Slog

Richard Dawkins would be a lot more effective if he weren't such an asshole. As for Sam Harris, he's all about reincarnation, so I don't think he's as secular as you might believe.

Of all the arguments in favor of atheism - and as an atheist (or rather, a radical atheist, as Douglas Adams put it), I think there are a lot - this is perhaps the weakest. A lot of smart people are atheists and/or struggle with faith and a lot dumb people are believers? It may or may not be true (probably it's reasonably true...) but it's unconvincing nonetheless.

nick @ 2,

Haven't you ever wondered why the poor and/or mentally ill are always shrieking about whatever religion they were socialized into? Seems like a logical argument to me.

And if there really were an omnipotent god (or gods), why would he care if we worshipped him or not? Is it, as Homer Simpson once eloquently hypothesized, that god is super insecure and needs our reassurances, like Barbara Streisand?

These are the questions that keep us up at night...

Those questions actually stopped keeping me up as of about a month ago.

Is that when you started hearing his voice command you?

Andrew @ 2,

I agree that there are a lot of spectacularly (miraculously?) stupid people out there clinging desperately to whatever hideous belief-set they were raised in. However, I don't think this is a strong argument because a lot of relatively smart people believe things that are wrong as well (either demonstrably wrong now, or yet to be proved wrong). People are wrong all the time, and it's essentially an ad hominem argument to say that an a premise is wrong because the people that believe it are stupid, poor or mentally ill.


I think the stronger argument is that the beliefs that these idiots hold are wrong and hideous and absurd.

@1: People always say that Dawkins is an asshole, but I've yet to see an example. Every time I've seen him he's been polite and soft-spoken. Maybe he's an asshole because he has the gall to disbelieve out loud in public, regardless of who chooses to let that upset them. That's as near as I can figure it.

well said, pox. Dawkins almost always seems to be very calm and careful with what he says. Even on Bill O's show!! Link: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/04/richard_dawkins_9.html

The only time I've seen him get a bit riled was from interviewing none other than everyone's favorite disgraced Evangelical pastor, Ted Haggard! Link: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/01/more_evil.html

Dawkins would be more effective if he didn't set up straw men to knock them down. I'm a Christian and I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but he's not a theologian, and doesn't reference other theologians. Theology has moved on from what he seems to think it is (There's a couple of good rebuttals by agnostics/atheists of the God Delusion on those grounds).

There are plenty of intelligent Christians, however they're intelligent enough not to shout about it. Mostly because the dumber ones bring it into disrepute with their hatred. (btw, Dumb doesn't relate to IQ but the proportion of thought going into it)

I realise I'm in a minority on this blog - after all, I belong to a church in a mainstream denomination that has provided accommodation for gay and lesbian projects in Soho, London, and is presently looking at providing a refuge for those looking to escape sex trafficking of whatever orientation and background.

My favorite thing about this argument lately is that outspoken atheists are pitching their belief system based on the notion that only stupid and crazy people would disagree with them:

Look, see! The National Academy of Sciences agrees with us! Einstein agreed with us! George W Bush doesn't agree with us. Stupid, stupid George W Bush.

None of this really affects my thinking on theism one way or the other. My life might be easier if my thinking about divinity was based on what the cool kids think. And don't get me wrong-- the cool kids are right about all kinds of things. They make good art, they write good software, and I have to admit I'm impressed by their work in theoretical physics, even if I never see most of it in action. That said, however, I can't help but be struck by how appallingly smug this new attitude is.

Atheists usually respond to this criticism by pointing out that the world is overrun by the smug adherents of religion, and I agree that's true. But those people don't represent me. I don't tithe to their churches. I don't vote their ticket. I just ask a lot of questions and read the writings of other people who've asked similar questions to see what conclusions they came to and if those conclusions might help me understand my own questions-- not find answers. I don't think most of these questions have answers, but faith motivates me to believe the questions are worth asking anyway. And I suppose that's the irrational part.

And now here you all are, calling me stupid-- just for having questions. For not having come to the same conclusions as you. That's your right, of course, but you'll forgive me if I don't thank you for it.

Sam Harris is "all about reincarnation"? Where did you get that? I've read both his books and I don't recall him saying that.

@11 - Seriously. Talk about your straw men. Sam Harris is certainly not "all about reincarnation." He is in favor of serious study into the nature of human consciousness, and is open to the idea that our consciousness comes from somewhere other than our bodies, but he points out that there is no real evidence one way or the other, only speculation guided by the absence of certain facts.

Not all Christians are stupid, uneducated and unreflective. I know at least a couple of them who are PhD candidates in Ivy League schools.

And where do you think science came from? Newton was a mystic--he dedicated his work to God. Geometry was considered the perfect science because it allowed human beings to understand God's mind and language. The original 17th c. rules of scientific method were based on the Church's procedures for identifying miracles. The whole concept of there being some external ultimate truth (which is what science is trying to find--the Laws of Nature) is a Christian concept. In the middle ages all knowledge was recorded and transmitted by monks. Only after Darwin did science and religion really start to separate.

To say that there is no connection between science and religion, or to imply that only stupid rednecks are Christians, is to ignore almost all of the history of Western civilization. If you get excited over the idea that genetics, say, is great because finally we will have a true and unchanging code that reveals the past and the future of life--well, that sounds awfully Christian to me. Christian concepts are an integral part of the way we understand reality, even if you are an atheist.

"Poor and mentally ill"?! That seems to be an incredibly insensitive, elitist, and incorrect statement. Not only are there a lot of smart people who are religious, there are a lot Rich people (some of whom are dumb, many of whom are very bad, some of whom are great people). I have also known a lot of poor people, religious and not, are a smarter than a lot of rich people I have known. And honestly, some people who are dealing with mental illness (religious and not) who are pretty good people too. It seems like the way you are formulating this plays right into the hands of right-wingers religious fascists.

I am a left Christian, and a big fan of Dan's. I do not like how dismissive he is of anyone who disagrees with him on this, but I always took that as a subset of how dismissive he is of anyone who disagrees with him on anything (which usually does not bother me, because I agree with him on everything else). I really can't complain.

But it seems to me that guys like Dawkins and Harris (admittedly I only know what I have read on Salon) are evangelical atheists, just as arrogant in their disrespect as right wing nut jobs are. Their atheism is just the flip side of intelligent design. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven by empirical means. I believe that God exists, but I cannot prove it, they believe that he does not but cannot prove it. I think they are in fact Atheist theologians, and that is fine. They should just not be so arrogant as to pretend that they have empirical proof for something that is unproveable. Any scientist should know you cannot prove a negative.

C.S. Lewis said the purpose of science was to discover everything about the universe, the natural world, while religion asks if there is anything other than the natural world. Science can't really make any sweeping statements about that--it's outside science's field of expertise. Of course, scientists are free to speculate, just as everyone else is, but concrete evidence one way or the other will be impossible to find.

There are, unfortunately, a lot of religious nutjobs out there that really need to get out of the political arena. But put me down as an intelligent person of faith who also values science.

Did anyone follow the recent Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan exchange on religion? I initially read all the posts, but Sullivan's became progressively more defensive and incoherent, and I needed Sam's to recapitulate (and rebut) them. I'd be interested in opinions by others who followed this exchange.

I find Sam's writing both insightful and humane. He's no flame-thrower, but he angers people by directly challenging their most comforting illusions.

Dawkins is the clearest expositor of complex issues I've ever read and provides the intellectual basis for strong atheism. He speaks to the rational mind, perhaps converting
those in the middle. The religiously committed will need another saviour. The
following is from "Unweaving the Rainbow":

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

If the outraged people of faith in this thread had read Harris' quotation a little more carefully, you would see that he doesn't call all people of faith stupid. He is saying that only the stupid have 100 percent certainty in their faith.

Personally, I don't know if that's true. A recent Pew Center study shows that an overwhelming majority of American claim to never doubt the existence of God. Are the majority of Americans stupid? Actually, don't answer that.

Y'all are reading Harris's argument wrong. I read the whole dialog beyond the link, and his argument is most definitely not "there are no gods because only stupid people believe in them." He actually is quite respectful of the guy he's debating, and goes out of his way to NOT call him stupid, or theists in general, and acknowledging more than once that many fine smart people are theists. Note: "like yourself."

His argument quoted here is that it seems unlikely that God would set up the universe so that the least reflective and educated among us (with specific examples) can believe easily, while those who think and learn more must struggle with doubt and uncertainty in their belief. He's comparing *two kinds of believers*, NOT believers and infidels. This is a condition the other guy in the debate, the liberal non-fundamentalist Catholic, has described and applied to himself. Harris is responding to what the other guy has claimed, and it's a different argument entirely from what commenters here have read into it.

Plus, whatever you think of Harris, he's too smart to argue from an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Mike @14, if you had read anything either of these authors had written, you would know that they don't claim to have proved that there is no God, or that there is, without a doubt, no God. Nor have they proved that there is no Zeus, Odin, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or that the universe isn't sitting on the back of a giant tortoise. No one can ever disprove any of these, but why should one be more of an article of faith than any of the others? It is those of faith (not all of those of faith, but many) who claim to have an answer, to know for sure that whatever it is they believe in is the One Truth, and not all those others. Atheists recognize that the likelihood of any of these options being true is vanishingly tiny, so why not just live your life as if it's the only life you have, and investigate the universe with an open mind?

I have read a lot of Dawkins and a little Harris, again, in Salon, but it is their words. I do not think Harris is nearly as bad as Dawkins, but both of them (Hawkins much more) come off as saying people who hold any religious faith are stupid, and in Dawkins case, often evil.

I could go into long explanations as to the personal experiences that root my faith, but I suspect that that would not interest anyone who does not know me (nor should it). Further it would not prove anything, because these are personal experiences. I agree one should investigate the world with an open mind, but I do not think overtly condemning people, or even implying that a faith in God is equal to a faith in “the Flying Spaghetti Monster” does not really qualify as doing that.

I'm sorry Mike, but I do believe a faith in God is equal to a faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only difference is time.

Atheists don't go around condemning people, though; religious people do that (and again, not all religious people). We will say when we think things don't hold up to logical scrutiny, though, and I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.

I think calling people stupid is condemning people (which Dawkins does, a few people on this thread do, and it seems to me you are doing, with regard to religious people). But perhaps that is a difference in language.

My feelings really do not matter in any of this, so if you or anyone else wants to say that I, and a whole lot of other people are stupid, have fun. I just don't think that it is keeping an open mind or being respectful.

And, thanks for recognizing that not all religious people condemn those who are not religious. As cringe worth as this may be to type "some of my best friends are atheists"

Mike, that's a straw man. You don't seem to see a distinction between criticizing an idea and criticizing the person carrying the idea.

And some of my best friends are believers. I don't think religious people are stupid (there are far too many of them for that to be true), but I do think religious faith is irrational, and I do think people with unwavering dogmatic faith are at best incredibly ignorant and incurious.

I do see the distinction, and to be fair, the pasta thing was going after the idea, and not the person. However, Dawkins, and a few people in this thread, go after the people too.

And I agree dogmatic faith is at best ignorant. I may even believe that on some level religious faith of any kind is irrational, or at least non-rational. But I think that love of many kinds are at least non-rational. Doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it necessarily. Its what you do with it. Just as some more personal love can lead to bad things (abusive relationships), some kinds of faith (which I think is a kind of love) can too.

I've recently seen Richard Dawkins on quite a few talk shows, listened to a few of his debates online, and watched his documentary "The Root of Evil?" His reasoning is solid. Look at all the evil in the world and think about how much violence is a result of religion. Yes, there are some great things that religion can be attributed to, but in my mind, the cons far outweigh the pros.

To angelofthenorth.
How intelligent is it for christians with brains to sit back and let of bunch of close-minded bigots dominate their religion? By allowing the christian right to spew their ignorant and out dated views you give up all right to sit back and complain that all christians aren't ignorant morons.

there are many ways the flying spagehetti monster is not the same. here are a few off the top of my head:

some people like the traditional aspects of faith and.or religion. there is no tradition with the spaghetti.

some people like the ceremony or ritual. spaghetti is without.

some people are brainwashed as children and spend much of their lives evalutating what they were taught, taking the good and leaving the bad.

much religion has a social aspect to it, significantly lacking amongst fsm followers.

some people believe there is something real spiritually but do not know what it might be. one can philosophize about what a "god" might be like, and probably not come up with the fsm.

...

dan, are you serious?

How intelligent is it for americans with brains to sit back and let of bunch of close-minded bigots dominate their country? By allowing george bush and his ilk to spew their ignorant and out dated views you give up all right to sit back and complain that all americans aren't ignorant morons.

infrequent, none of your points address the claim that believing in the FSM is logically equivalent to believing in the Christian god. All you've done is point out the social behaviors associated with belief in the Christian god. One could philosophize about what a god might be like and come up with around 10,000 gods that are not the Christian god. It's been done.

Actually, all this talk of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is blatant heresy. You're all risking a good smiting by the Mighty Blessed Hoof of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (peace be unto her).

it is logically equivalant if you assume there is nothing more to modern religions than a set of beliefs. but there is certainly more than that.

it's not logically equivalent because social and cultural forces are logical. plus, logically, one can see that there are benefits associated with some forms religion that are not present in the FSM faith... er... or as she commonly appears as the MBHofIPU (peace and blessings be upon her).

Nobody said anything about "modern" religions. Religions - all religions - are a set of beliefs (or "meme complexes"), usually based upon a written document alleged to be divinely inspired, or fantastical tales handed down orally from generation to generation. Given a couple thousand years, the odds of FSMism being a firmly established religion with all the expected rituals and culture and ceremony are about even, I'd say.

I certainly hope Dan was not serious with that last post. Jesus Christ, Dan, you are really full of shit sometimes, and I don't think you deserve flak for supporting the Iraq war.

I certainly hope Dan was not serious with that last post. Jesus Christ, Dan, you are really full of shit sometimes, and I'm not even someone who thinks you deserve flak for supporting the Iraq war.

FSMism might be around in a couple thousand years because it's a funny idea demonstrating a valid point. since all it's believers are not inclined to actually, you know, believe it, or practice it's various rituals(?), i'd say chances are far greater that it will never be a firmly established religion. basically it's a good joke. while funny, and a conversation starter or a conversation stopper, it does not adequately address all the reasons someone might enjoy, practice or follow a religion. nor is it intended to.

the point here is that those thousand years add to what might be reduced to a silly belief. there is ritual, tradition, community, morality, brainwashing, discovery...

and that basic "silly belief" might not be so silly. while the inspired document might not be as inspired as some would think, many intelligent people reason their might be a god like force involved in some way with the universe. speculations on that force can be evaluated for worth using factors such as the likelihood of being real (FSM very low), and how well such a belief works with a social system (what does it contribute, what values does it esteem if any, ect...).

oh, and i agree the "modern" was not necessary -- if not misleading. i'm not sure why i even included that word. maybe to make my post too long, like this one.

There are Christians trying to combat the Republican nut jobs who hijacked our faith. We're more or less represented by the Red Letter Christians. We don't receive the level of attention that Dobson and Falwell get, but we try.

Christopher Hitchens's book is supposed to be better than Dawkins and Harris.

(or Dennett).

"religious faith is irrational"

And here we see the division: those like Mike who are religious and not stupid recognize that rationality is not the measure of all things, unless you're Ayn Rand; those who are irreligious tend to prize rationality, even when they misuse it (c.f. Communism), and even in areas where it is inherently irrelevant. Of course religious faith is irrational. So is the love of a mother for an adopted child. These things aren't meant to be rational; that's why it's called faith.

But here is the problem: rationality and reason is where we all have common ground. Not all of us are blessed (or cursed) with religious faith. All of us have some level of rationality and reason. Therefore in order to be sure of being comprehensible to all of your diverse audience in making an argument, you must use rationality and reason. Because we prize what is useful in spheres like politics, rationality and reason get overestimated as useful instruments for areas like religion.

Think of Andrew Sullivan's "Christianist" and "Islamist" terms: they refer specifically to people who use their religion as the sole justification for political policies, instead of respecting the diversity of a polity and making arguments based on reason. Christians are great, Muslims are great, atheists are great -- and all of them need to understand the proper places of reason and faith.

Infrequent @36: Are you actually trying to argue that belief in a god is not the most essential requirement of religion? Sure, ritual and tradition are all well and good, but they're hardly enough to constitute a religion (otherwise I'd like to welcome you to the Church of a Tall Scotch Highball After Work). You protest that those of us who see religion primarily as a preposterous, irrational belief in an invisible guy/woman/unicorn are selling it short, but without that belief, what is there? A bunch of guys in cassocks?

And if you're arguing for religion on utilitarian grounds, I think you'll find that there are at least as many cons as pros, if not more. On that one, I'm again with the CoaTSHAW.

PG @39: Ayn Rand = straw (wo)man, just like Stalin/Hitler are straw men the religious use to decry the evils of atheism. Rational thinking, and its extension, science, is the best way human beings have discovered to understand the world around us. Faith obscures that understanding, which is why a lot of us ain't big fans.

And I'm happy to accept the whole "let's all just get along," "leave me alone to practice my faith and I'll leave you alone" implications of your comment just as soon as there's been an avowed atheist president of the U.S. or when atheism isn't seen in this country as a moral failing, much less when Christianity doesn't dominate every sphere in this nation, public and private.

Superfurry (@40) I do not think Ayn Rand is a straw woman at all. What she is is the intellectual godmother of one of the worst strains in American Politics today (Dobson et al being another). Her strain is fuck everyone else, I want to get mine,“ which is fundamentalist rationality taken to an extreme, just like Dobson and his folks are fundamentalist Christianity (or some imitation of it) taken to the extreme. Combined, these two streams make up most of the modern Republican Party. So on the right atheist assholes and “Christian Assholes” can get along (at least long enough to fuck up our country seriously).

And now, Stalin does not prove Atheists are evil any more than Charles Taylor (Liberian president, avowed Baptist, mass murderer) or Pat Robertson (in addition to all of his other fun stuff, he bankrolled and profited from Taylor’s mass murder- they got diamonds out of it. Pat Robertson is more evil than lot of people know) prove that Christians are evil. There are a lot evil people in every group.

Dan- as other people in this thread have said there are a lot of Christians out there trying to fight against the bigotry on the Christian right, and more importantly refocusing Christianity on what is it supposed to be about, which on Earth is making things better for everyone. Yes we have not had the success we would like, but as someone else pointed out, the fact that Bush is president does not mean every American is evil you and I didn’t let Bush become president. We worked hard against him, but he had won out anyway. It’s the same thing here

And Superfurry, I agree with you that people’s religion should have nothing to do with things like getting elected to public office. The only question should be “what are they going to do?” As someone who I am pretty sure votes the same way you do, I think that talking about how dumb you think religious faith is going to get you there.

And I absolutely think rationality has to be the basis for public policy. Things like abstinence only education, particularly the steering people away from condoms are about as evil as they could be. When faith is taken too far is when it gives justification for things like that that do active harm to people. What it all to frequently does (but so do some forms of atheism). Anything that says that something is more important than the welfare of your fellow human beings (be it your own self interest, or the dictates of some supposed faith- or in Robertson’s case, the first masquerading as the second, is evil. Pure and simple.

Mike, I think you'll find that the only people subscribing to objectivism (Rand's philosophy) are supreme, "American Psycho"-caliber assholes and college students awed by the idea that "I can do what I want" can be sufficiently puffed up to seem like a viable philosophy. Nowhere in American politics (or American public life) do you find actual objectivism being practiced or preached. Hence, straw woman. Rand has nothing to do with rationality taken to an extreme and everything to do with selfishness taken to an extreme. The two are not equal.

Re your other points, sure, there are good-hearted Christians out there, quite a lot of them, in fact. I know many. But I'd venture to say that they're good-hearted in spite of being Christian, not because of it, no matter what they may think.

I presume your final sentence is supposed to read "I don't think that talking about how dumb you think religious faith is is going to get you there," but I think you're missing the point. The point isn't trying to get an atheist elected president (a guaranteed impossibility in my lifetime). The point is trying to fight the rising tide of superstition and irrational belief that is turning the world into a battlefield, a tide of which, I'm afraid to say, your beliefs are a part, no matter how benignly you practice them.

I obviously disagree with your last sentence, but I know there is nothing I could write to convince you.

Except for this, this country has been vastly majority Christian since its inception. To the extent that irrationality is on the rise (and I can see why you say it is), it is because of a specific brand of Christianity (fundamentalism), and their 30-year ability to politically organize. I, and most Christians, am not a part of that. Just as most Atheists, as you rightly point out, are not objectivists.

As far as the only people who are with Rand are American Psycho assholes or College Students (you are right, they are amongst them), there are some others. Alan Greenspan is one of her main acolytes, as is Grover Norquist, and a whole bunch of other very powerful people who are fucking up this country. Even if they do not know it, pretty much every powerful evil person who is not a Christian fundamentalist owes something to her. And even some of them do.

But you are right, she is about taking selfishness to the extreme, some people would just say that that is taking irrationality to the extreme. That is getting into arguing over langue though (what does rationality really mean?) and I do not think there is even much point in that.

I myself grew up in a Christian household and currently find myself facing a lot of doubts about Christianity though I have nowhere near reached the stage of "atheist" yet. Right now I'm just struggling with my faith a lot. I will probably pick up one of those Sam Harris books and take a look. I have always enjoyed reading Dan Savage but I must say that although I am not a "bible thumper"...I do take offense with the notion that only crazy idiots are Christians and non-believers are only composed of well educated and well adjusted folks. Thats just ignorant and completely misguided. Although I don't count myself among the die-hard Christians, I definitely think its unfair to make such a widespread generalization. Contrary to what the media may have you believe, there are many very well educated and well adjusted people who are Christians just as there are many poorly educated mentally incapacitated athiests and vice versa.

I think a lot of people streotype Christians. I believe there are radical Christans as there are radical factions of Islam, and people choose to base their beliefs of Christianity and Christians on those people and that isn't right. There are Christians who have liberal ideas, are non-judgmental and content to "live and let live." Unfortunately you have some very ignorant close minded people who overshadow them. Someone made the comment that "Athiests don't go around condemning people." However, everything that I have read on here from non-christians has been dripping with disdain and condescension.

@40 superfurryanimal says "Infrequent: Are you actually trying to argue that belief in a god is not the most essential requirement of religion?"

no - i never said that. i did say, however, that there is more to religion than just belief in a deity. and i emphasize that this more i am referring to (community, practice, beliefs, morality, etc...) sets most religions apart from the FSM faith. and i would go as far to say that parts of this more are what people find so attractive, in addition to the thought that there is a god or some sort.

and i certainly wasn't arguing for religion based on utilitarian grounds. i was replying to someone who said FSM will be the same as other religions in 2000 years. i'm not agruing for religion at all! i'm arguing that people should be more civil when talking with the religious (or not talk at all), and be more civil when stereotyping about them on this and various other message boards.

most people here are actually very good about being nice. so maybe this really is preaching to the choir. but seriously, read this thread. you'll find believers against bush, believers apologizing for the hijacking of the christian faith -- all sorts of different kinds of believers. you will also find condescention towards all people who choose to have a religion or faith.

why can't a person be judged for who they are and what their actions are? to give into condemning a group based on a stereotype is neither enlightened nor tolerant. it is that very attitude that made my journey away from organized religion so difficult.

Belief in one or more Gods is common to many religion, but not required. For example, atheist Buddhists are fairly common. Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" specifically attacks blind faith which, given current scientific evidence, faith in God(s) remains. He is quite positive about some Eastern spiritual practices that do not hinge upon blind faith.

Infrequent @47:

Like I said in my comment @40, I'm through with the civility. As soon as my and other people's atheism is given a tenth the respect unquestioningly granted religious people for their beliefs, and as soon as they stop forcing their religious beliefs on me, then I'll start again treating beliefs in imaginary beings (or, if you prefer, traditions centered around beliefs in imaginary beings) with respect.

Every atheist I've ever met has sat by civilly, quietly, respectfully while supposedly harmless believers (and I'm talking family members, etc.) spouted immensely offensive hogwash in the name of their deity. I, for one, am done being respectful of offensive, dangerous lies.

Does that mean I'm immediatly going to be hostile toward you or assume you're a conservative asshole when you say you believe in god? No. I'm going to try to suss out what your beliefs mean. I'm also not going to hesitate to call them illogical or inane if I see them as such. Sorry, but I've been told too often that I'm going to hell for not believing in god to hold my tongue anymore. But don't blame me, blame the religious wackos who've coopted your faith.

And butterw, I, like Harris, don't have much of a problem with "religions" not fundamentally based on blind faith. Certain strands of Buddhism et al. are essentially philosophies, and they have a lot of good things to say. Just like some of the moral teachings at the heart of Christianity (golden rule, for instance). It's the unsupportable belief in the invisible guy in the clouds that screws everything up.

My biggest problem with atheists, especially atheists who are taking an active role in social change, is that they often blame "religion" for a lot of problems without taking the time to unpack what that means. They shrug their shoulders and say that believing in God (or gods, or goddess, the Tao, or the force, or Nirvhana, or the Flying Spaghetti Monstero, or what have you) is what causes all of these problems. They then focus all of their attention on attacking belief rather than deconstructing the misogyny, racism, classism, imperialism, and other evil crap in the same way they deconstruct and criticize them in other areas of life.

And the thing is, atheists make damned good arguments against organized religion. But they make only childishly simplistic arguments against the existence of God. Which is fine for pissing off the people who believe in God in a childlishly simplistic way, but I have yet to meet an atheist whose arguments cause me the slightest bit of discomfiture (except in the sense that I wish they would shut the fuck up and quit trying to convert me using the same arguments repeated over and over, just increasingly louder and angrier...who does that sound like?).

The point is, if atheists can't respect a believer's right to believe, they are guilty of the same transgression that they (understandably) blame Christians for: brain policing.

Fact is, some people (even intelligent ones who have heard all of your arguments and understand them) will choose to believe, some won't.

Get the flying fuck over it already. It's none of your business what other people want to think about in their spare time. And I say "want" because in the end, faith is an act of volition and desire; we find comfort and joy and other kinds of meaning in our beliefs. Stop telling me I'll be happier and better if I embrace your realism; I won't.

What people DO to each other, however, is everyone's business. Don't lose valuable time that could be spent in attending to that.

Lauren @50:

I can honestly say that I've never met an atheist who tries to go around "converting" people to atheism, unless you call engaging people in discussions of their beliefs when they bring them up trying to convert them. You have, though, and I'm sure they're out there. I guess now you know what it's like to live in a predominantly Christian nation in which other people's beliefs/philosophy are crammed down your throat everywhere you turn. It's hardly "brain policing" to voice one's own opinions and criticize an institution one sees as detrimental to society.

Two other points:
-- Most of us atheists are quite capable of decrying both religion and classism/racism/sexism/-isms. Just because religion happens to be interwoven with many of these doesn't mean we're ignoring the rest of it.
-- You make the same mistake so many believers make: You presume that the burden of (dis)proof lies with atheists. In fact, it lies with the believer -- recall Russell's teapot.

I guess now you know what it's like to live in a predominantly Christian nation in which other people's beliefs/philosophy are crammed down your throat everywhere you turn.

1. That was my point; if it's bullshit for Christians to do it, it's bullshit for atheists to do it. And stop griping: atheists aren't the only ones who have to deal with Christian bullshit. I'm a gnosticy-pagany type with self-determined beliefs, and I generally find atheists to be just as much of a proselytizing pain in the ass as Christians, especially when they assume that if I don't agree with them, I've been brainwashed by Christians, am a Christian, etc.

It's hardly "brain policing" to voice one's own opinions and criticize an institution one sees as detrimental to society.

2. What a fucking stupid straw man argument. In case you didn't notice, genius, my whole point in posting was to point out that too much focus on criticizing belief in the existence of God (which doesn't hurt anyone) distracts one from criticizing the institution of the church (which does). You're displaying that you, too, see the two as inseperable. Smart.

As for "voicing one's own opinions"...fine, voice whatever you like, I'll listen and probably even find it interesting. I have no problem with people who have an opinion. I have a problem with people who won't leave well enough alone when they see that I don't share it.

Most of us atheists are quite capable of decrying both religion and classism/racism/sexism/-isms. Just because religion happens to be interwoven with many of these doesn't mean we're ignoring the rest of it.

I said that atheists "often" get so caught up in fighting belief in God that they forget the other stuff. I didn't say anything about what most atheists are capable of.

You make the same mistake so many believers make: You presume that the burden of (dis)proof lies with atheists. In fact, it lies with the believer -- recall Russell's teapot.

No, I assume that burden of proof LIES WITH NOBODY and that belief and non-belief can, and should, peacefully coexist without people being asshats about it. I'm not trying to argue for the existence of God, here - I'm arguing that stupidity and brainwashing aren't the only reasons for belief in God.

And you know what? Maybe it is a fantasy. I've heard all the arguments and recognize that there's a good chance that it is. But I know myself well enough to know that believing it helps me to be happier, braver, and a better person than not believing does, and frankly, I'd rather be happy, brave, and good than be right. That in itself is no one's business but my own, and neither Dan Savage nor anyone else has the ultimate right to tell me that what I know about myself and faith is wrong, or that I'd be better off with a different decision.

So there it is. Call it stupid, call it delusional, call it whatever the fuck you want, but please, call it that once and then LEAVE ME ALONE. That's the difference between expressing an opinion and being a fuckwad authoritarian who thinks he has some right to rule the life of another.

Lauren @ 50 (and 52, I guess)
"Atheists aren't the only ones who have to deal with Christian bullshit."

You're exactly right. Many Christians have to put up with other Christians bullshit as well. The Christians who hold more liberal ideas have to consistently deal with the scrutiny of conservative "die-hards" who are quick to accuse them of not being "true Christians."

Lauren @52 wrote
"belief in the existence of God (which doesn't hurt anyone)"

This is a naive and dangerous fallacy. Nothing exists in a vacuum -- what do you think gave rise to the very institution of the church that you decry? And there are plenty of insanely dangerous believers who have little to no connection to an explicit institution.

Re your point No. 1, sounds like you've run into some real cock-punching blowhards, which is too bad. I will say that your experience in no way is even remotely close to mine. 95 percent of the atheists I've met don't try to force their rationality on believers, whereas 95 percent of the religious folks I've met (who make up most of the people I've met) have either explicitly or implicitly criticized my and others' atheism.

But seriously, if you have such an aversion to discussing your beliefs, why allow the subject to come up? Why, when someone asks you about your religion, don't you just say, "I like to keep my beliefs private"? Seems like that would end all possible attempts to "convert" you, and it jibes perfectly with your "just leave me alone" philosophy.

"belief and non-belief can, and should, peacefully coexist without people being asshats about it."

Wouldn't that be nice? Too bad believers have spent millennia being murderous asshats about it, and too bad atheists finally standing up and calling bullshit is seen as strident proselytizing.

Since you seem kind of defensive, I'll just remark that nowhere have I questioned your specific beliefs -- I don't know you well enough for that conversation. And I don't know about delusional, but I do know that I'll stop criticizing Christians once they stop running my country like a fucking prayer circle and, yes, LEAVE ME ALONE.

superfurry -- look at your attitude! you've let the christians corrupt you! you went as far as to assume that both lauren and i were christians when we are not. look where your preconceived notions take you.

on the bright side, you write, Does that mean I'm immediately going to be hostile toward you or assume you're a conservative asshole when you say you believe in god? this would seem to be exactly what i'm advocating: not judging until you know. that's all i'm saying should be done.

that is not what you say you are doing here: I'm through with the civility. As soon as my and other people's atheism is given a tenth the respect unquestioningly granted religious people for their beliefs, and as soon as they stop forcing their religious beliefs on me. here you imply you will judge anyone who claims to be theist simply because other theists have treated you poorly in the past (and on numerous occasions). if you are going to judge at all, please at least judge the person, not the stereotype you believe fits that person.

otherwise, +1+1 for lauren. i should really just let her do the posting...

I guess now you know what it's like to live in a predominantly Christian nation in which other people's beliefs/philosophy are crammed down your throat everywhere you turn.

1. That was my point; if it's bullshit for Christians to do it, it's bullshit for atheists to do it. And stop griping: atheists aren't the only ones who have to deal with Christian bullshit. I'm a gnosticy-pagany type with self-determined beliefs, and I generally find atheists to be just as much of a proselytizing pain in the ass as Christians, especially when they assume that if I don't agree with them, I've been brainwashed by Christians, am a Christian, etc.

It's hardly "brain policing" to voice one's own opinions and criticize an institution one sees as detrimental to society.

2. What a fucking stupid straw man argument. In case you didn't notice, genius, my whole point in posting was to point out that too much focus on criticizing belief in the existence of God (which doesn't hurt anyone) distracts one from criticizing the institution of the church (which does). You're displaying that you, too, see the two as inseperable. Smart.

As for "voicing one's own opinions"...fine, voice whatever you like, I'll listen and probably even find it interesting. I have no problem with people who have an opinion. I have a problem with people who won't leave well enough alone when they see that I don't share it.

Most of us atheists are quite capable of decrying both religion and classism/racism/sexism/-isms. Just because religion happens to be interwoven with many of these doesn't mean we're ignoring the rest of it.

I said that atheists "often" get so caught up in fighting belief in God that they forget the other stuff. I didn't say anything about what most atheists are capable of.

You make the same mistake so many believers make: You presume that the burden of (dis)proof lies with atheists. In fact, it lies with the believer -- recall Russell's teapot.

No, I assume that burden of proof LIES WITH NOBODY and that belief and non-belief can, and should, peacefully coexist without people being asshats about it. I'm not trying to argue for the existence of God, here - I'm arguing that stupidity and brainwashing aren't the only reasons for belief in God.

And you know what? Maybe it is a fantasy. I've heard all the arguments and recognize that there's a good chance that it is. But I know myself well enough to know that believing it helps me to be happier, braver, and a better person than not believing does, and frankly, I'd rather be happy, brave, and good than be right. That in itself is no one's business but my own, and neither Dan Savage nor anyone else has the ultimate right to tell me that what I know about myself and faith is wrong, or that I'd be better off with a different decision.

So there it is. Call it stupid, call it delusional, call it whatever the fuck you want, but please, call it that once and then LEAVE ME ALONE. That's the difference between expressing an opinion and being a fuckwad authoritarian who thinks he has some right to rule the life of another.

whoops. Not sure how that got posted twice.

Infrequent @55:

Two points or so, and then I've gotta be done; digging this post up every time is killing me.

1. Remind me again where I called either of you Christian or made any inferences about or explicit critiques of your personal beliefs? Oh, right. I didn't. Yet I'm being repeatedly attacked for not being respectful enough. Puhleeze.

2. The two other quotes of mine, which you seem to view as somehow contradicting each other, are actually perfectly complementary. The first one says, in essence, "I'm not going to be hostile toward you or your beliefs until I know what they are." The second one says, "Once I know what your beliefs are, if I find them questionable or offensive, I'm not going to be civil about them." Simple enough, right?

Other than that, you bandy around the word "judge" a lot, which is not a word I ever used and which implies prejudging. As point 2 above should indicate, I don't assume every Christian I meet is a rabid right-winger. Does that mean I don't still find belief in god laughable, when I don't find it deplorably dangerous? Of course not.

What would you think if I told you in all seriousness that I believe in giant invisible lizards that live in the clouds and predetermine our every move from afar? Well, you might not say anything to my face and you might be civil, but behind my back, I bet you'd be making circles by the side of your head with your index finger and chuckling. If, however, 60-80 percent of the American public believed in the glorious Lizard Gods and everywhere you turned, you were told that if you didn't worship them you'd be gnawed on slowly by the Enormous Rat of Punishment for all eternity, well, then you might not be quite so civil anymore.

This is a naive and dangerous fallacy.

Look up the word "fallacy." You're mis-using it. (Hint: its meaning is generally understood to have a more specific than just a fancy way of saying "wrong.")

Belief in God, all by itself, doesn't hurt anyone. That's as plain as saying water gets you wet.

what do you think gave rise to the very institution of the church that you decry?

The same thing that always gives rise to oppressive institutions: politics. Racism. Sexism. Xenophobia. The desire of some to hold power over others. It's just that perversion of spiritual beliefs has proven to be one particularly useful way to do this. Concluding that believing in God somehow caused all of this truly IS a logical fallacy, and it's like saying that sex is evil because of the existence of rape.

And there are plenty of insanely dangerous believers who have little to no connection to an explicit institution.

There are also plenty of insanely dangerous non-believers. Thus, by your logic, dangerous insanity is caused by non-belief. But wait, it's caused by belief as well! We're all DOOOOMED!!!!

I've met both annoying and reasonable atheists, and I've met both annoying and reasonable theists. People are people. I'm not the one making universal pronouncements about folks based on one fact of belief; you are.

(Besides, I very much doubt you would be capable of distinguishing a blowhard atheist from a reasonable one, as you are currently demonstrating yourself to be pretty damn blowhardy yourself.)

But seriously, if you have such an aversion to discussing your beliefs, why allow the subject to come up? Why, when someone asks you about your religion, don't you just say, "I like to keep my beliefs private"?

Because I DON'T like to keep my beliefs private, nor do I feel I should have to. I can talk about my spirituality in the same way I talk about my hobbies or favorite movies, without making other people feel they have to subscribe to the that which gives my life meaning. That said, I don't talk about it unless I feel people are interested and comfortable with the subject, OR unless I have to defend my right to believe what I want against a)a Christian who tells me I'm going to hell or b)an atheist who tells me I'm stupid, irrational, brainwashed, etc. I don't appreciate either insinuation and am not going to answer them with, "I'd rather not talk about this, thanks."

Seems like that would end all possible attempts to "convert" you, and it jibes perfectly with your "just leave me alone" philosophy.

I'd be trading peace and quiet for the sake of letting the fundamentalist assholes win. No thanks. Besides, I don't bring it up unless someone's attacking my right to believe, or insulting me.

Wouldn't that be nice? Too bad believers have spent millennia being murderous asshats about it, and too bad atheists finally standing up and calling bullshit is seen as strident proselytizing.

The majority of people the Christians have killed have been either those they considered pagans or other Christians who weren't behaving themselves, or Jews, or other believers. Not many atheists. Atheism is a relatively new belief system that has largely come into existence because it's become fairly safe to do so.

Atheists, however, have done more than their share of killing believers. Ever heard of the Bolshevik party in Communist Russia?

Human beings kill other human beings for not agreeing with each other. It doesn't matter which belief you're talking about.

And I don't know about delusional, but I do know that I'll stop criticizing Christians once they stop running my country like a fucking prayer circle and, yes, LEAVE ME ALONE.

I'm not a Christian. You certainly are thick, aren't you?

95 percent of the atheists I've met don't try to force their rationality on believers,

"Their rationality"? Oh, that's an unbiased, non-insulting-to-others way to describe one's belief. How many, offhand, passive-agressive little insults like that do you know? All the better to put a theist on the defensive and get them to say, "Excuse me, I don't appreciate the implication that my beliefs are irrational," so that you can later point to them and say, "She started it! I was just minding my own business."

Fuckstick.