‘Atheism is Religion Like Abstinence is a Sex Position’

I didn’t get the impression this was in response to de Botton, I think it was in response to a guest from last week (some woman named “Kennedy”) who started in with the “atheism is a religion” nonsense at the end of the show just before “new rules” and because he didn’t really get a chance to respond he made it part of his closing monologue tonight.

Well, he acknowledges that atheists aren’t perfect thinkers, and that everybody has their blind spots. I guess maybe his anti-vax ideas are his blind spot. I can forgive him for one brain fart.

Agnostics are swingers, They’re not quite prepared to understand that no matter what, a man cannot build a boat in a week or so which holds… roughly four million animals at least, That a woman cannot spontaneously turn into a huge salt lick, a bush cannot speak to a man… especially when it’s on fire (I’d forgive it for screaming though), and a man cannot wave a stick and part a sea. 

Feeling the same in the “why am I still awake” department… I hope you finally made it to bed!

Seal Team 666!  OMFSM!!!!

 Speaking as a man who happens to look fantastic with a ponytail, I’ll have to join the shiny, manageable ranks on that one.

When I think of an atheist temple, I think of the modern Library at Alexandria.  It would be nice to have something like the Jewish Community Center where atheists could gather any time of the day or night to watch science documentaries, discuss things with other atheists, or play a game of pickup basketball with other people who know that no one really cares about the outcome, especially not some invisible being in the sky.

Yes, I know there are many of these things online, being in a chat room is entirely different from being face-to-face with someone over a cup of tea.  The Center for Inquiry Chicago used to sponsor lectures once a month on a variety of topics in science and political atheism, but they stopped, and I miss them badly.

Everyone understands how much fun an atheism conference is.  Why wouldn’t smaller, local versions of that be as beneficial.  My mother is very active in her synagogue, and I really envy that part of her experience.  The only comparable thing I have is my knitting circles, but the conversation there seems to be about Dr. Who and do you know X-Files and Serenity are on streaming at Netflix?  I’d love to have a group of people who would be discussing ViHart videos, the whole Jessica Ahlquist thing, the rash of recent prayer/ID in school legislation and what can be done about it, and so forth.

 I can’t help but think it really is a wisecrack aimed at Penn.

Not that they’re right, but the passages suggests it took 100 years to build the ark.

I don’t think it’s fair to say agnostics are swingers.

Penn has a good part in his latest book, God, No!, about the difference between agnosticism and atheism. He claims, rightly so IMO, that if someone asks you whether or not you believe in god, answering with ‘I don’t know’ is ludicrous. If you were being asked whether god exists or not, you’re logically allowed to take the agnosticism route because you do not truly know. However, when you say you don’t know whether or not you believe in God, you’re skirting the issue entirely. Our existence is one of the most important thoughts to ponder and by saying you don’t know whether or not you believe in a god or gods is a hideous answer because essentially you’re saying that you haven’t put enough thought or effort into making a decision.

He forgot the hair dryer of reason, though.

When I saw the beginning of this new rules segment last night, I paused the TV and called my 12 year old into the room to watch.  She was giddy with excitement, and couldn’t even sit down to watch.  It occurred to me that even though she has identified as an atheist since she understood what that meant, this was the first time she watched a person announce they are an atheist so proudly on television.  It made me consider how many times she’s heard politicians blurt, “God Bless America!” or others on TV call for prayer or reference their beliefs.  At the end of the segment, she exclaimed, “That was the most awesome thing ever!”  Twelve year-old hyperbole aside, it was pretty darn cool.

As an Orthodox Pizza Aficionado, I find pineapple on pizza to be heretical and blasphemous.  There is still time for you to repent and correct your ways.

You know Dick,

You slag me routinely, yet you just made one of the most glaringly ignorant mistakes you could have. Maher is vehemently AGAINST anti-vacciners.

If you make a mistake on something this benign, how can you maintain credibility?

I give you props for irony.

For the sake of those who don’t see your reply here as a brilliant troll:  The entire idea about Maher is that nobody is perfect. A mistake in one area doesn’t intrinsically disqualify you from other discussions.

 Pineapple is good on everything.

 Opinions are like assholes. Just because you have the former doesn’t mean you have to act the latter.

If atheism is just another religion, then (A) health is just another disease and (B) why do I have to pay taxes?

Maybe the most accurate would be ‘apatheist’.  He has described Dawkins’s 7 point scale, so I think he understands what atheist and agnostic mean, but he has made some almost deistic comments in the past.

I think it is safe to say that he certainly doesn’t believe in the Abrahamic god (or as he puts it, “single parent who writes books”)

His wiki article also clarifies his vaccine position:

What I’ve read about what they think I’m saying is not what I’ve said. I’m not a germ theory denier. I believe vaccinations can work. Polio is a good example. Do I think in certain situations that inoculating Third World children against malaria or diphtheria, or whatever, is right? Of course. In a situation like that, the benefits outweigh costs. But to me living in Los Angeles? To get a flu shot? No.

And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB5DLf1Qt78 with Bill Frist, he doesn’t address the autism silliness.  So at the very least, Bill’s anti-vax position doesn’t seem anything like Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vax position. 

Yes, how pithy…tell me, how long did the memory recall take for you to bring that old and nostalgic gem back to the frontal lobe?

I don’t mean to belabor the point, but I’ve been watching Bill for years (from “Real Time” to his comedy specials to “Religulous” to his appearances on other shows here and there), and in that time he’s never given me the impression that he’s anything other than a pretty hardline atheist. His loathing for religion is palpable.

Inferno, can you provide a link to that particular “Daily Show” appearance? Because that seems like a rather disingenuous thing for him to say, all things considered. As for his Deistic comments, Rich, do you have any examples? I’m not trying to be argumentative with y’all, but I just can’t imagine Bill saying anything along those lines, other than in the vaguest of terms, and maybe for a laugh.

 I would think the first timbers laid would be rotten before the last plank was nailed if it took 100 years to build the ark…..

So your position is that people who self identify as agnostics just haven’t had much time to think, and make a decision? I might by that from a kid on his first day of sunday school, or a aborigine in first contact with a missionary. I’m not buying it from an adult who knows what the word agnostic means. “I don’t know” is not responsive to the question, “do you believe”. “I don’t believe”, “I believe” are, as would be “I don’t know what I believe”. The last one is perhaps understandable from an alzheimer’s patient. Even with someone who hasn’t had the opportunity to process such new information, like the aborigine, one would expect an “I don’t believe”.

Is the question whether or not a particular religion true, or if some religion, somewhere might be true?

If the question is whether or not a particular religion is true, I get that. But I don’t think agnosticism is about that.

That was supposed to be “in general”.

 well that has some pretty clear holes. Freedom of religious expression isn’t the only freedom we have. We can believe and practice whatever we want within reasonable guidelines (isn’t disruptive or harmful to others), whether it’s religious or not.

I sympathize with Maher, however, atheism is a belief about the idea of God — namely, that a God is impossible.  Since it would seem very difficult to prove anything that, indeed, doesn’t exist, then I don’t see how we can claim that atheism is evidenced-based.  I suppose you could say that it is reasonable to be an atheist, but that doesn’t prove anything.  Agnosticism is the fact-based position for a non-believer.