Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, November 27, 2009
City / Religion It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas
Posted by David Schmader on Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:10 PM
And here's the best decoration I've seen yet, slapped on the side of a Metro bus:
I am not an atheist—to me, atheism seems like the most benign form of fundamentalism—but I approve of atheism being part of the religious conversation. (Also, this bus ad struck me as 10,000 times more punk-rock than anything Green Day's ever done.)
Also, who knew Butterfly McQueen—supporting star of Gone with the Wind and Mildred Pierce—was such an atheist bad-ass?
Thanks to the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
1
"to me, atheism seems like the most benign form of fundamentalism"
Could you please explain what you mean by this? Are you saying that everyone should be agnostic?
Could you please explain what you mean by this? Are you saying that everyone should be agnostic?
2
I mean that saying with certainty that God doesn't exist isn't much different than saying with certainty that God exists.
(And I'm not saying everyone should be anything.)
(And I'm not saying everyone should be anything.)
3
I was a bit confused by that comment too. I guess I would have normally defined 'fundamentalism' as (something like) the belief that one's religious texts are to be interpreted as literally as possible. Now maybe I'm just totally off with that understanding of fundamentalism, but if not, it's hard to see how it would apply to atheism.
4
Given the absence of evidence that god exists, it's pretty safe to say god doesn't. Or should we be uncertain over elves, fairies and goblins, too?
5
Agreed about the irony of needing faith to be an atheist. However, freedom from religion does not equal atheism, in spite of the text of the ad. After seeing one of the FFRF's bus ads a couple weeks ago, I've since learned that they seek to include agnostics and atheists in their tent. This works for me, even if I'm not a joiner.
The idea that non-religious people who value community and values and stuff need some kind of good-deed-committing organizing group is very interesting to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27a…
The idea that non-religious people who value community and values and stuff need some kind of good-deed-committing organizing group is very interesting to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27a…
6
@2: Why would being an atheist imply that you believe in the non-existence of God with _certainty_? Most atheists I know aren't the sort who believe anything with absolute 100% certainty. They just believe in something with a conviction that is proportional to the evidence in its favor. And since it's (pretty much) impossible to have evidence that guarantees (with no possibility of ever being in error) that some hypothesis or theory or belief is true, then no beliefs should be held with 100% certainty.
7
There is a difference between the atheism of folks like my dad, "I believe there is no God," and those who take it further to, "I believe that the non-existence of God, now and forever, is a proven Fact and those who harbor any sort of spiritual or religious beliefs are fools at best."
The former is a rational way of looking at the world. The latter is in fact a form of fundamentalism.
The former is a rational way of looking at the world. The latter is in fact a form of fundamentalism.
8
Just the concept of God is purely human. It was the explanation for things people didn't understand. But now we understand many of those things and much more. God is obsolete.
9
@4- Uncertain, sure. Absolute certain is hubris. I'd say its almost certainly true that there is no such thing as the supernatural or divine. When it comes to specific beliefs, most are absurd, completely contradicted by the evidence at hand.
10
look at it this way.... If humans didn't invent the concept of "god" then I wouldn't hold them accountable to prove it. Unless they can prove without a doubt that god exists...he simply doesn't.
It's not my job to run around to every crazy person on the street and explain why their whacko conspiracy theory isn't true.....
It's not my job to run around to every crazy person on the street and explain why their whacko conspiracy theory isn't true.....
11
So not believing in a god is being a fundamentalist now? How does that work? You have a huge misunderstanding for what atheism is. No atheist is 100% certain that there are no gods, but in the absence of any evidence, we an be certain enough to not believe. That's like saying that if you don't believe in [insert mythological creature here] that you're a fundamentalist since you can't prove with 100% certainty that they don't exist. It's never about saying with absolute certainty that some sort of being that one might call "god" never has and never will exist, but saying that you don't believe in one since there's no quantifiable human way to detect one and therefore no reason to believe in something that has no proof. You can make up stories and religions all you want, but without showing us the evidence, then we can't believe. Where is the fundamentalism in that?
12
The problem is that you can be an atheist without being certain no gods exist whatsoever. The same people who say BS like "I am more certain that God does not exist than I am that I do exist" also call themselves atheists, which causes a problem for more reasonable atheists such as myself, who simply don't believe any gods exist but don't make any point of claiming to be sure about it.
14
11: Not believing in God is fine, but insisting "There is no God" is flirting with fundamentalism. (Which is also fine—there's no law against flirting with fundamentalism, or even getting it on with fundamentalism.)
For fun, let's quote John Lennon: "God is a concept by which we measure our pain." Let's trim it to "God is a concept." Do concepts exist? Why yes, concepts exist. Can you prove that concepts exist? What a weird question....
For fun, let's quote John Lennon: "God is a concept by which we measure our pain." Let's trim it to "God is a concept." Do concepts exist? Why yes, concepts exist. Can you prove that concepts exist? What a weird question....
15
I can't prove that there isn't a giant jelly donut circling Uranus, yet I am pretty sure that such a thing doesn't exist. Would that make me a fundamentalist A-JellyDonutist?
16
Why not say "Yes, Virginia, there are people who don't believe in God?" I think the ad is a stunt to shock people and create uncomfortable feelings. I don't understand what any other purpose could be. I think the ad will alienate more people and create negative feelings, instead of creating awareness that not everyone is into the Christian interpretation of December 25. It bums me out when I see it...
17
As an atheist, I don't believe that God exists. That's it. There is no more to it. Everything else atheists are accused of is pure propaganda by the christianists.
18
I think a less offensive way to deal with religion is to say you believe in the "theory" of God. That way, you are, like a good scientist, looking for evidence that proves your theory. So far, no one has been able to prove the TOG, at least in a rigorous scientific way, but then again, String Theory has its problems, too....
19
David, I used to think that I was an agnostic because I didn't believe with 100% certainty there was no god.
Then I realized that's not what an atheist is. An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in god, and you don't need 100% certainty to believe something.
Sure, some Atheists do act like fundamentalists but I think that's actually rarer than you'd think, as most atheists I know aren't evangelical about it in any way shape or form.
Then I realized that's not what an atheist is. An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in god, and you don't need 100% certainty to believe something.
Sure, some Atheists do act like fundamentalists but I think that's actually rarer than you'd think, as most atheists I know aren't evangelical about it in any way shape or form.
20
@18 not only that, but they haven't even been able to provide anecdotal evidence that supports the TOG.
21
The key to David's statement is "belief". The existence/non-existence of God(s) is inherently unprovable. A conclusion on a god's existence must be based upon faith. Either way, it's a belief, not based upon fact. Not having facts is not a fact. Strongly suggestive maybe, but not fact.
That's why most atheists fall somewhere along the "belief" line, because they understand this. There cannot be any final certainty, until it's all over.
That's why most atheists fall somewhere along the "belief" line, because they understand this. There cannot be any final certainty, until it's all over.
22
@18, that's a terrible idea.
Scientific theories are generally supported by some evidence, as opposed to ideas or hyphothesis.
Scientific theories are generally supported by some evidence, as opposed to ideas or hyphothesis.
24
@21, certainly it's impossible to not hold a belief, though. Agnosticism is just as much a non certifiable belief as anything else, since everything we do as people is governed by opinion and not 100% certainty.
Anyway, my point is that what really maters is that people acknowledge that their beliefs are, in the end, opinions and not 100% facts. That doesn't mean we have to act like those beliefs are made of paper, though.
Anyway, my point is that what really maters is that people acknowledge that their beliefs are, in the end, opinions and not 100% facts. That doesn't mean we have to act like those beliefs are made of paper, though.
25
@24 - I think we think the same thing - it's not paper belief, it's just understanding the difference between believing something based upon your gut and no external proof, and knowing something because it's been demonstrated and verifiably reproduced.
26
I like the fact that this thread is equally divided between people saying, "Atheists aren't fundamentalists," and other people calling belief in god to mental illness, or comparing it to belief in a giant jelly donut flying around Uranus.
That's cool.
That's cool.
27
Atheism is the absence of belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge. The following link explains why a person can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosti…
Money quote, "An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist."
Money quote, "An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist."
29
@14 If that's the case, then how can you state anything without being a fundamentalist? I don't believe there is a dragon in the next room, I went and checked and saw none, so can I say that "there is no dragon in the next room?" Or should I preface any statement that lacks evidence with "I don't believe...?" To widdle god down to just "a concept" is ridiculous. That's not what "god" is; god is a supernatural being, a creator and/or ruler of the universe, usually omnipotent. Since there is no proof of any sort of greater power, then I can say there is none, just like I can say there is no dragon in the next room, there is no tooth fairy, and vampires do not exist. You can define god as vaguely as you want, you can say god is "some sort of something that may be greater than us and is beyond our comprehension," but that means nothing and isn't what people are referring to when they say god.
30
@14: Please describe in detail your concept of god.
@18: A theory requires a great deal of evidence; so far there is no material evidence of gods. I think you mean the "Hypothesis of God," which has been dealt with by Victor J. Stenger in his book "God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist."
Finally, which god are we discussing? There are so many gods and concepts of god to choose from.
@18: A theory requires a great deal of evidence; so far there is no material evidence of gods. I think you mean the "Hypothesis of God," which has been dealt with by Victor J. Stenger in his book "God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist."
Finally, which god are we discussing? There are so many gods and concepts of god to choose from.
31
It looks like most other people have covered the "benign fundamentalism" pretty well. But I'll just throw in some technical terms for you: There's "weak atheism" and "strong atheism." Weak atheism refers to the simple *lack* of belief in a god/gods. Most atheists are like this (Dawkins, Harris, etc) - it's the rational standpoint that does not claim or deny existence.
"strong atheism" - the type you're referring to is the positive statement that "God does not exist." You have it covered - it's a bit silly to try to prove a negative like that.
If you're concerned with atheism's role in religious dialogue, then you REALLY need to differentiate these terms and make sure you're using the right ones.
Bonus points: If you, personally, consider yourself an agnostic (rather than a big-bad-atheist), I'd say you're an atheist and you just haven't realized that label. DO you hold a believe in god/gods? No? You're an atheist. Do you believe that no one can even KNOW if God exists? If so, it sounds like you still don't believe in God. Again, you're an atheist.
"strong atheism" - the type you're referring to is the positive statement that "God does not exist." You have it covered - it's a bit silly to try to prove a negative like that.
If you're concerned with atheism's role in religious dialogue, then you REALLY need to differentiate these terms and make sure you're using the right ones.
Bonus points: If you, personally, consider yourself an agnostic (rather than a big-bad-atheist), I'd say you're an atheist and you just haven't realized that label. DO you hold a believe in god/gods? No? You're an atheist. Do you believe that no one can even KNOW if God exists? If so, it sounds like you still don't believe in God. Again, you're an atheist.
33
I came here to say the same thing a lot of other people already have. Most atheists don't believe with any certainty that there can't be a god or spirit or whatever. It's just that the evidence for any of the specific gods or spirits that people believe in (or have believed in the past) is really lacking.
Also, since the universe looks like it functions pretty well without a god to keep it going (unless he's deliberately hiding his presence from us), there seems to be no reason to think any such thing exists.
If we find solid evidence that proves the existence of some type of god tomorrow, nearly everyone who calls themselves atheists today will become believers.
Reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_…
Also, since the universe looks like it functions pretty well without a god to keep it going (unless he's deliberately hiding his presence from us), there seems to be no reason to think any such thing exists.
If we find solid evidence that proves the existence of some type of god tomorrow, nearly everyone who calls themselves atheists today will become believers.
Reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_…
34
So anyone who's concept of god you don't reject doesn't believe in god.
Check.
You can define god as vaguely as you want, you can say god is "some sort of something that may be greater than us and is beyond our comprehension," but that means nothing and isn't what people are referring to when they say god.
So anyone who's concept of god you don't reject doesn't believe in god.
Check.
36
From 29:
To widdle god down to just "a concept" is ridiculous. That's not what "god" is; god is a supernatural being, a creator and/or ruler of the universe, usually omnipotent.
You can define god as vaguely as you want, you can say god is "some sort of something that may be greater than us and is beyond our comprehension," but that means nothing and isn't what people are referring to when they say god.
It's awesome how you know exactly what God is and isn't, and exactly what "people" believe in and what they're referring to when they say "god." No wonder you're bristling so hard at possibly being labelled a fundamentalist—it makes you feel naked.
To widdle god down to just "a concept" is ridiculous. That's not what "god" is; god is a supernatural being, a creator and/or ruler of the universe, usually omnipotent.
You can define god as vaguely as you want, you can say god is "some sort of something that may be greater than us and is beyond our comprehension," but that means nothing and isn't what people are referring to when they say god.
It's awesome how you know exactly what God is and isn't, and exactly what "people" believe in and what they're referring to when they say "god." No wonder you're bristling so hard at possibly being labelled a fundamentalist—it makes you feel naked.
37
I guess you're some kind of "fundamentalist" if say you think there are no dragons or unicorns?
Calling atheists fundamentalists is yet another tactics used to bully atheists into keeping their beliefs in the closet. It is only polite to pretend "nobody knows for sure" if there are dragons or unicorns, and some religious moderate will jump your shit if you tell the truth and say there's no such thing. Just keep your mouth shut because only religious true believers have permission to stand up and say what they really think.
Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation went into some depth on the culpability of Christian moderates in making the world safe and comfortable for religious nutballs to incite all kinds of hatred and violence without anybody being allowed to stand up and answer them back.
So anyway, Schmader. No, atheists are not fundamentalists and it's shitty to hold them to your contrived and incorrect definitions of "atheist" and "fundamentalist." Have a little respect.
Calling atheists fundamentalists is yet another tactics used to bully atheists into keeping their beliefs in the closet. It is only polite to pretend "nobody knows for sure" if there are dragons or unicorns, and some religious moderate will jump your shit if you tell the truth and say there's no such thing. Just keep your mouth shut because only religious true believers have permission to stand up and say what they really think.
Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation went into some depth on the culpability of Christian moderates in making the world safe and comfortable for religious nutballs to incite all kinds of hatred and violence without anybody being allowed to stand up and answer them back.
So anyway, Schmader. No, atheists are not fundamentalists and it's shitty to hold them to your contrived and incorrect definitions of "atheist" and "fundamentalist." Have a little respect.
38
@34 & 36 The point I was trying to make is that defining god as "something" doesn't mean anything. Tell me what god is, what your definition of god is and what evidence for it you have. Most people are referring to an omnipotent creator when they refer to god. Why? Because that's the definition, because that's what most religions believe in. Widdling god down to some vague irrefutable concept and saying "you're a fundamentalist because you're saying you to believe in concepts!" is ridiculous and completely missing the point.
39
David: I don't think it's "fundamentalist" for me to say that I am convinced that there is no God. There are annoying, belligerent atheists out there that go around yelling at anybody that says "god bless you" when they sneeze, but assholes are assholes regardless of personal beliefs. Fundamentalists are generally absolutely opposed to scientific inquiry, debate, or questioning of their faith. It's rather difficult to lump atheists into a category like that, since the demographic tends to really only share one common factor: lack of belief in a deity or deities. Some of us are insufferable, pushy dickheads, but that doesn't really make us all "fundamentalists".
41
I just want to point out that I'm not being all knee-jerk aggressive here; I just feel like you've come to an incorrect conclusion and wanted to offer my opinion. I think atheists such as myself do owe it to themselves to present themselves as civil in these sorts of discussions.
42
@ 16: You have the right approach! You don't get someone to value or even consider your opinion with a blatant assualt on their's.
The organization should be renamed: The Freedom From CHRISTIANITY Foundation, cuz That's What It IS.
Prove me wrong with a bus ad that reads "Yes Akmed, the is no Allah." They wouldn't have the balls...
David, what's punk rock about purchasing ad space on a bus? Wouldn't an organized spray paint campaign be more apropo?
The organization should be renamed: The Freedom From CHRISTIANITY Foundation, cuz That's What It IS.
Prove me wrong with a bus ad that reads "Yes Akmed, the is no Allah." They wouldn't have the balls...
David, what's punk rock about purchasing ad space on a bus? Wouldn't an organized spray paint campaign be more apropo?
44
@27: thank you for the link. This is the most rational explanation of agnosticism vs. atheism I've seen and it has saved me from having to write my own comment attempting to do the same. :)
46
@42, Some of the other slogans for this campaign that were considered we "9/11 was a faith based initiative" and "Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings".
47
My Name is Virginia! I am a Virgin. I am Santa's sex kitten. Is that a concept or is it FUNdamental?
48
"atheism seems like the most benign form of fundamentalism"
Get some balls and say it IS the most benign form of fundamentalism. At least then we can call you wrong, show you why, and you wouldn't get to pussyfoot around with weak statements like that.
'There isn't any credible proof for god' Where's the fundamentalism in that statement?
Does the passive disbelief in anything become fundamentalism once YOU are too chicken to consider the implications? Or do you have an emotional investment in the existence of superman, santa, and the tooth fairy as well? Why not come out against disbelievers in those 'concepts'?
Or do we have to keep an open mind about every single wacky man-made character that's ever devised?
Oh, and your response to 29 was smarmy and childish. This was a pathetic post with a pathetic attempt at defending yourself. Go re-read your post at 36. Seriously, now ask yourself, if THAT is the kind of argument you have to resort to, should you possibly reconsider your position? Or are you too cool to do even that?
When someone says 'god', we know what they mean. And if you have to keep redefining 'god' to get around all the flaws in your beliefs, well, what are you left with? Just click your heels together, say 'I want to believe' and keep that personal delusion to yourself from now on.
Get some balls and say it IS the most benign form of fundamentalism. At least then we can call you wrong, show you why, and you wouldn't get to pussyfoot around with weak statements like that.
'There isn't any credible proof for god' Where's the fundamentalism in that statement?
Does the passive disbelief in anything become fundamentalism once YOU are too chicken to consider the implications? Or do you have an emotional investment in the existence of superman, santa, and the tooth fairy as well? Why not come out against disbelievers in those 'concepts'?
Or do we have to keep an open mind about every single wacky man-made character that's ever devised?
Oh, and your response to 29 was smarmy and childish. This was a pathetic post with a pathetic attempt at defending yourself. Go re-read your post at 36. Seriously, now ask yourself, if THAT is the kind of argument you have to resort to, should you possibly reconsider your position? Or are you too cool to do even that?
When someone says 'god', we know what they mean. And if you have to keep redefining 'god' to get around all the flaws in your beliefs, well, what are you left with? Just click your heels together, say 'I want to believe' and keep that personal delusion to yourself from now on.
50
I'm an atheist, and have never considered myself a fundamentalist. But, I looked it up.
Wikipedia Definition: Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature)...
Why yes I do have a strict adherence to a set of basic principles!
1) I think we should pay attention to the world around us and realize that supernatural influences do not affect it. No matter how much we wish it, there are no intangible forces with power over the physical world.
2) I think that we should base our beliefs on empirical evidence rather than on faith. If an idea is based in truth, it will have power (i.e. documented healing by medical means).
3) I think we should base our society on reality rather than on the idea that we were made in god's perfect image. By denying our human/primate nature, we only prevent ourselves from realizing the best and worst that we can be.
I adhere to this set of basic principles because I believe it will further the cause of civilization. Religion reinforces tribalism, by concurrently demanding suspension of rationality and total moral/political commitment. Skepicism, meanwhile, has led us into an age of enlightenment. The advances of our civilization have all come from questioning, and were and are constantly threatened by religious fundamentalism. So, yeah, I'm proud to be a hard-line fundamentalist atheist, fighting for the progress of civilization, based on a morality independent of some made-up god (either "concept" or "real").
Wikipedia Definition: Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature)...
Why yes I do have a strict adherence to a set of basic principles!
1) I think we should pay attention to the world around us and realize that supernatural influences do not affect it. No matter how much we wish it, there are no intangible forces with power over the physical world.
2) I think that we should base our beliefs on empirical evidence rather than on faith. If an idea is based in truth, it will have power (i.e. documented healing by medical means).
3) I think we should base our society on reality rather than on the idea that we were made in god's perfect image. By denying our human/primate nature, we only prevent ourselves from realizing the best and worst that we can be.
I adhere to this set of basic principles because I believe it will further the cause of civilization. Religion reinforces tribalism, by concurrently demanding suspension of rationality and total moral/political commitment. Skepicism, meanwhile, has led us into an age of enlightenment. The advances of our civilization have all come from questioning, and were and are constantly threatened by religious fundamentalism. So, yeah, I'm proud to be a hard-line fundamentalist atheist, fighting for the progress of civilization, based on a morality independent of some made-up god (either "concept" or "real").
52
Where's Loveschild? Something must be wrong if she/he hasn't proselytized on this thread yet. Isn't it our christian duty to send a SWAT team over to make a welfare check?
53
To reiterate what has been said two dozen times already, atheism does not equal certainty of the lack of existence of God. Almost NO atheist holds that position. The vast, vast majority believe that 1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, 2) Extraordinary evidence has not been presented, 3) There is no reason to believe in a God, and 4) There is even less reason to believe in a Specific God.
54
"Nothing worse than a preachy atheist. Talk about missing the point entirely."
Not much preaching going on in this thread. Just correcting a dumb post. Talk about missing the point entirely!
There's nothing worse than a person who misinterprets rational responses for preaching, and then uses 'preaching' in place of 'coversation.'
Not much preaching going on in this thread. Just correcting a dumb post. Talk about missing the point entirely!
There's nothing worse than a person who misinterprets rational responses for preaching, and then uses 'preaching' in place of 'coversation.'
55
@38
Whittling. Not widdling. Widdling is something you do on a guitar; like noodling. Whittling is using a knife to carve a large piece of wood into a small piece of wood, which is the metaphor you've evidently heard without understanding and have now decided to repeat.
And just as a point of order, there are -- very broadly speaking -- two kinds of religion; revealed and mystical. Without getting into too much detail, revealed religions are generally fairly literal and text-based, while mystical religions tend to be esoteric and doctrinal. So you have your Muslims and your Sufis, your Jews and your cabaalists, your Christians and your Gnostics. Your standard issue Buddhists and your Zen Buddhists. The general idea -- and again, I'm talking in massive generalities here -- is that mystical religions focus on the exploration of unanswerable questions, and are predicated on the notion that contemplation of the divine, while it is unlikely to ever result in an actual understanding of god, is the path to spiritual fulfillment or divine unity or whatever.
While practitioners of revealed religions outnumber practitioners of mystical religions by a couple of orders of magnitude, it is still completely incorrect to state that saying god is beyond human comprehension "means nothing and isn't what people are referring to when they say god." It's not what most people are referring to, but it is what tens of millions of people across the globe are referring to, and many atheists choose to mock those people relentlessly.
Widdling god down to some vague irrefutable concept and saying "you're a fundamentalist because you're saying you to believe in concepts!" is ridiculous and completely missing the point.
Whittling. Not widdling. Widdling is something you do on a guitar; like noodling. Whittling is using a knife to carve a large piece of wood into a small piece of wood, which is the metaphor you've evidently heard without understanding and have now decided to repeat.
And just as a point of order, there are -- very broadly speaking -- two kinds of religion; revealed and mystical. Without getting into too much detail, revealed religions are generally fairly literal and text-based, while mystical religions tend to be esoteric and doctrinal. So you have your Muslims and your Sufis, your Jews and your cabaalists, your Christians and your Gnostics. Your standard issue Buddhists and your Zen Buddhists. The general idea -- and again, I'm talking in massive generalities here -- is that mystical religions focus on the exploration of unanswerable questions, and are predicated on the notion that contemplation of the divine, while it is unlikely to ever result in an actual understanding of god, is the path to spiritual fulfillment or divine unity or whatever.
While practitioners of revealed religions outnumber practitioners of mystical religions by a couple of orders of magnitude, it is still completely incorrect to state that saying god is beyond human comprehension "means nothing and isn't what people are referring to when they say god." It's not what most people are referring to, but it is what tens of millions of people across the globe are referring to, and many atheists choose to mock those people relentlessly.
56
David. I do not think you know what the word "atheist" means. It is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Unless you believe in god(s) yourself, you are an atheist whether you realize it or not.
Do you believe in any gods, David, or are you an atheist too?
Do you believe in any gods, David, or are you an atheist too?
57
@53- So what you're saying is that the majority of Atheists are really Agnostics. Which is probably true and as an Agnostic myself I'm quiet happy to hear that most Atheists aren't as radical as their name suggests.
59
I have a problem with ideological ads targeting children under ten, which is what the "Yes, Virginia..." ad seems to be doing with it's cutesy Santa cartoon. If I were a kid, I'd be devastated by this statement, even though I've been an atheist since college. And forcing parents to have a conversation about religion when kids that age aren't really able to grasp the issues is a little unfair and manipulative.
60
@55 "exploration of unanswerable questions, and are predicated on the notion that contemplation of the divine, while it is unlikely to ever result in an actual understanding of god, is the path to spiritual fulfillment or divine unity or whatever."
sounds kinda S&M kinky to me
sounds kinda S&M kinky to me
61
@59- I see no reason why this should be traumatic. Sample conversations that might occur:
"Mom, why does that billboard have Santa saying there is no God?"
-"Because some people believe differently from us and want to tell us about it, like those Mormons I slammed the door on last week."
"Dad, why does that billboard show Santa saying there is no God?"
-"Because unlike our family, the majority of people believe in God. The people who made the advertisement are trying to convert people to our beliefs. It's like those Jehovah's Witnesses I slammed the door on last week, but not crazy."
"Grandma, why does that billboard with Santa on it say there is no God?"
-"Because the Godless Communists are trying to muscle into our racket. Now shut up, look cute, and hand out those Chick Comics."
"Mom, why does that billboard have Santa saying there is no God?"
-"Because some people believe differently from us and want to tell us about it, like those Mormons I slammed the door on last week."
"Dad, why does that billboard show Santa saying there is no God?"
-"Because unlike our family, the majority of people believe in God. The people who made the advertisement are trying to convert people to our beliefs. It's like those Jehovah's Witnesses I slammed the door on last week, but not crazy."
"Grandma, why does that billboard with Santa on it say there is no God?"
-"Because the Godless Communists are trying to muscle into our racket. Now shut up, look cute, and hand out those Chick Comics."
62
And yes, Butterfly McQueen was an interesting actress with an unfairly circumscribed career who managed to earn a living without losing her dignity and eventually earned a Daytime Emmy before her death in 1995.
63
The certainty that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist is not much different from the certainty in saying he does exist. Bless his noodly appendage.
64
@59
My parents never said anything to me about religion either way. I had assumed they believed in god and that there was a god until I was 9 because god is mentioned everywhere you turn. Then I had a sudden realization, all on my own, that the idea of god didn't make sense to me. I have been agnostic/atheist ever since. Assuming that kids can't grasp these concepts and they need to be protected from the mere idea that god does or doesn't exist is an underestimation. It's good for families on either side of the "debate" to discuss these things with their kids. I know there are families out there that don't want to acknowledge that the other side exists (generally the super-religious types), but that doesn't mean the children don't deserve to be presented with the opportunity to ask questions about it.
My parents never said anything to me about religion either way. I had assumed they believed in god and that there was a god until I was 9 because god is mentioned everywhere you turn. Then I had a sudden realization, all on my own, that the idea of god didn't make sense to me. I have been agnostic/atheist ever since. Assuming that kids can't grasp these concepts and they need to be protected from the mere idea that god does or doesn't exist is an underestimation. It's good for families on either side of the "debate" to discuss these things with their kids. I know there are families out there that don't want to acknowledge that the other side exists (generally the super-religious types), but that doesn't mean the children don't deserve to be presented with the opportunity to ask questions about it.
65
@2
Most atheists aren't saying that. We're saying, in short, "I'll believe it when I see it". That's not being a fundamentalist, that's being rational.
When there is no evidence for the existence of something, the most reasonable position isn't to be on the fence about it. The most reasonable position is to assume that it doesn't exist until some evidence presents itself. That's not extreme, it's sane.
And I just saw that Santa ad today, and was delighted. :)
Most atheists aren't saying that. We're saying, in short, "I'll believe it when I see it". That's not being a fundamentalist, that's being rational.
When there is no evidence for the existence of something, the most reasonable position isn't to be on the fence about it. The most reasonable position is to assume that it doesn't exist until some evidence presents itself. That's not extreme, it's sane.
And I just saw that Santa ad today, and was delighted. :)
66
Interesting points below...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Str…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Str…
Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[34] Michael Martin,[25] and William L. Rowe[35] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[36] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[34] and in Catholic apologetics[37] since at least 1813.[38][39] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists.
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails weak atheism,[25] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[40] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[41]
67
Ah agnosticism. Where you say that it's certain that YOU can't know anything about God, but that I can.
Atheism: the lack of belief in Gods.
Agnosticism: The certainty that Gods are un-knowable. Another form of Strong Atheism.
Atheism: the lack of belief in Gods.
Agnosticism: The certainty that Gods are un-knowable. Another form of Strong Atheism.
68
@36 -- It's awesome how you know exactly what God is and isn't, and exactly what "people" believe in and what they're referring to when they say "god."
If your definition of god is something different, why not define it? The definition you were responding to sounded about right to me. That's what most people mean when they talk about "god": some kind of supernatural, extremely powerful, creator of the universe. That's the definition I'm using when I say I don't believe in god (which, as others have pointed out, saying "I don't believe" is not the same as saying "I am utterly convinced that no god could possibly exist and, even if you could prove it did, I still wouldn't change my mind"; THAT would be a fundamentalist position.) If your definition of god is something different, tell us what it is. I can't say whether I believe in your god if it's so ill defined that I don't even know what you're talking about. Maybe once I do know, it will turn out that we believe in it too.
But if you're going with the whole "god is a concept" thing, well, then that's just a bullshit definition. I mean, yeah, I believe in concepts, so I guess that means I believe in your god, but it doesn't mean I think your god is deserving of praise and adoration and I'm certainly not going to get down on bended knee to worship it.
Not only that, but the further removed you get from the "supernatural creator of the universe" definition of god, the more meaningless the very word "god" becomes. If you have a word that could mean anything from "the all-powerful creator of the universe" to "the half-eaten loaf of bread in my kitchen", you end up with a word that means nothing.
If your definition of god is something different, why not define it? The definition you were responding to sounded about right to me. That's what most people mean when they talk about "god": some kind of supernatural, extremely powerful, creator of the universe. That's the definition I'm using when I say I don't believe in god (which, as others have pointed out, saying "I don't believe" is not the same as saying "I am utterly convinced that no god could possibly exist and, even if you could prove it did, I still wouldn't change my mind"; THAT would be a fundamentalist position.) If your definition of god is something different, tell us what it is. I can't say whether I believe in your god if it's so ill defined that I don't even know what you're talking about. Maybe once I do know, it will turn out that we believe in it too.
But if you're going with the whole "god is a concept" thing, well, then that's just a bullshit definition. I mean, yeah, I believe in concepts, so I guess that means I believe in your god, but it doesn't mean I think your god is deserving of praise and adoration and I'm certainly not going to get down on bended knee to worship it.
Not only that, but the further removed you get from the "supernatural creator of the universe" definition of god, the more meaningless the very word "god" becomes. If you have a word that could mean anything from "the all-powerful creator of the universe" to "the half-eaten loaf of bread in my kitchen", you end up with a word that means nothing.
69
@59:
I wouldn't consider this particular ad to be targeting children, specifically because the reference is one I would venture most children simply wouldn't understand. Most adults, however, are at least minimally cognizant of the source, from a late 1800's newspaper editorial containing the famous response to a child's question, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa claus".
Additionally, the reference points to a more subtle argument being made by the ad, one that I seriously doubt many children, let alone adults, would immediately perceive, namely that, children who believe in Santa Claus invariably grow up into adults who recognize the fallacy of this belief; yet at the same time, many also grow up continuing to believe in a mythological being whose existence is equally devoid of evidence.
The "fundamental" question being asked here is: why, given that proof of the existence of God and Santa stand on essentially equally dubious foundations, do some people continue to insist on the verity of one, but not both?
I wouldn't consider this particular ad to be targeting children, specifically because the reference is one I would venture most children simply wouldn't understand. Most adults, however, are at least minimally cognizant of the source, from a late 1800's newspaper editorial containing the famous response to a child's question, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa claus".
Additionally, the reference points to a more subtle argument being made by the ad, one that I seriously doubt many children, let alone adults, would immediately perceive, namely that, children who believe in Santa Claus invariably grow up into adults who recognize the fallacy of this belief; yet at the same time, many also grow up continuing to believe in a mythological being whose existence is equally devoid of evidence.
The "fundamental" question being asked here is: why, given that proof of the existence of God and Santa stand on essentially equally dubious foundations, do some people continue to insist on the verity of one, but not both?
70
atheism isn't the belief that god doesn't exist. its literally the absence of faith, or the dismissal of religious/superstitial thinking
71
@38, Thank you for your clarification about mystic vs. revealed religion. As an atheist I am more sympathetic to the mystic religions than the others.
David hasn't clarified exactly what he's talking about when he mentions god, but it seems like a more mystical concept, right?
I would call the general concept of god-- revealed or mystic-- the god-phenomenon. This covers everything from the belief in god, the organization of religion, and the experience of spirituality. As an atheist I find it highly improbable that this phenomenon has a supernatural cause. Rather, it's an emergent phenomenon. It's a product of human biology and human culture. Accordingly, the god phenomenon has evolved and changed as human culture and society has changed.
Mystics seem to be more interested in channeling that phenomenon than appealing to the physical reality of a being sprung from our collective imagination. And hey, I won't argue that the god-phenomenon doesn't exist, it clearly does.
That said, a mystic and I would still disagree about the origin of the phenomenon, though we'd probably get along ok.
So David, as an atheist, I disagree about the particulars of god. Or maybe we're in the same belief camp, I don't know because you haven't told us.
But it is a unfair to criticize atheists because they primarily reject the revealed concept of god and don't really address the mystic concept. In American culture we are steeped in the Abrahamic revealed concept of god. It's the concept we're most familiar with and it's perfectly reasonable for us to start are critique from there.
David hasn't clarified exactly what he's talking about when he mentions god, but it seems like a more mystical concept, right?
I would call the general concept of god-- revealed or mystic-- the god-phenomenon. This covers everything from the belief in god, the organization of religion, and the experience of spirituality. As an atheist I find it highly improbable that this phenomenon has a supernatural cause. Rather, it's an emergent phenomenon. It's a product of human biology and human culture. Accordingly, the god phenomenon has evolved and changed as human culture and society has changed.
Mystics seem to be more interested in channeling that phenomenon than appealing to the physical reality of a being sprung from our collective imagination. And hey, I won't argue that the god-phenomenon doesn't exist, it clearly does.
That said, a mystic and I would still disagree about the origin of the phenomenon, though we'd probably get along ok.
So David, as an atheist, I disagree about the particulars of god. Or maybe we're in the same belief camp, I don't know because you haven't told us.
But it is a unfair to criticize atheists because they primarily reject the revealed concept of god and don't really address the mystic concept. In American culture we are steeped in the Abrahamic revealed concept of god. It's the concept we're most familiar with and it's perfectly reasonable for us to start are critique from there.
72
@55 'it is still completely incorrect to state that saying god is beyond human comprehension "means nothing and isn't what people are referring to when they say god."'
I know people who find 'god' in everything they see. They find 'god' in all the mysterious and the profound, or find it in their relationships with other people. So in some respect, you're right about differentiating between religious types.
I for one don't think science or the scientific method are the beginning or end of human knowledge. They're great, but we can't apply the scientific method to every aspect of our beliefs.
That said, when people find 'god' in things, they're more or less fulfilling that impulse towards awe and wonderment at the world that is in all of us. That's great, but when they find 'god' all their doing is taking the trappings of thousands of years of superstition and layering it onto the profound thoughts they're having.
You can still hold those beliefs and no atheist I know would hold that against you at all, particularly because they stem from the unknowable, the philosophical, and things that 'common' methods of understanding simply cannot apply to.
But YOU choose to put the 'god' label on it. Not because there's actually a 'god' involved, but because YOU have limited YOUR mental horizons and willingly accepted the terminology of religion when you could have done so much more.
Redefining god gets you nowhere. Seriously. If you're brave enough to delve into the mystical, be brave enough to shed the religious naming conventions. Call it something else. 'God' is taken, and frankly, you and those like you shouldn't even WANT that term back.
I know people who find 'god' in everything they see. They find 'god' in all the mysterious and the profound, or find it in their relationships with other people. So in some respect, you're right about differentiating between religious types.
I for one don't think science or the scientific method are the beginning or end of human knowledge. They're great, but we can't apply the scientific method to every aspect of our beliefs.
That said, when people find 'god' in things, they're more or less fulfilling that impulse towards awe and wonderment at the world that is in all of us. That's great, but when they find 'god' all their doing is taking the trappings of thousands of years of superstition and layering it onto the profound thoughts they're having.
You can still hold those beliefs and no atheist I know would hold that against you at all, particularly because they stem from the unknowable, the philosophical, and things that 'common' methods of understanding simply cannot apply to.
But YOU choose to put the 'god' label on it. Not because there's actually a 'god' involved, but because YOU have limited YOUR mental horizons and willingly accepted the terminology of religion when you could have done so much more.
Redefining god gets you nowhere. Seriously. If you're brave enough to delve into the mystical, be brave enough to shed the religious naming conventions. Call it something else. 'God' is taken, and frankly, you and those like you shouldn't even WANT that term back.
74
Hey David Schmader, get your bigoted atheist-phobic ass back here and answer some questions.
Schmader?
Schmader?
Bueller?
Schmader?
Schmader?
Bueller?
76
To everyone whose worried about children seeing/reading these signs: Why does everyone think children are so precious? If kids were sheltered from reality a little less and treated to the truth a little more, most of 'em wouldn't be such losers. So they see these signs and learn that other people don't believe in God. Big freaking whoop.
And atheists are now fundies? Give me a break.
And atheists are now fundies? Give me a break.
77
"a giant jelly donut flying around Uranus."
Although I'd love to see that, it sounds sloppy.
I'm pretty firmly in the agnostic camp. I have some faith, but no proof.
Although I'd love to see that, it sounds sloppy.
I'm pretty firmly in the agnostic camp. I have some faith, but no proof.
78
I think it's safe to say that you have no idea what you're talking about. I could go on at some length about the etymology of the word "God", but the core point is that language is fluid and people choose the words that match the concept they're going for best. The word "marriage" is taken too, but nobody wants to give up on that one and start over.
Is that how you got to be such a loser, or did you take some more innovative route?
Call it something else. 'God' is taken, and frankly, you and those like you shouldn't even WANT that term back.
I think it's safe to say that you have no idea what you're talking about. I could go on at some length about the etymology of the word "God", but the core point is that language is fluid and people choose the words that match the concept they're going for best. The word "marriage" is taken too, but nobody wants to give up on that one and start over.
If kids were sheltered from reality a little less and treated to the truth a little more, most of 'em wouldn't be such losers.
Is that how you got to be such a loser, or did you take some more innovative route?
79
I am so angry that you said atheists were fundamentalists that I'm going to prove how reasonable and sane we are by writing a long angry screed!!!
80
I'm more of an apatheist. I truly do not give a shit. But I like the Church of the Militant Agnostic: We Don't Know, and You Don't Either!
81
@72 Then what would you do with wonderment? How could you translate it into something not god without taking it away? The scientific approach (Of course the sunset is bright orange, it's just dust particles scattering light stupid) seems to fall flat here.
82
I'm with Eric Hoffer who opined, "The opposite of a religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."
83
I find that most people that call atheists ‘fundamentalists’ fall into two camps. They are either theists attempting to insult atheists by saying theists and atheists have the same intellectual failings, and by extension insulting themselves, and agnostics and atheists that are making an attempt to sound reasonable and fair. Other people above have pointed out why calling atheists fundamentalists is inaccurate.
The reason this bugs me isn’t because of the dictionary definition of fundamentalist, but the imagery it surely brings up in everyone’s head when this word is used. Atheists don’t bomb churches, shoot doctors, or deny health care based on delusional beliefs. All these things are what anyone who watches the news in America associates with the word fundamentalist.
Also, given direct immutable physical proof of the fallacy of their beliefs, fundamentalist Christians still believe that the Earth is six thousand years old. Given proof of the existence of a god as convincing as that for evolution or the age of the Earth, I like any other atheist from Dawkins to Hitchens to Harris would concede that god exists.
Being called a fundamentalist is never a compliment because of all of the terrible behavior that is associated with that word.
Also, I don’t think these ads are aimed at theists. I think they are aimed at the millions of Americans that have come to atheism or agnosticism on their own, and have been cowed into silence by the churches. It seems like more of a positive affirmation than an attempt to win converts.
The reason this bugs me isn’t because of the dictionary definition of fundamentalist, but the imagery it surely brings up in everyone’s head when this word is used. Atheists don’t bomb churches, shoot doctors, or deny health care based on delusional beliefs. All these things are what anyone who watches the news in America associates with the word fundamentalist.
Also, given direct immutable physical proof of the fallacy of their beliefs, fundamentalist Christians still believe that the Earth is six thousand years old. Given proof of the existence of a god as convincing as that for evolution or the age of the Earth, I like any other atheist from Dawkins to Hitchens to Harris would concede that god exists.
Being called a fundamentalist is never a compliment because of all of the terrible behavior that is associated with that word.
Also, I don’t think these ads are aimed at theists. I think they are aimed at the millions of Americans that have come to atheism or agnosticism on their own, and have been cowed into silence by the churches. It seems like more of a positive affirmation than an attempt to win converts.
85
Yeah, that's a stupid argument. Because, for one thing, you're wrong about "what atheists do". In the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, the state and semi-state organs such as the Society of the Godless carried out an aggressive campaign of eradicating religion in the USSR that involved imprisoning or executing thousands of people (at a minimum) and destroying tens of thousands of churches. In the People's Republic of China, only state-approved religions are allowed, and the government actively prosecutes practitioners of unapproved religions such as Falun Gong.
Also, the overwhelming majority of fundamentalist Christians would condemn all of the behaviors you've described. The things you're talking about are the acts of a lunatic fringe of fundamentalism that is not sanctioned by the majority of fundamentalists. So you're basically saying that you don't want to be called a fundamentalist because you paint all fundamentalists with the same brush and you don't want to get any of what you're slinging on atheists. It's like saying you don't want anyone mistaking you for a Muslim because you don't want anyone to think you're a terrorist.
As I indicated above, there is such a thing as a fundamentalist atheist, and fundamentalist atheists have done some pretty terrible things. Stalin, Mao and, arguably, Hitler, all carried out state-sponsored campaigns of harassment, mass-murder, mass-imprisonment, and theft based on anti-religious policies.
Yes, I'm sure Christians feel that way about the majority of their religious displays as well. For some reason, people outside the sect seem to have a different reaction to conspicuous displays of ideological piety than people inside the sect.
More...
Atheists don’t bomb churches, shoot doctors, or deny health care based on delusional beliefs. All these things are what anyone who watches the news in America associates with the word fundamentalist.
Yeah, that's a stupid argument. Because, for one thing, you're wrong about "what atheists do". In the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, the state and semi-state organs such as the Society of the Godless carried out an aggressive campaign of eradicating religion in the USSR that involved imprisoning or executing thousands of people (at a minimum) and destroying tens of thousands of churches. In the People's Republic of China, only state-approved religions are allowed, and the government actively prosecutes practitioners of unapproved religions such as Falun Gong.
Also, the overwhelming majority of fundamentalist Christians would condemn all of the behaviors you've described. The things you're talking about are the acts of a lunatic fringe of fundamentalism that is not sanctioned by the majority of fundamentalists. So you're basically saying that you don't want to be called a fundamentalist because you paint all fundamentalists with the same brush and you don't want to get any of what you're slinging on atheists. It's like saying you don't want anyone mistaking you for a Muslim because you don't want anyone to think you're a terrorist.
Being called a fundamentalist is never a compliment because of all of the terrible behavior that is associated with that word.
As I indicated above, there is such a thing as a fundamentalist atheist, and fundamentalist atheists have done some pretty terrible things. Stalin, Mao and, arguably, Hitler, all carried out state-sponsored campaigns of harassment, mass-murder, mass-imprisonment, and theft based on anti-religious policies.
Also, I don’t think these ads are aimed at theists. . . It seems like more of a positive affirmation than an attempt to win converts.
Yes, I'm sure Christians feel that way about the majority of their religious displays as well. For some reason, people outside the sect seem to have a different reaction to conspicuous displays of ideological piety than people inside the sect.
86
@83 -- Perfectly stated!
@85 -- You're almost entirely wrong. To start with, Hitler was a Roman Catholic, NOT an atheist. Mao, as you stated yourself, didn't promote atheism; he allowed some religions and disallowed others. I'm not saying that's okay, but there is no rational way to claim that someone who permitted the exercise of some religions was promoting atheism. Stalin may have been an atheist, but he didn't do anything in the name of atheism. All of these horrible dictators acted in the name of some other dogmatic belief that the held with the zeal of a fundamentalist. In the case of Hitler, it was Naziism, in the case of Stalin and Mao, it was Communism. When Stalin acted to kill people who held religious beliefs, it wasn't in the name of atheism, it was in the name of Communism; it wasn't simply because he despised their religious beliefs, it was because he was convinced that their religious beliefs were "poisoning" the minds of the people away from their devotion to the Communist state.
Also, you're probably right that Christians feel that their religious displays are no more offensive than atheists find a declaration that there is no god. And as long as they keep those religious displays in their own churches, or even in paid advertisements on the side of buses, then I am aware of very few atheists who would have any problem with it. As long as they don't want to use my tax dollars to put up their religious displays, or put them on property paid for by my tax dollars, I am fine with them putting up religious displays that say anything they like.
@85 -- You're almost entirely wrong. To start with, Hitler was a Roman Catholic, NOT an atheist. Mao, as you stated yourself, didn't promote atheism; he allowed some religions and disallowed others. I'm not saying that's okay, but there is no rational way to claim that someone who permitted the exercise of some religions was promoting atheism. Stalin may have been an atheist, but he didn't do anything in the name of atheism. All of these horrible dictators acted in the name of some other dogmatic belief that the held with the zeal of a fundamentalist. In the case of Hitler, it was Naziism, in the case of Stalin and Mao, it was Communism. When Stalin acted to kill people who held religious beliefs, it wasn't in the name of atheism, it was in the name of Communism; it wasn't simply because he despised their religious beliefs, it was because he was convinced that their religious beliefs were "poisoning" the minds of the people away from their devotion to the Communist state.
Also, you're probably right that Christians feel that their religious displays are no more offensive than atheists find a declaration that there is no god. And as long as they keep those religious displays in their own churches, or even in paid advertisements on the side of buses, then I am aware of very few atheists who would have any problem with it. As long as they don't want to use my tax dollars to put up their religious displays, or put them on property paid for by my tax dollars, I am fine with them putting up religious displays that say anything they like.
87
@85 I think you missed my point. I wasn't arguing that atheists don't do bad things, I was arguing that the word 'fundamentalism' is associated with specific groups and actions, and so calling someone a fundamentalist, especially when they arent' is insulting.
Also, most of the fascist regimes you cite weren't atheist, they were simply removing a competing power structure, the church, from their countries. Your examples just don't ring true.
Also, most of the fascist regimes you cite weren't atheist, they were simply removing a competing power structure, the church, from their countries. Your examples just don't ring true.
88
@86
You almost entirely read my post. To start with, Hitler was a Roman Catholic and the relationship of the Nazi Party to religion was complex. That's why I said "arguably." Evidently you chose not to notice that word. So you basically made half the argument I alluded to, then ran a victory lap. Color me unimpressed.
Mao, as I stated myself, allowed some religions and disallowed others but there is, in fact, a rational way to claim that someone who permitted the exercise of some religions was promoting atheism; to the extent that each religion has its own concept of god, outlawing a particular religion entirely criminalizes the concept of divinity inimical to that religious doctrine. Outlawing most religion and allowing (as distinct from promoting) others in pursuit of an explicitly anti-religious political doctrine (Communism) is obviously promoting atheism in the broad sense; it's not like all the Christians will just run out and become Buddhists (or vice versa). To a Christian, outlawing the practice of Christianity amounts to outlawing religion. Historical instances of forced mass conversion operate on a different axis.
Yeah, that's a bullshit distinction that Dawkins and his get draw in order to gain the moral high ground in historical debates. So Dawkins can say that the Crusades are a crime of religion, but the Stalinist purges are a crime of Communism -- rather than atheism. It'd be like saying the KKK isn't actually racist, it's Confederate. The political philosophy of the Confederate States of America happens to proscribe the presence of anyone besides white men in the political franchise, but there's more to it than just racism. For example, the KKK is explicitly anti-Catholic. The whole line of reasoning is sophistical bullshit. Communism is, by definition, atheistic and Marxist Communist states practice state atheism. Not all atheists are Communists, but all Communists are atheists, and Communists have engaged in behavior that was exclusively anti-religious in the name of philosophical state atheism; the people who followed Stalin's orders to destroy churches and massacre priests didn't do it as part of a land reform movement, or in an attempt to gain control of the means of production; they did it because they believed religion was a form of mass delusion and that those who promulgated religion were therefore dangerous and should be killed or imprisoned. I don't lay that behavior at the door of all atheists anymore than I blame all fundamentalist Christians for killing women's health providers, but if we're just talking about what members of a given group have or have not done, atheists have, in fact, blown up churches and murdered people in the name of atheism. It has happened. That is all.
More...
You almost entirely read my post. To start with, Hitler was a Roman Catholic and the relationship of the Nazi Party to religion was complex. That's why I said "arguably." Evidently you chose not to notice that word. So you basically made half the argument I alluded to, then ran a victory lap. Color me unimpressed.
Mao, as I stated myself, allowed some religions and disallowed others but there is, in fact, a rational way to claim that someone who permitted the exercise of some religions was promoting atheism; to the extent that each religion has its own concept of god, outlawing a particular religion entirely criminalizes the concept of divinity inimical to that religious doctrine. Outlawing most religion and allowing (as distinct from promoting) others in pursuit of an explicitly anti-religious political doctrine (Communism) is obviously promoting atheism in the broad sense; it's not like all the Christians will just run out and become Buddhists (or vice versa). To a Christian, outlawing the practice of Christianity amounts to outlawing religion. Historical instances of forced mass conversion operate on a different axis.
When Stalin acted to kill people who held religious beliefs, it wasn't in the name of atheism, it was in the name of Communism;
Yeah, that's a bullshit distinction that Dawkins and his get draw in order to gain the moral high ground in historical debates. So Dawkins can say that the Crusades are a crime of religion, but the Stalinist purges are a crime of Communism -- rather than atheism. It'd be like saying the KKK isn't actually racist, it's Confederate. The political philosophy of the Confederate States of America happens to proscribe the presence of anyone besides white men in the political franchise, but there's more to it than just racism. For example, the KKK is explicitly anti-Catholic. The whole line of reasoning is sophistical bullshit. Communism is, by definition, atheistic and Marxist Communist states practice state atheism. Not all atheists are Communists, but all Communists are atheists, and Communists have engaged in behavior that was exclusively anti-religious in the name of philosophical state atheism; the people who followed Stalin's orders to destroy churches and massacre priests didn't do it as part of a land reform movement, or in an attempt to gain control of the means of production; they did it because they believed religion was a form of mass delusion and that those who promulgated religion were therefore dangerous and should be killed or imprisoned. I don't lay that behavior at the door of all atheists anymore than I blame all fundamentalist Christians for killing women's health providers, but if we're just talking about what members of a given group have or have not done, atheists have, in fact, blown up churches and murdered people in the name of atheism. It has happened. That is all.
89
Or I got your point, and just didn't agree with it.
Yes. Some people in the United States associate the word 'Muslim' with the word 'terrorist.' Some of them associate 'African American' with 'gang violence.' Those associations you're referring to? They're called prejudices. Generally frowned upon among intelligent people, but you seem to be advocating in favor of them.
And that's definitely not because you're a bigot.
I think you missed my point.
Or I got your point, and just didn't agree with it.
I was arguing that the word 'fundamentalism' is associated with specific groups and actions
Yes. Some people in the United States associate the word 'Muslim' with the word 'terrorist.' Some of them associate 'African American' with 'gang violence.' Those associations you're referring to? They're called prejudices. Generally frowned upon among intelligent people, but you seem to be advocating in favor of them.
Your examples just don't ring true.
And that's definitely not because you're a bigot.
90
@86: thanks for calling bullshit on the Stalin/Communism/killing in the name of atheism argument. People kill "in the name of" all kinds of dumb crap. Atheism is not the way and the truth and the light, and the people of the world are not going to be 'saved' by it any more than they are by Jesus.
If you are going to talk about a conscious creator being, then that being necessarily has to exist outside the universe itself, and trying to prove the existence of something outside of the universe, where logic and even physical law as we know them may not even have meaning, is absurd to me. It also assumes that such a being would actually leave visible, identifiable "fingerprints." Furthermore, nobody has even bothered to outline what would constitute acceptable "evidence." Plenty of theists see "evidence" for God in the "wonderment" (to quote a previous commenter) of nature. Even Dawkins sometimes refers to himself as "somewhat of a pantheist." Nobody has actually defined what is meant by "God." Do you mean merely a conscious creator, do you include supernatural acts and direct interference in human affairs, who answers prayer and such? This is the common conception of the Christian God, but I can certainly tell you, there is no universal concept of God in Judaism, for example, and there certainly isn't one in Buddhism. Spinoza stated God existed only "philosophically." People have been debating since his death whether he was an atheist.
Dawkins et al. have made it fashionable to talk as if the God vs. no-God debate is new, as if this is the first time anyone applied reason and evidence to it. In reality this debate has gone on for thousands of years, by people at least as smart (and frankly, I think smarter) than anyone here. I see plenty of ignorance in the irreligious as well as the religious, enough for me to consider the vast majority of everyone unqualified to have a real opinion.
I have an idea, let's teach everyone to be critical thinkers, educate them in philosophy and comparative religion, and then let them make up their own minds, rather than applying bullying, insults, and groupthink to try to tell people what to believe.
More...
If you are going to talk about a conscious creator being, then that being necessarily has to exist outside the universe itself, and trying to prove the existence of something outside of the universe, where logic and even physical law as we know them may not even have meaning, is absurd to me. It also assumes that such a being would actually leave visible, identifiable "fingerprints." Furthermore, nobody has even bothered to outline what would constitute acceptable "evidence." Plenty of theists see "evidence" for God in the "wonderment" (to quote a previous commenter) of nature. Even Dawkins sometimes refers to himself as "somewhat of a pantheist." Nobody has actually defined what is meant by "God." Do you mean merely a conscious creator, do you include supernatural acts and direct interference in human affairs, who answers prayer and such? This is the common conception of the Christian God, but I can certainly tell you, there is no universal concept of God in Judaism, for example, and there certainly isn't one in Buddhism. Spinoza stated God existed only "philosophically." People have been debating since his death whether he was an atheist.
Dawkins et al. have made it fashionable to talk as if the God vs. no-God debate is new, as if this is the first time anyone applied reason and evidence to it. In reality this debate has gone on for thousands of years, by people at least as smart (and frankly, I think smarter) than anyone here. I see plenty of ignorance in the irreligious as well as the religious, enough for me to consider the vast majority of everyone unqualified to have a real opinion.
I have an idea, let's teach everyone to be critical thinkers, educate them in philosophy and comparative religion, and then let them make up their own minds, rather than applying bullying, insults, and groupthink to try to tell people what to believe.
91
See, that's where you're wrong. By which I mean, that's the fallacy in your argument, and @86's argument and the rest; plenty of atheists do, in fact, believe that atheism is the way and the truth and the light and that the world can only be 'saved' by the eradication of religion. Case in point: the sign that started this whole conversation is a proselytizing effort by atheists. Contrary to assertions that it's meant to affirm the beliefs of atheists to atheists, which the Butterfly McQueen sign arguably does, the Santa sign is addressed as a reply to a question, and is declarative: "Yes Virginia, there is no God." That's not aimed at religion as a societal phenomenon; it is an expression of doctrine on a question of theology and it is pasted to the side of a bus.
Now, I don't particularly care. If I can restrain myself from setting fire to those fucking "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" billboards, I'm not going to get too wound up about Santa telling me there's no God. But if you can't recognize that as the behavior of a proselytizing religious sect, you need to maybe stop smoking so much crack.
Atheism is not the way and the truth and the light, and the people of the world are not going to be 'saved' by it any more than they are by Jesus.
See, that's where you're wrong. By which I mean, that's the fallacy in your argument, and @86's argument and the rest; plenty of atheists do, in fact, believe that atheism is the way and the truth and the light and that the world can only be 'saved' by the eradication of religion. Case in point: the sign that started this whole conversation is a proselytizing effort by atheists. Contrary to assertions that it's meant to affirm the beliefs of atheists to atheists, which the Butterfly McQueen sign arguably does, the Santa sign is addressed as a reply to a question, and is declarative: "Yes Virginia, there is no God." That's not aimed at religion as a societal phenomenon; it is an expression of doctrine on a question of theology and it is pasted to the side of a bus.
Now, I don't particularly care. If I can restrain myself from setting fire to those fucking "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" billboards, I'm not going to get too wound up about Santa telling me there's no God. But if you can't recognize that as the behavior of a proselytizing religious sect, you need to maybe stop smoking so much crack.
92
Everyone is missing the real story here, which is that this sign should say: "Yes, Virginia, there is a God".
93
One cannot say with absolute certainty that God does not exist in much the same way that one cannot say with absolute certainty that Leprechauns do not exist or that J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series isn't based on actual events. (I can say with certainty that the Bible is a book of ancient mythology, with no more validity than Egyptian, Greek or Roman mythologies. The Bible is a fatally flawed work of man.)
94
Judah, stop telling people that they are bigot, and that they are smoking crack. It undermines your arguments almost as much as your actual arguments undermine your arguments.
As for me being a bigot, religion makes no sense to me, and I think that thinking things are true based on faith is probably not healthy. You seem to be calling me a bigot because it's a cool word to call people you don't like. I dislike being called a fundamentalist a little less than I would like being called a terrorist or a gang member. To imply that I am a bigot because I don't want to be associated with a group that is defined by their intolerance and uh, fundamentalism. Just like I wouldn't like being called a terrorist, because terrorists are called that because they commit acts of terrorism. You added an extra leap of association between fundamentalist and fundamentalism to equate it with racial prejudice in order to try to make me look bad. You should maybe try to chill out a bit.
I have nothing against religious people, other than I think their beliefs don't make any sense. I tried to explain why I don't like being called a fundamentalist, and I don't think that equates to racial prejudice. I'm sorry you had to get mean.
As for me being a bigot, religion makes no sense to me, and I think that thinking things are true based on faith is probably not healthy. You seem to be calling me a bigot because it's a cool word to call people you don't like. I dislike being called a fundamentalist a little less than I would like being called a terrorist or a gang member. To imply that I am a bigot because I don't want to be associated with a group that is defined by their intolerance and uh, fundamentalism. Just like I wouldn't like being called a terrorist, because terrorists are called that because they commit acts of terrorism. You added an extra leap of association between fundamentalist and fundamentalism to equate it with racial prejudice in order to try to make me look bad. You should maybe try to chill out a bit.
I have nothing against religious people, other than I think their beliefs don't make any sense. I tried to explain why I don't like being called a fundamentalist, and I don't think that equates to racial prejudice. I'm sorry you had to get mean.
95
I just saw one of those FFRF ads on the side of a U-District bus with the "NO" spray-painted out.
Somehow the fact that zealots would turn to vandalism when challenged, rather than responding openly or honestly, just doesn't surprise me.
Somehow the fact that zealots would turn to vandalism when challenged, rather than responding openly or honestly, just doesn't surprise me.
96
bigot (n) : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group . . . with hatred and intolerance
I called you a bigot because you're sticking to your opinion about what atheists don't do (and what fundamentalists do) for no specific reason except your intuition about what doesn't "ring true" (obstinately devoted to your own opinion) and you're rejecting the term fundamentalist because you associate it with terrorism in spite of the fact that the dictionary definition of the word just relates to a kind of strict textualism (intolerantly devoted to your own prejudices). So, contrary to your assertion, I called you a bigot because of specific things that you've written in this comment string, not just because "it's a cool word." I would have assumed that, at a minimum, my reasons for using the word were obvious but, evidently, I was making unwarranted assumptions about the scope of your vocabulary.
This happens to me on the internet sometimes. I think someone's being sort of sneaky and disingenuous because their statements seem so obviously self-contradictory, when actually they're just stupid. The above quote makes me think the latter might be happening here, so I apologize for coming on so strong earlier. Apparently you actually can't tell the difference between a straightforward tautological inference (all terrorists commit acts of terrorism) and a prejudice (all fundamentalists are intolerant).
Fundamentalism can -- and to many people does -- refer to a form of doctrinal analysis that emphasizes textualism over custom and practice. There are many churches and schools of religious thought that consider themselves fundamentalist, and which would also condemn all the behaviors you referenced in your initial post, viz blowing up churches and so on. So, while the definition of terrorist necessarily includes acts of terrorism, the definition of fundamentalism does not necessarily include acts of intolerance and/or terrorism. It is therefore prejudicial to ascribe intolerance and/or support of terrorism to fundamentalists and maintaining that prejudice in the face of fact-based counter-arguments without any supporting rationale of your own [eg "Your (easily confirmed historical facts) just don't ring true."] arguably constitutes bigotry.
More...
You seem to be calling me a bigot because it's a cool word to call people you don't like.
bigot (n) : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group . . . with hatred and intolerance
I called you a bigot because you're sticking to your opinion about what atheists don't do (and what fundamentalists do) for no specific reason except your intuition about what doesn't "ring true" (obstinately devoted to your own opinion) and you're rejecting the term fundamentalist because you associate it with terrorism in spite of the fact that the dictionary definition of the word just relates to a kind of strict textualism (intolerantly devoted to your own prejudices). So, contrary to your assertion, I called you a bigot because of specific things that you've written in this comment string, not just because "it's a cool word." I would have assumed that, at a minimum, my reasons for using the word were obvious but, evidently, I was making unwarranted assumptions about the scope of your vocabulary.
To imply that I am a bigot because I don't want to be associated with a group that is defined by their intolerance and uh, fundamentalism. Just like I wouldn't like being called a terrorist, because terrorists are called that because they commit acts of terrorism.
This happens to me on the internet sometimes. I think someone's being sort of sneaky and disingenuous because their statements seem so obviously self-contradictory, when actually they're just stupid. The above quote makes me think the latter might be happening here, so I apologize for coming on so strong earlier. Apparently you actually can't tell the difference between a straightforward tautological inference (all terrorists commit acts of terrorism) and a prejudice (all fundamentalists are intolerant).
Fundamentalism can -- and to many people does -- refer to a form of doctrinal analysis that emphasizes textualism over custom and practice. There are many churches and schools of religious thought that consider themselves fundamentalist, and which would also condemn all the behaviors you referenced in your initial post, viz blowing up churches and so on. So, while the definition of terrorist necessarily includes acts of terrorism, the definition of fundamentalism does not necessarily include acts of intolerance and/or terrorism. It is therefore prejudicial to ascribe intolerance and/or support of terrorism to fundamentalists and maintaining that prejudice in the face of fact-based counter-arguments without any supporting rationale of your own [eg "Your (easily confirmed historical facts) just don't ring true."] arguably constitutes bigotry.
97
There may or may not be a God or Allah or Jesus or Gods or Goddesses or anything. That's it. People will always think that they know what is right, so just sit back, relax, and watch the show. You can state what you believe in, but you're never going to convert anyone if you challenge them. People will always have an individual little world, saying that world does or does not exist for whichever way, will quite quickly make them froth at the mouth, voila, human nature. As long as you let people make their own decisions, and don't kill/discriminate over or in it, all is right and well. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe, ta da.
98
"...atheism seems like the most benign form of fundamentalism..."
If someone claims, "I am a Christian," and you make an allowance that their concept of Christianity may or may not align with your own, or that of a majority of Christians, then so, too, should you make a similar allowance for anyone who says "I am a Jew," or "I am an atheist," or "I am a pagan," or whatever.
Someone who says "I am an atheist" says only that they have no god, because tautologically, that is what it means: "I am without a god." How many different ways must one say the same thing before theists or recovering theists understand? I don't know. I suspect such statements make theists either sad or mad, and they often wish to pimp the virtues of their chosen god to those who lack one, because clearly, everyone must have a god. It's kind of like lacking a television that way. Who doesn't want a shiny new television?
The equation of atheism with fundamentalism most commonly is a product of theist propaganda. The atheist may rightly claim to know with reasonable epistemic certainty that an omnipotent Santa Claus did not create the universe. Those who believe in the omnipotent Santa Claus will say that the atheist, by rejecting the veracity of the omnipotent Santa Claus theory, are rigidly rejecting all possible concepts that might be called "god." Therefore they have created their own fundamentalism.
It kind of makes sense if you're mildly retarded.
These stupid bus signs don't especially help, but hey, it's not really my fault that a lot of people, atheists included, are jerks.
If someone claims, "I am a Christian," and you make an allowance that their concept of Christianity may or may not align with your own, or that of a majority of Christians, then so, too, should you make a similar allowance for anyone who says "I am a Jew," or "I am an atheist," or "I am a pagan," or whatever.
Someone who says "I am an atheist" says only that they have no god, because tautologically, that is what it means: "I am without a god." How many different ways must one say the same thing before theists or recovering theists understand? I don't know. I suspect such statements make theists either sad or mad, and they often wish to pimp the virtues of their chosen god to those who lack one, because clearly, everyone must have a god. It's kind of like lacking a television that way. Who doesn't want a shiny new television?
The equation of atheism with fundamentalism most commonly is a product of theist propaganda. The atheist may rightly claim to know with reasonable epistemic certainty that an omnipotent Santa Claus did not create the universe. Those who believe in the omnipotent Santa Claus will say that the atheist, by rejecting the veracity of the omnipotent Santa Claus theory, are rigidly rejecting all possible concepts that might be called "god." Therefore they have created their own fundamentalism.
It kind of makes sense if you're mildly retarded.
These stupid bus signs don't especially help, but hey, it's not really my fault that a lot of people, atheists included, are jerks.
99
@98: The "omnipotent Santa Claus theory" is a popular one, but by no means the only form of theism. Mocking that theory or the "flying spaghetti monster" or various other absurd-on-the-face-of-it-sounding constructions is part of the problem I have with a lot of smart-aleck atheist proselytizers: They are being smug about making a very easy, un-rigorous argument. It's like beating up a retarded kid and thinking you're the heavyweight champion.
As others have said, these things have been discussed for thousands of years with no clear conclusions on any side. While I'm pretty sympathetic to the atheist line, I understand the desire of Schmader and others to distance themselves from self-satisfied bullies in the Christoper Hitchens vein. They're not helping.
As others have said, these things have been discussed for thousands of years with no clear conclusions on any side. While I'm pretty sympathetic to the atheist line, I understand the desire of Schmader and others to distance themselves from self-satisfied bullies in the Christoper Hitchens vein. They're not helping.
100
@99: In distancing oneself from self satisfied bullies, one need not misconstrue the meaning of the word "atheist." One either has a distaste for atheism, or one has a distaste for self satisfied bullies. It's possible to have a distaste for both, but to say that "atheism" equals "self satisfied bullies" is not much different from saying that "Christians" equals "abortion clinic bombing creationists."
Broad strokes and all that. A lot of Christians have problems with creationists, et. al. A lot of Jews have problems with the black hats. A lot of atheists have problems with jerks who seem to be presented (by others, usually) as their representatives.
It should go without saying that a lot of smart people have thought deeply about the subject of gods for a long time with no conclusive "winner," if such a thing is even desirable. Many such people have emerged from that thought process with no desire to postulate the existence of a god. These we call atheists.
Some atheists have axes to grind with theism. Some theists have axes to grind with atheism.
Fundamentalism is another word, and it, too, has a meaning, and like many other words, it does not mean the same thing as atheism or theism. Atheism and theism are not "forms" of fundamentalism, benign or otherwise. If Schmader was not indulging a moment of lazy thought, he is merely wrong.
Broad strokes and all that. A lot of Christians have problems with creationists, et. al. A lot of Jews have problems with the black hats. A lot of atheists have problems with jerks who seem to be presented (by others, usually) as their representatives.
It should go without saying that a lot of smart people have thought deeply about the subject of gods for a long time with no conclusive "winner," if such a thing is even desirable. Many such people have emerged from that thought process with no desire to postulate the existence of a god. These we call atheists.
Some atheists have axes to grind with theism. Some theists have axes to grind with atheism.
Fundamentalism is another word, and it, too, has a meaning, and like many other words, it does not mean the same thing as atheism or theism. Atheism and theism are not "forms" of fundamentalism, benign or otherwise. If Schmader was not indulging a moment of lazy thought, he is merely wrong.
101
Also, I don’t think these ads are aimed at theists. I think they are aimed at the millions of Americans that have come to atheism or agnosticism on their own, and have been cowed into silence by the churches. It seems like more of a positive affirmation than an attempt to win converts.
I agree. There's probably more non-believers out there than will admit it. You still feel pressured to say kindly things in mixed company.
I think the biggest reason "non-believers" has doubled in 15 years in the USA is the Internet: not a reaction to fundamentalism. American non-believers don't live in isolation anymore. They can come out of the closet.
I agree. There's probably more non-believers out there than will admit it. You still feel pressured to say kindly things in mixed company.
I think the biggest reason "non-believers" has doubled in 15 years in the USA is the Internet: not a reaction to fundamentalism. American non-believers don't live in isolation anymore. They can come out of the closet.
102
@14: I once got to third base with fundamentalism. Fundie was convinced she'd get pregnant from doing that, which I thought was stupid, so I dumped her.
@16: and christmas isn't a stunt to shock people,...how? It's kill a baby tree for baby jesus day.
@37 the only person who can put you in the closet is ...you. Why not have some fundie pride? No, not white hoods and shit, but atheist pride, like the folks who printed that bumper sticker clearly have. Don't you dare be scared of a word.
Fundamentalism (the term) wasn't invented until American Protestants invented it about 60 years ago, right?
and Schmader's comparison was "the most benign form of fundamentalism". Fun'damn'metalism by the way, is a term "generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations". Sounds like (hard) atheism to me, and sounds to me, keeping the First Amendment's intent FIRMLY in mind, that hardball atheists are just as Fundie (and just as obsessed with religion) as say, Casey Treat.
@61 - good stuff.
I always thought atheists were those, er, against theism. Stupid latin classes.
@16: and christmas isn't a stunt to shock people,...how? It's kill a baby tree for baby jesus day.
@37 the only person who can put you in the closet is ...you. Why not have some fundie pride? No, not white hoods and shit, but atheist pride, like the folks who printed that bumper sticker clearly have. Don't you dare be scared of a word.
Fundamentalism (the term) wasn't invented until American Protestants invented it about 60 years ago, right?
and Schmader's comparison was "the most benign form of fundamentalism". Fun'damn'metalism by the way, is a term "generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations". Sounds like (hard) atheism to me, and sounds to me, keeping the First Amendment's intent FIRMLY in mind, that hardball atheists are just as Fundie (and just as obsessed with religion) as say, Casey Treat.
@61 - good stuff.
I always thought atheists were those, er, against theism. Stupid latin classes.
103
"I have a problem with ideological ads targeting children under ten, which is what the "Yes, Virginia..." ad seems to be doing with it's cutesy Santa cartoon. If I were a kid, I'd be devastated by this statement, even though I've been an atheist since college. And forcing parents to have a conversation about religion when kids that age aren't really able to grasp the issues is a little unfair and manipulative."
Oh, sure, but it's okay to indoctrinate children into religion, abusing them with tales of scary places filled with fire and torture, and creepy old men with beards watching their every move?
Oh, sure, but it's okay to indoctrinate children into religion, abusing them with tales of scary places filled with fire and torture, and creepy old men with beards watching their every move?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Rachel Maddow Uncovered the Secret Ron Paul Strategy by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (103) RSS