests or skeptics; one should never stop questioning themselves or their beliefs, lest the daemon of irrationality find a home.

Ps. It also annoys me that the time he is spending reading the atheist books, listening to secular podcasts and chatting online to his skeptical friends is time he is supposed to be using to look for a job but that’s another issue! lol.

This is what locked in my mind. I don’t care what the cause is, using time that needs to be used in finding a job just doesn’t fly with me. 9-5 needs to be job hunting time!!

It’s possible that the lack of a job is affecting him and his mood. He might lighten up a bit once he is working again.

If Skeptics Wife likes to call people like Dawkins “skeptic” with quote marks, then I really feel sympathy for her husband.

He probably can’t win.

Calling ourselves atheists is as good as calling Christians and Muslims monotheists. Grouping or generalizing based on atheism is no different than doing the same on monotheism or polytheism.

Non-Litigious Atheist:

Harris’ point was that we should stand up not for atheism in itself, but for good reasoning, from which atheism will follow – if atheism is true.

I agree in principle, but there’s still the chance of using good reasoning with bad premises and reaching false conclusions.

I am the last person that should give relationship advice, so I’m not going to even try. What did strike me about both the letter and Richard’s response, is that atheism and skepticism seems to be equated. Many, possibly a large majority, of the vocal skeptic movement are atheists, and many have argued that one should at least be a non-theist of some sort to be a “good skeptic”, but non-theism is in no way a requirement for skepticism. Skepticism’s favorite group to ridicule seems to be homeopaths. It is applied to a variety of topics, like alternative medicine, UFO sightings, conspiracy theories and general woo-woo ideas as they present themselves. Some in the atheist movement might have latched on to the skeptic approach as applied to religious claims, for better or worse. But there are also many Christian skeptics that fiercely advocate for the movement, and have compartmentalized their religious beliefs by not applying skepticism on this one area they hold sacred.

Anyone who enjoys science would enjoy discussions on skepticism, regardless of religious beliefs. Just like the whole Christendom/atheist community cannot be judged with blanket statements, one shouldn’t take that one segment of the skeptic community as representative of the wider community. Give skepticism a second try, and this time look at the discussions that are not about religion. Mythbusters, the most popular show on skepticism, never even touch religion. It has something for everyone. And just to agree with SW on one point – non-scientists have no business criticizing scientists 🙂

Todd wrote:

I don’t have to respect her beliefs, just her rights and dignity as my equall.

So wise…..and so succinct 🙂

Thanks for articulating that Todd ~ I think that is something that’s often ignored or overlooked in conversations on this subject…and I think it’s the key to everything (and it seems to be a theme in the posts so far)

@Esattezza

From Merriam-Webster: “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles”

Yes, but atheism has no established set of basic principles to which one can adhere, strictly or otherwise. When people call passionate atheists “fundamentalist” they are trying to equate them to religious fundamentalism, and the two simply are not the same, nor can they be. The application of that word to atheism is merely a rhetorical device used to undermine the more incisive arguments against theism by transforming the application of reason and scientific inquiry to just another form of faith.

Some atheists might be obstinate in their opinions, but simple obstinacy isn’t what makes someone a religious fundamentalist—that requires a complete submersion into a rigid worldview grounded in relatively unchanging dogma, generally grounded in scripture or “revealed wisdom”. Unless you can submit a similar worldview held by “fundamentalist atheists” (which you can’t, of course), then you must admit that “fundamentalism” is simply not a term that can be meaningfully applied to atheists.

Oh, geez, the usual “atheists are so much more selfish than believers and here’s some highly biased data to prove it” crap. That kind of data ignores huge amounts of confounding variables.

Such as the fact that until recently, religious charities had a social lock on that angle and most unbelievers had greater concerns (ie: worrying about their own asses, as a discriminated-against much-demonized minority). It’s easy to get heavily involved in charity when you’re an overprivileged supermajority that doesn’t have to worry about someone finding out what you believe or disbelieve and fucking up your entire life–or, at some points in history, getting you tortured and/or executed. Also, the fact that the unquestioned assumption that religious people were morally superior kind of made it hard for any non-religious charity–and especially any atheistic charity–to thrive.

Not to mention the fact that any atheistic giving tends to be rather invisible, whereas religious people make a big public show of it in so many ways. That kind of hearkens to my first point, because if you’re an atheist and you’re charitable, you’re still not likely to advertise it and out yourself to a community that may decide you don’t ever deserve to be employed again, among other things, for your great crime of unbelief. Kind of hard for your group’s charitable efforts to be visible when your group is forced to be invisible.

On top of that, it was a little difficult for atheists to find a charity that wouldn’t spend half-or-more of every dollar on bibles, religious propaganda, and other proselytizing tools. If I give you money to feed the poor, I’m talking about actually feeding them with actual food and not utilizing their need as a way to coerce faith and pad your numbers. What you’re asking me to do is to fund your religious efforts to expand your congregation, so you can then all go out and vote my civil rights down the toilet. In fact, far too many religious charities and religious people regard charity as a tool to proselytize. When they are told that they cannot proselytize if they use taxpayer money for their charity, they ask “what’s the point then?” Always a facepalm for me. You really can’t see a value in charity outside of a conversion tool? Really?

All of these things render such data suspect. It’s a little hard to gauge a characteristic of a group that is commonly demonized and forced into a closet, the members of which still face stigma and in some locales dire consequences for being visible. And it’s hard to gauge the charitibleness of a group that, thanks to such demonization, has very little chance of having their own charities anytime in the near future and has only recently begun to have their charitable giving as individuals measured.

I mean, recently I had an entitled male say to me “women couldn’t possibly have done as much to create such an impressive society, because data shows that women have low IQ’s.” While ignoring the fact that there was no causal connection between IQ and gender–but there is a causal connection between internalized social expectations and IQ. Women in countries where they are not marginalized intellectually from birth do not have low IQs, or where being intelligent is not equated with being “unfeminine” and being “feminine” is the most important thing a girl can achieve. Never mind that IQ usually tests characteristics that are considered “masculine” and are constantly encouraged in males and discouraged in females both implicitly and explicitly. Yes, just ignore the data where males and females take a math test, but in the group where the test is prefaced with a comment that “girls don’t do well with this test, but boys do great” have high male scores and low female scores. Pretend we’re starting with an already-even playing field, pretend all these issues don’t exist and declare “males test higher on IQ tests and therefore women couldn’t have ever built anything like modern society”.

That’s what comments like that sound like to me. I’m not really interested in the “data” when it ignores the fact that the two groups they are studying are not operating from equal situations–that, in fact, one group has been actively oppressed by the other group.

Up until now, atheists have mostly been concerned with how to be visible without starving to death or being otherwise attacked/punished/oppressed by the overprivileged defending their obscene privilege. Kind of hard to give money to charity–especially religious charities that use the money to prey on the unfortunate–when we kind of need it for the legal costs of defending our rights. When the religious majority has created a de facto method to deprive me of my right to honestly represent myself as an atheist–well, let’s just say before atheist charity can be visible, atheists first have to be visible. You can’t have the former without the latter, and it’s only recently that the latter has begun to change. I know I said that already, but it bears repeating. Atheistic charity can’t be visible until atheists are allowed to be freely visible, without fear of reprisal.

Now that atheists/non-religious are becoming more numerous and less afraid to show it, atheistic giving is becoming more visible and there are more options for secular charities, you’re going to see a representative rise in those numbers in time and as the fear of being visibly atheist declines. We’re now at a point where we can take time, effort, and money away from that and start thinking about what we can do for others. And the money will actually be going to actual needs, rather than having much of it funneled into indoctrination materials/efforts.

Now go on and tell me how I’m an “ideological” atheist, adhering to “fundamentalist” atheist dogma, for simply pointing out why this data is biased for assuming an even playing field to begin with, pretending that oppression from the religious establishment never even happened and somehow has no bearing on atheistic vs. theistic giving. Just like my privilege-denying male “friend” pretends that males and females operate on an even playing field, that internalized gender-based expectations have no bearing on data that shows males to be inherently “smarter” than females, and my refusal to adhere to this is evidence of me being in denial of my statistically-proven female inferiority.

Interestingly, when that data showing that theists are more prone to support torture than non-theists hit the interwebs, it was the atheists who asked the questions and pointed out how flawed and biased it was–even though it came out in the atheists favor, they pointed out (and rightly so) why it was not representative of religious people, rather than pointing to the holy and irrefutable “data” and claiming moral superiority-by-numbers.

Data can be very unreliable, biased, or wrong, and such data often ignores many confounding variables–making it useless for declaring generalized characteristics of any group. Would you cite the larger amount of white people with college degrees vs. black people as evidence of white people’s superior intelligence over black people, or would you consider the massive educational and economic disparities that did and still do exist between the two groups and affect one’s ability to pursue and finish a college education? Personally, I’d say someone pointing to straight numbers and then proclaiming that they represent the superior characteristic(s) of one particular group while ignoring the real-world disparities that may exist between the groups is pretty damned “fundamentalist” or “ideological” behavior in itself. It also smacks of seeking justification for one’s a priori assumptions.

BTW, thank you Ash. I was waiting to see how long it would take for someone to point out that rather important characteristic of “fundamentalism”. It’s an obvious point, but I’m always amazed at how long it takes for someone to point it out. It’s as hard to be fundamentalist when you have no central doctrines/books to be fundamental about as it is to be visibly charitable when you are made to be invisible.

Also, sorry for the long rant-the length, that is, not the content. It always rankles me when someone points to some statistics, ignores confounding social and historical variables that have the effect of biasing the data in one direction, and then goes on to claim the inherent superiority of one group while suggesting that anyone who argues against it or points out the problems is somehow mired in denial-ism. I get the same crap from entitled misogynists and white racists, so it tends to rile me up pretty bad. I’m not in denial, I’m just pointing out the fact that your two groups in the data are not starting from fair and balanced circumstances, and that has a major effect on how your numbers will come out. And it is irresponsible to claim that the group starting from a position of historical privilege over the other one is inherently “better”.

Let me tell you this–run the same statistics on theistic vs. atheistic giving when there is an even playing field between the two groups, when one group is not just beginning to emerge from an enforced invisibility and still in many cases fighting a rather costly battle against hysterical efforts to shove them back into their closet, and then we’ll see how the data goes. If atheists still have low numbers on charitable giving when they no longer have to hide who they are for fear of reprisal or spend a lot of money fighting for their basic rights in court, when there is an even playing field, then we’ll talk. Until then, spare me the “shut up, that’s why” argument, that I’m somehow in denial of my own inherent selfishness.

Jacques,

What did strike me about both the letter and Richard’s response, is that atheism and skepticism seems to be equated.

I agree with you that atheism and skepticism should not be equated, which is why I did not do so. I said,

Generally, atheism, the lack of belief in gods, comes from skepticism.

I’m differentiating, not equating. Skepticism is the root, atheism is merely one application or expression or outcome of that way of thinking. At least it is for me, and lot of people whom I’ve gotten to know here and elsewhere. Some thoroughly skeptical people are more interested in one category of claims than other categories of claims, such as those you mentioned, not just religious claims. I guess it all depends on whatever makes those categories important or interesting to them. Other people can be partially or selectively skeptical, as you said, compartmentalizing it to apply to all but one or two subjects.

I seem to have been born skeptical. We joke that my first words weren’t “ma ma” but “yeah, right.” Little Ricky was always having to go see for himself, rather than take someone’s word for it. When I first heard the story of Chicken Little saying that they sky was falling, I asked the teacher “Well why didn’t the other animals just look up at the sky?” The teacher gave me an annoyed look.

Interesting, I am enjoying this thread.
I am in the minority mixed belief relationship where I, as the wife, am the atheist and my husband is the believer. We dated for 2 years and have been married less than a year.

My husband was raised in a very relaxed Christian atmosphere and I was raised in fundamentalist (mainstream, not the currently polygamous) mormonism.

[An aside here – Mormons REQUIRE a minimum tithe of 10% of your income in order to be considered ‘worthy’ to set foot inside a temple and recieve your eternal heavenly blessings. This ‘donation’ or what I now call the ‘membership fee’ is considered a tax deductible charitible donation. I wonder how the survey administors could seperate this type of coerced membership fee from actual generous donations towards organizations that really help more people rather than the organization itself. It’s like being able to consider the membership dues for your hobby club (or your extorted/ blackmail/mafia protection fees) tax deductible]

I discovered skeptical Podcasts shortly after we were dating seriously. (I HIGHLY reccomend Reasonable Doubts and SGU) They helped me feel less isolated and alone in feeling like the only rational person in South Georgia. While my husband is very patent, liberal, and even skeptical Christian, I have inadvertantly upset him a few times with my enthusiasm for this newfound community (even if it is on the internet right now). Learning that there are many other people who feel the way I do made me suddenly realize how much I miss the community of the church. Hubby never had any comparable community like this to miss.

We keep talking (in small doses) and learning about each other. He supprised me and I learned alot about him when he defended my atheism to some christian friends after an argument (that admitedly got a little heated) about the religious impact on GLBGT rights. I am paraphrasing here-

Friend “You are Christian, are’nt you worried about her soul?”
Hubby “No, she’s a better Christian than most other self-proclaimed Christians I know.”
Friend “Yes, she does act like a better Christian, but don’t you believe that she has to accept Jesus to go to Heaven?”
Hubby “No, I think her good behavior will get her into heaven.”
Friend “That’s not the Christianity I believe.”
Hubby “There are lots of different kinds of Christians.”

My husband’s main point (as I understand it) in our discussions has so far been “What’s the big deal? This is a stupid thing to get worked up about – your absence of a belief.” because he simply does not think the topic of GOD is worth his time and energy to worry about when he has things like a carreer and the rest of his life to worry about. He likes the warm, fuzzy idea of a nice fatherly God and it’s not directly affecting him so he does not currently wish to address it when he has many more direcly productive things to do. (note: pointing out that he is functionally an agnostic with a security blanket belief was not a good idea.) He identifies as a Christian and sees no pressing need to re-assess that view. (Definitions be Damned! It’s kind of like how he’s a Georgia Bulldogs fan and always wears the UGA gear, but never watches any football games 😉

I learned that I needed to qualify my anti-belief, so my new point has become “The reason I get worked up is that the religious dogma I was raised with has directly hurt me, so I feel the urge to protect others from this source of hurt. I also have identified a need for me to have some positive interaction with others who understand that religion and other paranormal beliefs can be a source of hurt, like a support group.”

We are working towards understanding each other’s point of view, and I am gratefull for everyone’s comments on this thread.

[one last aside: Today I decided that I’m going to start calling myself a Fundamentalist/Militant Anti-Geocentrist. Not to pick fights or anything 😉 but I think that I’m on to something with realizing that a lot of people simply don’t understand or sometimes don’t even care about the nuanced differences between synonyms. Definitions be Damned!]

I went through a mercifully short, extremely strident and rude period when I first came to the conclusion that I ought to be calling myself an atheist. It’s funny, but what knocked me off of that was the wonderful woman who is now my mother-in-law. She’s a Catholic married to an atheist, and after I went off on some wild, hostile tear about a generalized Catholic something, we had a long e-mail discussion that concluded with her basically saying, “I won’t take this sort of abuse from my husband, and I’m certainly not going to take it from you.”

Like having a bucket of cold water dumped over my head, really.

Skeptic’s Wife, I’m sure that your husband must be a nice guy, since you married him. 😉 He probably just needs that metaphorical bucket of cold water. I don’t think any good, loving person is rude and insulting to someone that they love and respect on purpose.

@Non-Litigious Atheist:

As I understand it, there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by, and prison populations represented by, both non-whites and theists in the USA. As these are clearly facts, should one then presume that non-whites + theists have a higher tendency to be amoral scum? Or is it at all possible that there is such a thing as an explanatory framework which you would accept (except for the case of atheism, which is of course neatly written off as ‘ideological’)?!

Is it possible that you are the ‘ideological’ one by your presumption that facts exist in a vacuum?

Correlation =/= causation.

I was one of the ones who mistakenly thought the wife had used the term “militant”, but I think substituting “fundamentalist” for it in my sentence makes the same point.

As I said before, some atheists would never admit that religious people might be more charitable than secular people.

My argument isn’t with the possibility, but with the data collection and the way the conclusion has been drawn. I would not classify any donations given to a church for the purposes of church operations or prosetylization efforts to be “charitable”. They are instead in the self-interest of the group, and are analogous to country club dues or other membership fees. They might be voluntary, but they are coerced (have you ever heard a sermon on tithing?) and get plowed right back into church operations for its own benefit. That isn’t charitable. Additionally, the pool of believers is much larger than that of nonbelievers, so the amounts would need to be both reported per capita AND adjusted for income, as there are statistically more Christians in high tax brackets than atheists (simply because more of them exist). In order to truthfully say that believers donate more of their incomes per capita to charity than nonbelievers, the amounts need to be adjusted properly so that they are measuring what they claim to measure as a percentage of a person’s income, and all operating and missionary budgets need to be deducted from donation totals.

@Carlie: What part of ‘more generous, cheat less and co-operate more in games such as the prisoner’s dilemma’ screams to you ‘donations given to a church for the purposes of church operations or prosetylization efforts’?

See, this is my point. No one wants to talk about what the study actually found. Everyone keeps bringing up stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with what the study looked at.

The study is not about church donations. It is not about the members of explicit atheist organizations. It is about how religious people, overall, behave compared to non-religious people, given that religious people are primed by different beliefs than non-religious people.

Put the ideology aside for some actual science for a change – please!

@NLA

It is entirely possible that religious people give more to non-profit organizations (I do think we have to eliminate giving to churches). It is also possible that they over-report their giving, just as they over-report their church attendance (by x2 according to a recent study). I’d also be interested in knowing the breakdown between active church members, theists who are uninvolved in a church, vague “non-religious” types, and self-identified atheists. I bet the most salient variable is belonging to an active community that regularly promotes giving rather than being religious per se. It is most certainly true that any actual difference would be due to sociological factors. If so, all this says is that atheists need to promote giving more (if charity is a priority for you, that is). It certainly doesn’t suggest that atheists are less compassionate or generous.

Todd says:

I suppose in some sense I would have to categorize myself as a militant atheist in that I also read Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, et al and I participate in atheist groups, read atheist blogs, and write letters to government officials when I see violations of the separation between church and state.

Is that what ‘militant’ means? That description makes it sound like it’s good to be a militant atheist.

If that’s what the word means, then thank you for being so militant.