New at Reason

March 6, 2007

Radley Balko wonders if anti-atheist bias is the only acceptable bigotry left in electoral politics.

Comments

tros|3.6.07 @ 12:47PM|#

I used to be an atheist. I felt like I ws persecuted, so I moved to Massachusetts. Let me tell you, atheists can be just as retarded as christian fundamentalists when it comes to the state they depend on for their moral authority.

What Romney means when he says we need a "person of faith" to run this country, he means we need a PUPPET to run this country. Believing in God is retarded. If you have a personal connection with God, you KNOW you have it. If you have any doubt in your mind, that is to say if you take somebody's word for it, you should probably reconsider your religion.

I don't understand how people in liberal societies can continue to maintain atheist fundamentalism in the face of thousands of years of ethnobotanical plant use. If it's such a mystery, why don't you eat it instead of complaining about it. You'll porbably be a lot less miserable.

I also blame secular atheism for the comic-fantasy fetish of violent political revolution on the left. They call me "pro-capitalist" when I advocate non-violent revolution.

That sounds about right. Nonviolent commercial revolution sounds pretty nice, actually. Do I have any investors for the John Galt Hemp Corporation of America?

ed|3.6.07 @ 12:51PM|#

I was going to say that we modern humans are not so far removed from the apes, but tros proved my point.

|3.6.07 @ 12:54PM|#

WOW! Balko just keeps getting better and better.

I've detected a little resonance of late in the anti-faith message. It's a good thing, at least for now.

Balko makes great points. Atheists are unelectable in spite because of a superior moral foundation.

|3.6.07 @ 12:54PM|#

Botton line:

People get mad when you pee on the cherished fairy tales their mommy told them.

|3.6.07 @ 12:55PM|#

In addition to an accepted and expanding discrimination against atheists (and the historical myopia it entails), there is also a discrimination against disingenuous pieces of shit like Mitt Romney.

|3.6.07 @ 1:01PM|#

What puzzles me is the why someone who believes in no god, is considered worse than some who believes in a different(therefore false)god? Wouldn't the latter be more likely to enact legislation counter to a person's own beliefs?

tros|3.6.07 @ 1:05PM|#

People get mad when you pee on the cherished fairy tales their mommy told them.

Terrence McKenna's main innovation was, besides the ethnobotanical cartography, an idea that said history will start repeating larger historical trends on a smaller scale. You will notice that the people who still believe in Biblical Literalism are also mostly the same people who still believe Fox News.

The Bible was created by Constantine. Constantine was an executive MONSTER trying to reign in his crumbling empire. They burned all texts and people that disagreed, and we got 2000 years of misery.

But we have the EFF now so I'm not too worried.

|3.6.07 @ 1:05PM|#

Without getting too deep, atheism is hopeless. That is why the discrimination exists.

|3.6.07 @ 1:09PM|#

Without getting too deep, atheism is hopeless.

I call bullshit. Evidence?

I. Self. Divine.|3.6.07 @ 1:10PM|#

Tros: Go away.

tros|3.6.07 @ 1:11PM|#

What puzzles me is the why someone who believes in no god, is considered worse than some who believes in a different(therefore false)god? Wouldn't the latter be more likely to enact legislation counter to a person's own beliefs?

Well usually they can share their hatred of secular atheists with other pious retards of different stripes. If your god is the embodiment of pure evil according to their holy book, though, that is to say, a Hellenistic bisexual mushroom cult, it is probably better in their view to be a miserable, hopeless atheist.

Mushrooms are TEH SATAN! It's funny too because when you look at the *possibilities* of an afterlife, the fundies are actually creating their own eternal torment inside their own mind. For eternity, or maybe karmic demotion when they get reincarnated.

If you don't believe in God, I would suggest you take some LSD on your deathbed. It will make the process much easier.

tros|3.6.07 @ 1:13PM|#

Tros: Go away.

Why should I go away? You are a ghost. Why don't you evaporate?

tros|3.6.07 @ 1:14PM|#

If you refer to my physical location, yesss I will be going away soon.

But don't expect me to hold my tongue any time soon.

VM|3.6.07 @ 1:14PM|#

Hi Cab!

How do you mean? Do you mean a hopelessness (of certain spiritual resolutions?) that cannot exist in an atheistic framework? Do you mean that there's a perception among some religious that atheism is somehow nihilistic (and not in a cute, "Karl Hungus" way)?

Jake - asking for "evidence" in a discussion about faith? Huh?

ed|3.6.07 @ 1:15PM|#

atheism is hopeless

That's funny; I view theists as the hopeless ones, as they steadfastly deny the evidence of their own senses, and are too-often willing to torture and kill anyone who dares to disagree with their primitive worldview.

|3.6.07 @ 1:17PM|#

Jake Boone,

I'm not putting words into Cab's mouth, but I read it to mean that most people associate atheism with existentialism or nihilism.

My theory is that most people believe that atheists do not have "morals / ethics / values" since they believe these things flow from on high and non-believers cannot possibly possess them.

MikeT|3.6.07 @ 1:18PM|#

Many of Bush's views are not in line with the Bible. A good one is the pro-property rights commandments in the Bible. The Bible does not allow for the forced redistribution of wealth; Bush is for this. If he were really driven by faith like he claims to be, he would change his errant views to the more libertarian and biblical view against wealth redistribution.

He would also realize that Christ taught voluntary obedience to God in Luke 9 and Matt 10. There are many things he would not be able to support if he were actually as faith-driven as he claims.

tros|3.6.07 @ 1:18PM|#

I don't think atheism is categorically hopeless. People who do not recognize a supreme being will inevitably find hope in any number of creative passions as well as the love they share with other people.

Eventually they will realize that these are the only thing in the world worth worshipping and that giving them specific names can lead to a very unpleasant mis-understanding.

The Wine Commonsewer|3.6.07 @ 1:20PM|#

tros has to stay because every time he calls someone a retard I LOL.

I'm not sure there is all that much anti-atheist bias although the candidates rightly perceive that they don't want to offend a big block of voters, whether they be Catholic Hispanics or leftie Lutherans, both of which are likely Democrat voters.

|3.6.07 @ 1:21PM|#

tros,
Do you claim gnosis?

tomWright|3.6.07 @ 1:22PM|#

Tros, Stop dissin' my Fox News man, I DEMAND that my news be delivered by a hottie in a short skirt.

Gets my heart started in the morning, and gives me nice dreams at night.

tros|3.6.07 @ 1:22PM|#

I don't mean to be un-kind, but the political correctness in Mass is so retarded I have no choice but to speak out. Someone has to tell it like it is.

Preferably someone who is not worried about getting a white collar job in the future.

Dan T.|3.6.07 @ 1:23PM|#

I don't get at all why voting for or against someone based on the philisophical views they hold is a form of "bigotry" in any sense of the word.

|3.6.07 @ 1:26PM|#

My step father recently said that he wouldn't vote for a Dem because they were so strongly in favor of religious discrimination. While this seems obviously false to me, there is apparently a really solid PR movement underway to spread this sort of misinformation.

Christians in this country are convinced that they are under attack by the "godless liberals" (which is worse than being a terrorist or even a child molester) but, for the life of me, I can't figure out where all of these godless people are coming from when 85% of the people identify themselves as Christian and something like half are certain that Jebus is returning to Earth in the next 50 years. Whose left to do the attacking?

|3.6.07 @ 1:29PM|#

Atheism = hopelessness
Theism = SLAVE MORALITY!

MikeT|3.6.07 @ 1:30PM|#

What puzzles me is the why someone who believes in no god, is considered worse than some who believes in a different(therefore false)god? Wouldn't the latter be more likely to enact legislation counter to a person's own beliefs?

Maybe because live and let-live libertarians are the minority among atheists? Socialism and other authoritarian beliefs runs rampant among atheists.

I can pretty much guarantee you, though, that if an atheist ran on a Barry Goldwater-like ticket for the Republican Party, most religious conservatives would support him well before they'd support any "Christian candidate."

tros|3.6.07 @ 1:31PM|#

gnosis

I claim gnosis of the spirit of the Earth, which is the only god I know about. I know of this god through a variety of sacraments including psilocybin mushrooms and Baby Hawaiian Woodrose seeds, which contain naturally occuring LSD precursors. The woodrose seds are special because the psychoactive properties were actually unknown to indigenous peoples and discovred by Europeans.

I also comprehend the duality of matter and spirit along the lines of male and female (yin and yang) aspects of non-dual reality. LSD is analogous to a microscope, but whoever takes it has a choice as to what they are looking at. This makes things complicated and so we are not quite as sure about the existence of one particular masculine diety. I have experienced a pervasive psychic field that allows individuals to perceive the minds of other people partaking in the sacrament.

This is a space that is called Xaos or "chaos" in ancient Greek mythology. Xaos and Gaia were the first two gods who eventually birthed all the other ones. Another linguistic dvice for understanding Xaos is the Native American ideo of a pervasive Great Spirit.

|3.6.07 @ 1:35PM|#

"I don't think atheism is categorically hopeless. People who do not recognize a supreme being will inevitably find hope in any number of creative passions as well as the love they share with other people."

Finally tros says something worth reading.

|3.6.07 @ 1:36PM|#

"Socialism and other authoritarian beliefs runs rampant among atheists."

Project much?

|3.6.07 @ 1:36PM|#

MikeT, speaking as an atheist who grew up in the Deep South, pretty much anyone would beat that candidate except an atheist communist.

tros|3.6.07 @ 1:37PM|#

I have not had the opportunity to experience the sacramental cacti of southwestern mescaleros, but I am told these open the mind to a more masculine nature spirit, as opposed to the maternal spirit revealed by the teonanacatl.

|3.6.07 @ 1:37PM|#

"Socialism and other authoritarian beliefs runs rampant among atheists."

Any more so compared to libertarian beliefs?

VM|3.6.07 @ 1:39PM|#

Pi:

Dhex mentioned something along these lines yesterday, too. How claiming victimhood is a powerful card, presumably going along the lines that a political movement "can exist without a god, but cannot without a devil"? So rallying around an evil, and hence the need to be a victim, is the key.

Then there's probably some residual from the Cold War: godless comminism (sic) against good god fearing, righteous Amurikans.

There also may be a battle between "educated" and "less educated" or however describing those battle lines would work:

Think of how college types or Ivy League types get ripped here. Maybe there's a battle unfolding there - maybe an inferiority complex? Dunno what it is...

um. Mike T highlights the socialism part. As for authoritarianism ... um. I suppose we could start taking about organized religion as a form of social control, but things might deteriorate even further from his limbo poll setting bait.

|3.6.07 @ 1:40PM|#

Regarding atheist libertarians versus atheist leftists, the atheist leftists might be more common because (a) the Church as a bogeyman has a long tradition on the left and (b) some are rebelling against their own backgrounds and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This isn't to say that there aren't leftists who come by it through reasoned thinking, but the percentage of libertarians who do so is probably higher.

tros|3.6.07 @ 1:41PM|#

O yes, I know the crypto-fascist authoritarian Stalinist wannabe streak is pervasive in leftist culture, especially in Mass. This biotech conference coming up is going to be ungly.

I am going to hold up a sign that says "I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR METHODS OF PROVOKING SOCIAL CHANGE"

And they will call me pro-capitalist. It's a good thing we have the radicals for capitalism movement now, this shit is looking more and more like Atlas Shrugged every day.

I never thought I would say that, either.

RETARDS!

|3.6.07 @ 1:41PM|#

Maybe because live and let-live libertarians are the minority among atheists?

Live and let live libertarians are also in the minority among theists, and socialist and authoritarian tendencies are rampant among theists as well, so that doesn't really narrow it down.

For example, let's say that you're a Fundamentalist Christian. Why is an atheist less electable than a Catholic (especially if you regard the Pope as a demonic figure)?

|3.6.07 @ 1:42PM|#

Communists (not socialists who can be believers) are atheists because they are communists. They are not communists because they are atheists.

Rock Howard|3.6.07 @ 1:42PM|#

The Texas legislature just passed a bill to post the words "In God We Trust" at several key places around the capitol building. Personally I find this as off putting and morally justified as putting up "White Power" signs.

tros|3.6.07 @ 1:43PM|#

There also may be a battle between "educated" and "less educated" or however describing those battle lines would work:

They are both retarded in their own unique way that is VASTLY superior to the retardation that they disagree with. That is why we have 2 parties instead of 1. If there was just one party they would have to declare open war on the domestic population.

O wait...

MikeT|3.6.07 @ 1:46PM|#

de stijl,

Not at all. My views are solidly libertarian on politics. In fact, I am willing to wager that my views on certain "legitimate functions" of government are actually more extreme than some of the Reason writers. For example, I am all in favor of abolishing local police forces entirely, going to a purely private model.

FinFangFoom,

Speaking as an agnostic-turned-Christian, who grew up in the Carolinas and Virginia, I think you are far more likely to win here with a strong atheist leader who unabashedly defends freedom and loves his country, than with a theist who behaves like Bush. I can tell you right now, a Goldwater-like atheist who actually has the guts to tell off the UN, French and Palestinians would fare a lot better than someone like Bush among religious conservatives.

dhex|3.6.07 @ 1:46PM|#

the victim is a position of rhetorical power, as well as emotional power. it gives you something to fight against.

i am put in mind of a dozen or so protestors at the RNC in nyc a few years back - the banner read "this is what a police state looks like" while a dozen bored looking cops sat around in the background. (not to get into actual nypd bullshit tactics during the rnc, mind you)

that sort of mentality is very powerful, however, which is why even a dominant and in no way persecuted cultural set can claim to be under attack. (much of the attack in this, and other cases, is that someone is disagreeing with them.)

VM|3.6.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Rock -

a few years ago, there was a heated discussion here about Judge Moore and his 10 commandments. Commenter "rst" pointed out that, from his point of view, it was just a rock and didn't do anything.

It was, to say the least, interesting.

David - it'll be interesting to see how (or if) Evangelicals and Catholics build coalitions around some of their shared, socially-conservative issues.

|3.6.07 @ 1:49PM|#

Grandest Social Engineering Meme Of All Time: god belief.

Its most powerful aspect: Intellectual Laziness.

|3.6.07 @ 1:50PM|#

Carolinas and Virginia! Heck, next to Mississippi, that like New York City and Canada, respectively.

|3.6.07 @ 1:52PM|#

"I'm more interested in the Rock of Ages than the Age of Rocks."

Source? Anyone?

Hint: Not Def Leppard.

|3.6.07 @ 1:54PM|#

William Jennings Bryan. Next time it comes up I won't have to google it.

biologist|3.6.07 @ 1:54PM|#

William Jennings Bryan

|3.6.07 @ 1:56PM|#

Hey VM

I wish I had more time - this work thing keeps getting in the way. It's not that I believe atheism is hopeless, atheism is hopeless regardless of what I think of it. Hope and faith are intertwined. Atheism is absent of both.

I think all things being equal, people rather vote for somebody with hope than without.

One other note, I don't think people don't vote for atheists because they think they are immoral. They don't vote for them because they think they are wrong about the biggest issue there is.

|3.6.07 @ 1:56PM|#

This far in already and not one reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly appendages.

I find great hope in atheism. It recognizes that there is only existence and that we are the caretakers of our place in it. Despite each crisis du jour, the human condition steadly improves. I try to do my part to see this trend continue (at least until the next big asteroid comes along).

VM|3.6.07 @ 1:58PM|#

Hi Cab!

thanks!

cheers,
VM

|3.6.07 @ 1:59PM|#

If Bobby Trendy kissed Daddy Dobson's ring, he would would beat this fictional atheist Goldwater walking away.

|3.6.07 @ 1:59PM|#

Cab,

I have hope that my species will over come this massive delusion.

Take That!

You are completely wrong. How can you know what I/We (athiests) hope for?

I loved that "project much?" comment. Applies to you too!

|3.6.07 @ 2:01PM|#

massive delusion = god belief

|3.6.07 @ 2:02PM|#

I hope my species will not destroy itself... or this planet...

Is that hope?

|3.6.07 @ 2:02PM|#

The poll just tells me most people are STUPID.

This is something I have known for a long time. I am a non-theist, but not a militant one.

I also find it funny that all these Medveds who are "endowed by the Creator" are by no means "well endowed" ( I mean that in the mental facilities sense)

|3.6.07 @ 2:02PM|#

faculties*

|3.6.07 @ 2:02PM|#

I can pretty much guarantee you, though, that if an atheist ran on a Barry Goldwater-like ticket for the Republican Party, most religious conservatives would support him well before they'd support any "Christian candidate."

So, I can expect the Southern Baptist Convention to endorse Ron Paul any day now, yes?

I'm sorry, but the American people today seem to want an authoritarian figurehead, regardless of their religious affiliation, and Goldwateresqe candidates don't fit that bill.

|3.6.07 @ 2:03PM|#

Dei

Perhaps I am wrong.

Just out of curiousity, what delusion are you projecting I'm under?

|3.6.07 @ 2:04PM|#

Cab

your delusion is that 'hope and faith' are intertwined...

bra..

|3.6.07 @ 2:04PM|#

Most (I say based purely on anectdotal evidence) evangelicals are not the foaming 'Catholics worship Satan' flavor. They're just very enthusiastic Christians of a particularly pre-chewed bland variety of Christianity. A Catholic at least acknowledges Christ's divinity. An atheist? Those folks are just plain old Evil. And probably fags and commies, as well.

I try not to let the evangelical kooks in my wife's family know that I'm an atheist. They're perfectly happy to agree-to-disagree with fellow Christians across denominational lines. Not so much with the atheists.

|3.6.07 @ 2:05PM|#

I think that people are against voting for atheists for three reasons:

1. They don't think the rock is just a rock, they think it keeps away tigers.

2. They identify atheists with parts of the culture that they don't like.

3. They believe atheists think they are smarter/superior whatever to them.

tros|3.6.07 @ 2:05PM|#

Ahmen!

tros|3.6.07 @ 2:06PM|#

I meant AHMEN about the god delusions long live FSM for people too repressed to get high. Hang in there!

|3.6.07 @ 2:07PM|#

dumb question?

FSM?

|3.6.07 @ 2:08PM|#

Cab,

"Hope and faith are intertwined."

That's a nice sound bite, but pretty empty philosophically. Unless you'd care to make an argument for it? Because stated as though it were axiomatic, it doesn't hold a whole lot of water.

I have lots of hope, and no faith whatsoever. My hope is based on basic cause-and-effect; if I can predict two possible outcomes, and one of them is positive, I hope for the positive outcome. If possible, I take action to make the positive outcome more likely.

Or do you believe that the only 'real' hope is wishing for the invisible man in the sky to change things around to my liking?

|3.6.07 @ 2:10PM|#

FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster

|3.6.07 @ 2:14PM|#

Agreed, I'm calling bs on the "hope and faith are intertwined" bit. What about people who are just sitting back and waiting for the rapture? Your statement is meaningless.

When I was little, it gave me hope to believe that if I was a good boy a jolly bearded man in a red suit would come into my house and leave me presents every year. Didn't make him real either.

Good article, by the way.

|3.6.07 @ 2:15PM|#

Hope and faith are intertwined. Atheism is absent of both.
...
They don't vote for them because they think they are wrong about the biggest issue there is.

I think this sums up the divide pretty nicely. Faith is belief in something in the absence of proof. Hope is an optimism about future events, by it's nature also without proof. Theists, unfortunately, do not see how non-theists can have hope in the absence of religious faith.

As a non-theist, I have more faith and hope, in my fellow man than I do in an omnipotent being or a mystical power. Sadly, a truly religious man cannot grasp that concept, and thus I am "wrong". And if someone is "wrong" on the "biggest issue" then they can never be "right", since no amount of "proof" will sway a man with faith.

|3.6.07 @ 2:15PM|#

oh! Thanx...

Like a second generation of Sub Genius.

Cool

|3.6.07 @ 2:15PM|#

Hope and faith are intertwined? You mean like how reality and atheism are intertwined? Yeah, both statements are a little true, a little false.

VM|3.6.07 @ 2:15PM|#

Hi Blogimi!

Cab does a good job in explaining why it might be the case why an atheistic framework is shunned in politics.

"Hope and faith are intertwined. Atheism is absent of both.

I think all things being equal, people rather vote for somebody with hope than without.

One other note, I don't think people don't vote for atheists because they think they are immoral. They don't vote for them because they think they are wrong about the biggest issue there is."


He never stated if that was his position. Assume it is, so what? It gives a position that can be discussed. If it isn't his position, we can still discuss.

The final sentence is very interesting - combine that with someone's faith: that's their belief of their ultimate fate. He's right: for the believer, one could easily imagine that being the most important issue. We have our lines for an acceptable and unacceptable candidates.

The tricky part is how religion and politics get intertwined then. Whose religion gets favored, necessarily rejecting other religions. Then it gets very sticky indeed!

Even though you find the notion that hope and faith to be intertwined to be revolting, the topic is heading towards an explanation why atheism is the last acceptable target of bigotry in politics. For those who happen to believe that faith and hope are partners, atheism would be hopeless. Therefore, it's not for them.

Religion has had solid roots in providing hope. Medievalists could help out here, but besides day-to-day safety for the peasants (serfs - is that the correct term?), a better afterlife would help sugarcoat the shit sandwich known as life.

During slavery, was there a religious form that promised something happy? What about some Gospel Churches today? There seems to be a huge message of hope and faith in the afterlife will deliver that hope.

|3.6.07 @ 2:16PM|#

why would I argue with people that are so right?

|3.6.07 @ 2:20PM|#

Our conservative friends claim to love the Constitution, but their eyes seem to glaze over this:

3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. - Constitution of the United States: Article VI, section 3

They may try to rely on clauses in state constitutions banning atheists from office, but those are dead letters, per this Supreme Court decision: TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). So the idea that only believers can be our leaders is, if not unconstitutional, at least extra-constitutional. It has no more standing than an opinion that only pacifists or vegetarians ought to be elected. Still, as late as 1995 South Carolina was still fighting to keep a declaration of belief in god as a requirement to be a notary public. SC lost in its State Supreme Court.

Yes, some 80-90% of Americans believe in some idea of god(s). About 40% attend religious services on a regular basis, and my guess is that there's probably a huge intersection of sets between regular churchgoers and frequent voters. Attempts to unify the ideal of good citizenship with public religiosity go back to the early days of the Republic. Alexander Hamilton, in his latter years, tried to rally folks to a Christian Constitutional Society. If this devil may quote scripture, ...and there is no new thing under the sun.

I explained how I think candidates ought to handle the "faith question" in a previous H&R comment.

Kevin

|3.6.07 @ 2:26PM|#

thanks kwix and VM for not acting condescending.

It is pretty hard to convey complete thoughts about a subject like this three sentences at a time, in between work, and fighting the knowfersures along the way.



That is not my position, by the way. I would vote for an atheist. I've been an atheist before, and I may be one again in the future. But for now at least, I think I have the answer, and that answer isn't atheism.

megs|3.6.07 @ 2:30PM|#

I find it kind of sad that Radley had to use words that could have furthered his list of violated rights to explain that this doesn't mean ALL whatnot believers are all about trampling inalienable rights.

And then it's kind of sad to see so many comments blatantly knocking any believers.

The problem is that a lot of Christian-ish voters don't really care to impose dogma into law, since they can understand that just because they like to follow certain rules, they don't have to be laws. But then it doesn't seem to bother them if they are made into laws because hey, already following them. And this appeals to the hardcore faith-imposers. So it's very seductive to use faith as a political tool and method.

|3.6.07 @ 2:30PM|#

thanks kwix and VM for not acting condescending.

Mote, Beam, Cab

But for now at least, I think I have the answer, and that answer isn't atheism.

Perhaps, but we haven't really defined the question yet.

|3.6.07 @ 2:34PM|#

I am more interested in the rock of ages than the age of rocks.

That wasn't Bryan, though I could see how someone might think it was. Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee put those words into the mouth of their WJB stand-in, Matthew Brady, in their play, Inherit The Wind.

Kevin

VM|3.6.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Hi Cab!

"It is pretty hard to convey complete thoughts about a subject like this three sentences at a time, in between work, and fighting the knowfersures along the way."

exactly!

That's a real pisser. And you presented an answer to the question posed in the original post. And I think you raise an interesting point about hope, optimism, and political (not religious here) belief.

"Morning in America" was a positive message - it was optimistic, and it gave hope. A libertarian message focusing on the positive outcomes from a Liberal framework might get more appeal than a "DEMAND CURV! MATT DAMON! 'FREE' MARKET! YOU DON'T LIKE IT? YOU LOSE" style that we see often here. Not arguing that Pres Reagan was a libertarian or a limited gov't dude, tho.

A positive, hopeful description that gives some sort of a roadmap for a successful future would help the libertarian cause much more than claiming, "the market will take care of it". :)

cheers,
VM

|3.6.07 @ 2:37PM|#

NordicRuminant,
Some deep shit there man. You are correct that throughout history, faith in the "heavenly reward" has comforted people in their darkest hours. Whether it was dreams of Valhalla while on the battlefield, or the Christian heaven during the plagues, man has always looked outside of his own reality to the spiritual realm when trying to cope with the frightening unknown.

I don't really have an answer on how to separate religion from politics as people vote what they know. Even a Buddhist can be related as "believing in something" in the mind of the typical American. To a lot of people in this country the idea of a person who doesn't believe in some form of "higher power" is an unthinkable and frightening position.

|3.6.07 @ 2:38PM|#

A positive, hopeful description that gives some sort of a roadmap for a successful future would help the libertarian cause much more than claiming, "the market will take care of it". :)

What would you suggest? Remember that the words "freedom" and "liberty" no longer hold the same connotation that they once did.

|3.6.07 @ 2:43PM|#

VM -

Ascribing an attribute to a group of people isn't a question of faith - it's a claim of fact. It's perfectly appropriate to ask for evidence that atheists lack hope (a link to a poll asking "do you lack hope?", for instance).

Cab -

I suspect you're not an atheist. I am. I can assure you that atheists do not lack hope (if some do, it's certainly not an inescapable consequence of atheism). It follows, therefore, that it is indeed possible to have hope without faith.

|3.6.07 @ 2:44PM|#

Obviously, I can't keep up with these fast threads. Pretend mine went up about thirty comments ago.

|3.6.07 @ 2:44PM|#

MikeT writes: A good one is the pro-property rights commandments in the Bible. The Bible does not allow for the forced redistribution of wealth.

Mike, I'm a Christian, and very pro-property rights in this world, but have you not read the Acts of the Apostles lately? Ananias and his wife hold out part of the price for which they sold their land from the common kitty, and die for it. That part of the Acts is pretty much a Christian Communist manifesto, I'm afraid. I have know Christians who believed that they were obliged to be communists by the Bible's teachings.

This isn't my belief, but it's certainly there, even if not in the "Red Words."

Dan T.|3.6.07 @ 2:48PM|#

All people are religious - even those who refer to their religion as "atheism" are fond of talking about "rights","duties","morality" and other such mystical ideas.

Calling freedom of speech a "natural right" doesn't make the concept any less religious. You can't prove that the right exists.

|3.6.07 @ 2:49PM|#

And then it's kind of sad to see so many comments blatantly knocking any believers.

It's what happens anytime a religion v. atheism thread comes up. Believers slam atheists, atheists slam believers, and everyone paints with a broad brush.

Now that I think of it, That happens with any subject in an internet forum.

VM|3.6.07 @ 2:50PM|#

Jake - will do - am pretending this comment is above.

C'mon Jake - what horseshit. It's an opinion. It's a thought. He was expressing an idea. "Maybe it's because X".

Mein Gott.

even a poll wouldn't be "evidence"

And he explained the genesis (as it were) of that idea.

You could have an opinion, for example, that you think there's an element of misogyny in the RCC, since there are no female priests or females in leadership leaders. Now, if someone asks you for "evidence", you can back up why you have that thought, but as for proof, you can't. So what?

p.s., I really like your brother's hat!

|3.6.07 @ 2:50PM|#

Faith is belief in something in the absence of proof. Hope is an optimism about future events, by it's nature also without proof.

Im sorry, but thatstatment doesnt make sense. Hope is without proof? What does that mean? Thats like saying Orange is without proof. Its nonsensical.

In the possibility of two outcomes; one positive and one negative, you wish (or hope) for the positive. I dont see where proof comes into play here.

|3.6.07 @ 2:55PM|#

Dan T.: I ask this question of everybody who claims that atheism is just another religion: Is there any belief system that is not religion, according to your definition?

Religion is usually defined as worship of the supernatural. How can atheism fit into this definition? I think your point is sloppy.

|3.6.07 @ 2:55PM|#

The unprovable orange is the sweetest.

|3.6.07 @ 2:56PM|#

I ask this question of everybody who claims that atheism is just another religion

Sure, it's another religion. Just like my hobby is not collecting stamps.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:02PM|#

I'm an atheist. I am skeptical of the notion of natural rights. I'd also argue that Christianity was not historically a great respecter of what became modern natural rights theory. Heck, I'd say that it has more to do with the writings of classical world authors - pagans - than with Christianity. It is hard to read Seneca the Younger's (a stoic) plea for kindness towards and respect of slaves - they were human too! - and not see the roots of that there.

Dan T.|3.6.07 @ 3:02PM|#

Dan T.: I ask this question of everybody who claims that atheism is just another religion: Is there any belief system that is not religion, according to your definition?

No, that was my point - all people are religious. We believe things that can't be proven and find meaning in things that transcend true rationality.


Religion is usually defined as worship of the supernatural. How can atheism fit into this definition? I think your point is sloppy.

I think the usual definition of religion is limited in usefulness. You may not hold a belief in God, but if you think man has a "natural right" to liberty I don't see how that is not a religious belief.

Atheism makes sense as a concept if you're talking about whether or not a person practices an organized religion, perhaps. But I've never met an atheist who didn't believe something irrational.

|3.6.07 @ 3:03PM|#

Jake, as kwix eluded to (more eloquently than I). Hope is optimism about the future. Obviously you can have no proof, or facts, about future events. Therefore, what is that "hope" or "optimism" based on that the future event will turn out ok? I contend it is based on faith, hence my use of the term "intertwined."

Now, I know this is going to sound canned, and I will get crushed by the little trollistas, but I don't know how else to ask it.....

What good is hope without faith?

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:04PM|#

Socialism and authoritarian ideologies have long been associated with theism. Indeed many 20th century dictators clothed themselves in the cloak of religiosity.

|3.6.07 @ 3:05PM|#

I would think the libertarian position on a personal spiritual belief is that it's no one's damn business. Frankly, I don't care to what god, if any, a political candidate prays. What I hope is to find political candidates who want to keep the government out of the private lives of citizens. I'll roll out my cheeseburger analogy. Eating a calorie-laden double cheeseburger with grilled onions and all the trimmings three times a day is probably not a rational decision given the health implications. For some reason, many libertarians flock to defend the rights of the nonrational cheeseburger eater but often condemn people who choose to engage in the nonrational belief in a supreme being. Shouldn't the libertarian message be: "It just doesn't matter."

|3.6.07 @ 3:06PM|#

Qbryzan!

Awesome!

I love not collecting stamps too!

What church/synagog/mosque you go to for that!

heh heh

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:08PM|#

Jose Ortega y Gasset,

That's all fine and good in a world where religious belief isn't politicized. We are all aware though that it is politicized in the U.S. and that the policy of "leaving people alone" isn't the one followed by a significant number of religious adherants.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:09PM|#

Oh, and I think that natural human sociability is rather thin in nature.

|3.6.07 @ 3:10PM|#

VM -

There's some WTF here.

When Cab said:

It's not that I believe atheism is hopeless, atheism is hopeless regardless of what I think of it.

... I was under the impression that he wasn't merely saying "this is what some people think." When he said:

why would I argue with people that are so right?

...I figured that had been confirmed. I have to conclude Cab is one of the people who believe that atheists don't have hope, since (unless I've profoundly misread something), he's indicated that he agrees with this. If that's the case, I want to know why he believes it. If it's not the case, I'd like to know that, too.

If I said "libertarians loathe black licorice," would it be "horseshit" for someone else to ask me for some sort of evidence to back up that claim, or should everyone just accept it because I'm just "expressing an idea"?

I'm not trying to go into attack mode; I just think someone's missing something here, and it might be me.

|3.6.07 @ 3:10PM|#

blogimi, thank you, but I can't really take credit, I heard it fom James "The Amazing" Randi.

|3.6.07 @ 3:11PM|#

"it just doesn't matter"

Sorry, already been used in "Meatballs"

Maybe... "It shouldn't matter, but sadly it does"

Fluffy|3.6.07 @ 3:13PM|#

Dan -

Two things:

First, I don't think that not voting for an atheist is bigotry. People can use any arbitrary means they wish to make up their mind about who to vote for.

BUT - the question is arising in the context of Romney's statement that a person of faith should lead the country. If a major politician made a statement that said, "I don't think a Catholic should lead the country," there would be a shitstorm of complaint about how that statement was bigoted. There is no qualitative difference between the statements "I don't think a Catholic should lead the country," and "I don't think an atheist should lead the country," and the latter statement is a necessary corollary of Romney's statement. So there's nothing wrong with wondering why a statement against Catholics would be damned, and why a statement against atheists is met with crickets.

Personally I think a person's religious beliefs or absence of beliefs is a core element of their character and their mind, and it's perfectly reasonable to judge people based on their beliefs. But if it's OK to judge atheists for their "hopelessness", it's OK for me to judge Christians based on their "dopeyness".

Second:

"Rights" are useful concepts only within the symbol system of morality. So that means they have no tangible existence, true. But that doesn't make them "religious", any more than anything that we refer to that's not at the level of discrete and concrete phenomena is "religious". Is "acceleration" religious?

|3.6.07 @ 3:16PM|#

I think much of the antipathy towards atheists stems from their general smugness. I'm not saying all atheists are smug (or even most of them) or that smugness is exclusive to atheists, but I think that the general impression of atheists is one of arrogance and self-importance

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:19PM|#

Fluffy,

Personally I think a person's religious beliefs or absence of beliefs is a core element of their character and their mind...

For most people it is a core element of the religious community that they were born into.

|3.6.07 @ 3:19PM|#

I would never vote for an athiest for any office. Athiests have nothing holding them back from commiting attrocities as the ends justify the means and science trumps all. There is a reason Stalin was so brutal.

|3.6.07 @ 3:22PM|#

Andy claims of athiests,

"their general smugness"

"arrogance and self-importance"

Projections anyone?

|3.6.07 @ 3:23PM|#

American-Troll

Beautiful!

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:23PM|#

American,

So, what made a devout Christian like Isabella of Spain so brutal to the Jews and Muslims?

|3.6.07 @ 3:25PM|#

The inqusition, here we go.
The inqusition, what a show!

|3.6.07 @ 3:25PM|#

Isabella was just a mean bitch.

Dan T.|3.6.07 @ 3:26PM|#

BUT - the question is arising in the context of Romney's statement that a person of faith should lead the country. If a major politician made a statement that said, "I don't think a Catholic should lead the country," there would be a shitstorm of complaint about how that statement was bigoted. There is no qualitative difference between the statements "I don't think a Catholic should lead the country," and "I don't think an atheist should lead the country," and the latter statement is a necessary corollary of Romney's statement. So there's nothing wrong with wondering why a statement against Catholics would be damned, and why a statement against atheists is met with crickets.

Your point is well taken; I suppose the obvious answer is that there are more Catholics than atheists around to object, and they're better organized.

Of course, if you're going to claim that atheism is not a religion then you can't claim anti-religious bigotry. If a candidate says "I think the President should be someone who is smart" you wouldn't think he was bigoted against stupid people.

Second:

"Rights" are useful concepts only within the symbol system of morality. So that means they have no tangible existence, true. But that doesn't make them "religious", any more than anything that we refer to that's not at the level of discrete and concrete phenomena is "religious". Is "acceleration" religious?

I would think that acceleration is not a religious concept since it describes an observable physical phenomenon. Science and math are not religious because they describe the world as it is. But once you start talking about the way the world should be or assigning values to concepts or people, you're getting into what I would consider religion.

Consider this - we'd all agree that the statement "God has given us the right to free speech" to be religious. But for some reason the statement "We have a natural right to free speech" is not, even though it's saying the same thing - just switching out the name of the grantor of the right.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:26PM|#

Indeed, it seems that the religious have nothing holding them back from atrocities, if the wars associated with the Reformation and Counter-Reformation are any indication.

|3.6.07 @ 3:27PM|#

I think much of the antipathy towards atheists stems from their general smugness

"God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It"

Yep, those atheists sure are smug, arrogant, and self-important.

|3.6.07 @ 3:28PM|#

Just because theists want to impose values on others does not justify atheists committing the same mistake. From where I sit, libertarians should be arguing for tolerance of all nonrational beliefs. Frankly, I think many atheists (and libertarians) find faith deeply annoying... and this annoyance gets articulated in the sort of browbeating that is not given unto heroin addicts, fur-wearing prostitutes or chain-smoking taxi drivers. Mention religion on an H&R thread and anyone admitting religious belief gets beaten like Rodney King.

|3.6.07 @ 3:29PM|#

Dan. T

Are all of your ideas that are non-existensial religous to you?

How'bout the symbol that represents the letter 'A'?

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:29PM|#

American,

how could she be mean? She was religious! She had something holding her back!

Dan T.,

...is that there are more Catholics than atheists around to object...

More than anything it is our growing numbers which has garnered us such recognition. A new, more confident atheism is a foot.

VM|3.6.07 @ 3:30PM|#

blog:
LOL. Awesome reference!

Jose - you're kidding?

|3.6.07 @ 3:30PM|#

American: If religious faith is the only thing stopping you from pillaging, raping, and "commiting [sic] atrocities", you're not the sort of person I'd want to know, let alone elect.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:31PM|#

Just because theists want to impose values on others does not justify atheists committing the same mistake.

As a general rule atheists are not trying to impose their values on anyone.

|3.6.07 @ 3:32PM|#

As in many philosophical arguments, confusion derives from equivocal definitions. When I use the term "hope," it can have several meanings.

If I say I hope to catch the 3:00 bus, I am using "hope" in the sense of expectation. If I gather my belongings, stop fooling around on the intertubes, make sure I have the fare with me, and get my ass out the door, I will catch that bus. That's assuming that it isn't running fast, or so late that it turns into the 3:30, which might arguably be interpreted as the same bus, but will still make me late for my 4:00 appointment. In this example, I have "hope" because I reasonable amount of control over what might happen, but events aren't strictly determined.

If I say I hope I win the Powerball lottery, I'm engaging in a more wishful form of thinking. I have a modicum of control over what happens, in that I can choose to buy a ticket or not, but after spending my buck, it's all out of my hands. Let's leave aside the horror stories about people mortgaging their houses to buy lotto tickets, but even then the player is still at the mercy of the laws of probability.

If I say I hope I go to heaven, I'm relying on magical thinking. I have to be confident that, based on mythology, a deity will preserve my being beyond my death and reward me with whatever good things lie beyond that veil. According to some variants of Christianity, who gets to heaven is predestined, and anybody not part of the elect who hopes for salvation will be cruelly disappointed. Religion A points at Religion B, claiming that all its adherents are doomed as heretics or infidels. Lots of hope there. Sure, you can rely on the legends, traditions and scriptures of a faith as evidence that gives you hope, but often that evidence wouldn't cut the mustard in an undergraduate history seminar for authenticity as original sources, and one frequently hears the claim from believers that one has to have faith in their particular holy book, at which point it becomes dispositive.

I have hope. I hope I live to be 92, like my Aunt Rita did. I hope I enjoy the rest of my days in relative freedom, peace and prosperity. I hope some good women is a bad enough judge of character to fall in love with me. Just because I'm not hoping for pie in the sky, bye-and-bye doesn't mean I lack hope. I also realize that it will probably take some real-world effort on my part to achieve those hopes.

Kevin

|3.6.07 @ 3:32PM|#

There must be some kind of,

"softa, gentla debating" being taught in public schools these days...

I have now pulled no punches.

|3.6.07 @ 3:33PM|#

Jake, I tried to answer you six posts above your last one. I don't know if you saw it.

|3.6.07 @ 3:33PM|#

Dan T.:

I dunno. Even if there is a leap of faith when an atheist "believes in science" there is no worship of the supernatural. While you might be able to argue that atheists have faith just as much as religious folks, saying that atheists are also religious stretches the definitions of the words so much that they no longer have meaning. Just my opinion.

Dan T.|3.6.07 @ 3:34PM|#

Dan. T

Are all of your ideas that are non-existensial religous to you?

How'bout the symbol that represents the letter 'A'?

Now that's an interesting question.

I'd say that the symbol that represents the letter A along with the letter itself along with all language are metaphors, so I'd say no. Metaphors describe things, whereas I'm saying that religion is what assigns value to things.

|3.6.07 @ 3:34PM|#

A smug theist says "I am strong in my faith, blah blah blah." He isn't like the atheist who tries to convince someone that God doesn't exist, implicit in which is that if you don't agree with him, you must not comprehend his arguments, and if you don't comprehend his arguments, you're dumb.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:36PM|#

FinFangFoom,

I've been accused of everything from false consciousness to simple stubborness by theists.

|3.6.07 @ 3:37PM|#

Dan T. says

"whereas I'm saying that religion is what assigns value to things"

Only to you, and others that think/feel as you do.

|3.6.07 @ 3:38PM|#

He isn't like the atheist who tries to convince someone that God doesn't exist

Is your point that theists aren't trying to convert people? Seriously? I've never had an atheist knock on my door, and ask me to talk about their non-belief.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:39PM|#

...whereas I'm saying that religion is what assigns value to things...

The historical record fairly soundly illustrates that people assign values to their religious beliefs, which is why religious beliefs change over time.

|3.6.07 @ 3:40PM|#

As a general rule atheists are not trying to impose their values on anyone.

Grotius, well not qua atheists, but I don't think that's true. Communists?

|3.6.07 @ 3:42PM|#

I don't see a nickel's worth of difference between a Christian telling me my atheism is stupid and an atheist telling me my Christianity is stupid. There seems to be a fair measure of intolerance on both sides... and both sides seem convinced of their "rightness."

Again, I think the best libertarian message is that as long as you aren't violating anyone else's rights, it doesn't matter if you worship the Magic 8 Ball. The proper role of government is to stay the hell out of personal value systems. Of course, that's not nearly as much fun as busting the balls of people who one thinks are mentally deficient because of their nonrational belief systems.

Dan T.|3.6.07 @ 3:43PM|#

Dan T.:

I dunno. Even if there is a leap of faith when an atheist "believes in science" there is no worship of the supernatural. While you might be able to argue that atheists have faith just as much as religious folks, saying that atheists are also religious stretches the definitions of the words so much that they no longer have meaning. Just my opinion.

Fair enough. I think everybody has belief in the supernatural, but not everybody practices a religion.

Maybe that's the distinction - an atheist comes to his own conclusions about the mystical nature of life while the religious person adopts the collective ideas of those who proceeded him.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:44PM|#

FinFangFoom,

I gotta ask, how many communists live in the U.S. today? I've met a handful in my life. For all of them religious belief wasn't a major issue.

Now I'm not a communist.

|3.6.07 @ 3:44PM|#

"I hope I win the Powerball lottery"

kevrob,

You can't win if you don't play. (Kinda like folks who go to church on Easter and Xmas Eve "just in case.")

|3.6.07 @ 3:45PM|#

The Declaration of Independence only mentions that our rights come from a Creator because Thomas Jefferson's more atheistic draft wasn't accepted as-is (Jefferson's draft refered once to "nature's god" with a lowercase g and that's it). Yeah, that Jefferson - no regards to rights at all!

|3.6.07 @ 3:45PM|#

Well, as an atheist, when people ask me what my religion is, I say I am an atheist. Some ask me why, I explain why I don't believe that god exists. They say either that they couldn't not believe in God, which is fine, or they come up with an argument that God does exist. These always suck and often have something to do with the universe is too complex for there not to be a God. This is self-evidently a retarded argument which any iteration thereof of can be shot down. It makes the atheist look smug and arrogant and the theist feel dumb/think the atheist is smug and dumb.

|3.6.07 @ 3:45PM|#

Grotius,

There was that one guy on Seinfeld.

|3.6.07 @ 3:45PM|#

OK, OK, OK,

I do get huffy and puffy when it comes to religon and government.

It scares the living shit out of me to think the people in charge of my world also value the posibility of an afterlife OVER the one and only life I will ever get here and right fucking now.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:46PM|#

Jose:

I gotta ask, who exactly is attacking the religious of anyone in this conversation? Am I doing so?

Anyway, religious people engage in public discourse where they discuss that belief, and they are unlikely to stop doing that. I don't see why atheists shouldn't engage in a similar course of action.

Fluffy|3.6.07 @ 3:47PM|#

Dan -

I think we are assigning related but slightly different shades of meaning to the word "right".

To me, a "right" is just an element in the relationship between the individual and the state. A "right" is a prerogative that, if denied, would allow me to justly and morally resist the state with violence.

As such, it is a reference to a state of being - "Does Fluffy, or does Fluffy not, feel morally entitled to resist the state with violence?"

So I can't possess it like I possess a hat or a cup of coffee - and it can't be granted in the way a feudal right was granted. People who share my moral framework for looking at the world will agree with me that it exists. People who don't, won't. We can never ultimately adjudicate whether I'm right or not, because I can't force your moral agreement. But it's still not necessarily religious, per se, because even if you aren't a Randroid and don't think that moral facts can be deduced from natural facts, I can always just say that my moral claim to a "right" is just my own preference, like my affection for vanilla ice cream. Is the fact that I like vanilla ice cream religious?

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:48PM|#

blogmimi dei,

Your concerns probably aren't overblown.

Dan T.|3.6.07 @ 3:48PM|#

It scares the living shit out of me to think the people in charge of my world also value the posibility of an afterlife OVER the one and only life I will ever get here and right fucking now.

But your notion that this is the only life you'll get ever have is a religous belief itself.

VM|3.6.07 @ 3:48PM|#

de stijl - wasn't that guy a Nazi of some sort of other?

Blogimi: :) to mitigate this, I listened to the Bad Religion song, "the Voice of god is government". That might help you, too!

|3.6.07 @ 3:48PM|#

Dan T.

You are completely wrong.

I am an athiest, and although I don't speak for all, I do not believe in ANYTHING mystical/supernatural.

Super Natural/Super Normal/Super Unsuper? It is a null word.

|3.6.07 @ 3:49PM|#

In the possibility of two outcomes; one positive and one negative, you wish (or hope) for the positive. I dont see where proof comes into play here.

Do you know exactly what the future holds for you? You hope you don't get cancer, you hope you don't starve, you hope your car doesn't get shit on by a bird tonight.

Until these events occur(or not), you have no proof of how the future plays out and once that moment occurs, you don't have to hope for a particular outcome anymore.

Hope, like Faith, is an abstract concept. If each of us knew the future exactly as it will occur, we would not have to Hope for anything. If each of us knew that there was a God, then we wouldn't have to have Faith in said being. The concepts, while not the same, are related as both only exist without concrete proof.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:50PM|#

blogimi Dei,

Well, apparently at least some "end times" believers have access to the WH. Think about the implications of that (if it is true).

|3.6.07 @ 3:55PM|#

Do you think everyone trying to ban transfats, fur or smoking is doing it for Jesus? The human norm is people imposing values on other people. The environmental movement is full of people who don't believe in god but do believe in regulating others.

And Grotius, I did not accuse you of attacking a specific person's religion. My point is more broad. In my experience, libertarians often seem amazingly tolerant of other nonrational beliefs but highly critical of religious faith. And the same old stuff pours out... religion gave us the Inquisition, they are trying to control my life, religion is stupid, etc. Yes, Grotius, to spare you the expense of more straw, you have every right to say whatever you want about anything. I, on the other hand, would enjoy hearing more libertarian voices advocating tolerance.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 3:59PM|#

Jose,

I, on the other hand, would enjoy hearing more libertarian voices advocating tolerance.

Atheists and libertarians advocate tolerance of religious belief all the time. That's really beside the point. Lots and lots of religious are making all sorts of claims in the public sphere; on in the public square. As they are doing I see no fucking problem with responding to them.

As to what type of response is merited, that often depends on the original claim being made.

|3.6.07 @ 4:01PM|#

It is completely true...

Just off the top of my head:

Ashcroft comes to mind...

Dan t.

The idea that my life is the only one I will ever have IS NOT a religous belief.

If you think so, please explain.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 4:01PM|#

Jose,

Also regarding addicts, etc., they don't generally create and sponsor powerful political groups, etc. do they?

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 4:03PM|#

Jose,

Indeed, when was the last time that you saw a prostitute PAC which was trying to mandate certain behaviors in society?

|3.6.07 @ 4:03PM|#

Jose Ortega y Gasset

I am almost sorry for:

Being intolerant to intolerants,

Not playing nice with people who don't play nice.

And yes, I am talking about all religions as a whole here.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 4:04PM|#

Jose,

In other words, it really isn't the religious belief that is the issue, it is the political activity associated with the belief of some religious people that is issue. When cigarette smoking cabbies start demanding that I must I'll be concerned with them.

|3.6.07 @ 4:05PM|#

I, on the other hand, would enjoy hearing more libertarian voices advocating tolerance.

Fuck tolerance.

I have no tolerance for racists, homophobes, fascists, rapists, murderers, and a lot of other people besides.

The reality of the situation is that tolerance only works when it's mutual. The literal millions of people in my state who voted to make public smoking illegal have made it clear they have no tolerance for my friends (I don't smoke), and it would be just plain stupid for me to tolerate those voters, because they aren't apt to stop there.

Similarly, I'll tolerate only those theists who have demonstrated a willingness to tolerate me.

|3.6.07 @ 4:07PM|#

I am not trying to take on the whole world of people not playing nice, by the way.

Just the ones I come in contact with...

Fluffy|3.6.07 @ 4:08PM|#

Jose -

I'm critical of religion because it has carved out this broad exception for itself where everything is subject to criticism BUT faith.

I don't think religion occupies some special place of respect that makes it immune from criticism.

If I had a friend who thought that the mailbox outside his house was talking to him and telling him to eat stray cats, I'd say, "Dude, that's pretty messed up." But if my friend thinks that a burning bush spoke to some OTHER guy and told him how everyone should live, I'm not supposed to make a peep.

I'm "tolerant of non-rational beliefs" to different degrees. If my neighbor thinks that the lottery numbers came to him in a dream, I'll let him have his fun and spend his dollar without raining on his parade. If my neighbor thinks that dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to trick the nonbeliever, I'll probably silently judge him to be a bit daft.

The other thing that makes me intolerant of religion is the way it has decided that it can justify itself consequentially. I remember reading Lippman and being quite impressed with it, but then realizing that he never bothers to argue why religious belief is true; but he argues extensively about the supposedly negative social, cultural and psychological consequences of the absence of religious belief. If you're not even trying to convince me of the truth of the "Good News" anymore but trying to impress me with Straussian appeals to the Necessary Lie, I'm just not going to respect you very much.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 4:08PM|#

Also, for the sake of forgoing a different argument I will readily concede that religious people have as much right as myself to make their opinions known in the public square. But once they are there and they make their arguments it seems to me they are fair game.

|3.6.07 @ 4:10PM|#

I don't see a nickel's worth of difference between a Christian telling me my atheism is stupid and an atheist telling me my Christianity is stupid. There seems to be a fair measure of intolerance on both sides... and both sides seem convinced of their "rightness."

Again, I think the best libertarian message is that as long as you aren't violating anyone else's rights, it doesn't matter if you worship the Magic 8 Ball. The proper role of government is to stay the hell out of personal value systems. Of course, that's not nearly as much fun as busting the balls of people who one thinks are mentally deficient because of their nonrational belief systems.

I agree with both of these statements. Atheists have "faith" that there is no god, and it is just as strong as the "faith" that there is one that Theists have. I suppose that's why I am one of those heathen fence sitters called "agnostic". I don't know, and can't prove or disprove the existence of God therefore I am willing to keep my mind open to the possibility that a god may actually exist.

While I agree with the position that the Government's only stance on religion should be no stance at all, I don't feel that being "libertarian" should necessarily preclude you from having and voicing an opinion about "nonrational" matters of faith. If I were a believer in the Magic 8 Ball and I felt that it was my place to try to convince others to believe likewise I see no conflict between personal prostylization(sp?) and libertarianism so long as individual rights are not impacted based on that belief structure. IOW, everybody should be allowed to own a gun, get married, have children, and be left alone by the government; even those heathen Flying Spaghetti Monsterists.

Dan T.|3.6.07 @ 4:13PM|#

To me, a "right" is just an element in the relationship between the individual and the state. A "right" is a prerogative that, if denied, would allow me to justly and morally resist the state with violence.

As such, it is a reference to a state of being - "Does Fluffy, or does Fluffy not, feel morally entitled to resist the state with violence?"

I'm sort of on the same page with you, although I'd describe a "right" as being part of the social contract - the individual is granted rights from the collective, in exchange for "duties" which is what the collective asks of the individual (one of those duties is to respect others' rights).

FWIW, I think a big problem with libertarian philosophy is that it overemphasizes rights but doesn't give much credence to the idea of duty. But you really can't have one without the other.

But it's still not necessarily religious, per se, because even if you aren't a Randroid and don't think that moral facts can be deduced from natural facts, I can always just say that my moral claim to a "right" is just my own preference, like my affection for vanilla ice cream. Is the fact that I like vanilla ice cream religious?

At least under my definition, there's not much connection between a preference and a right. A right only exists if society is willing to provide it to you or defend it on your behalf.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 4:13PM|#

Kwix,

Most atheists that I know are agnostics. I am also an atheist who is an agnostic.

|3.6.07 @ 4:14PM|#

Kwix,

You are wrong.

Please look up definition of faith.

I do not believe in fairies.
Does that mean I have anti-farie faith?

Please do not tow the religous line any longer. Unless that is what was intended.

Dan T.|3.6.07 @ 4:16PM|#

Dan t.

The idea that my life is the only one I will ever have IS NOT a religous belief.

If you think so, please explain.

I think it is because you don't have any way of really knowing what happens after you die. You can't prove that you don't have additional lives any more than someone can prove that they do.

In a way, that's the whole reason religions exist - to try to figure out what's going on beyond our mortal existance.

|3.6.07 @ 4:18PM|#

Actually, yes. Many nonreligious groups are quite powerful politically. These groups also advocate public policy changes that can directly limite my personal freedom to smoke, eat foods cooked in transfat and drive without a safety belt. Frankly, I think nonreligious organizations have been far more successful than religious movements in limiting personal freedoms.

Criticism of religion and other nonrational belief systems generally strikes me as mental masturbation. Hey, let's all have some fun and mock people who think they've been abducted by aliens! What's the point? In my experience, mocking religious people doesn't make them suddenly tolerant... it pisses them off, gives them a victim mentality and makes them want to gang up with their other 80 million pals and pass a law. I think the most logical approach is to say, "The best way to protect your religion is to protect the rights of others to other religions." As for this outpouring of tolerance, Grotius, I guess you skimmed by the mass delusions, mental deficiency comments up the thread.

|3.6.07 @ 4:19PM|#

There is no evidence to suggest an after life.

This lack of evidence does not prove anything.

Much less prove the existance of a faith.

|3.6.07 @ 4:19PM|#

Oy! You all turn into joe and John when the topic of religion or belief in God comes up. Every last one of you.
Ironically, they stay away from these talks.

|3.6.07 @ 4:21PM|#

"If my neighbor thinks that dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to trick the nonbeliever, I'll probably silently judge him to be a bit daft."

My greatest hope is that the judgments of my neighbors are always silent.

|3.6.07 @ 4:23PM|#

Jose Ortega y Gasset,

People who claim to have been abducted by aliens have not:

-Placed In Aliens We Trust on my fucking money

-Created an Alien-Faith-Based part of my fucking governemtn.

-Have 5 out of 7 TV channels devouted to non-believer bashing religous worship televion.

-et cetra

-ad nasuem

Please comment...

|3.6.07 @ 4:24PM|#

VM,

You're thinking of the soup guy.

I was thinking of the guy that Elaine dated that wore drab clothes and who had a copy of the Daily Worker on his end table.

Fluffy,

"Does Fluffy, or does Fluffy not, feel morally entitled to resist the state with violence?"

I'm not sure, but you do have the natural right for a good scratch behind the ears every now and again.

dhex|3.6.07 @ 4:24PM|#

to be fair jose, the idea that the faith (whatever it may be) is under attack is far older than public atheism - very, very old indeed.

as per your observation above (about the natural tendency of humans to fuck with each other) asking atheists to tiptoe in an environment which polls* as hostile is counterintuitive. this is only going to get worse as the public face of dawkins and other overt atheist spokepeople gets more time on air.

*whether or not that polled national attitude translates into overt hostility i'm somewhat skeptical about; much less the issue of damaging bigotry, rather than non-damaging fuckfacery.

Dan T.|3.6.07 @ 4:25PM|#

There is no evidence to suggest an after life.

You mean you haven't encountered any evidence. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Before you're born, there's no evidence to suggest to you there's anything more than life in the womb.

|3.6.07 @ 4:25PM|#

My above comment explains why I am "not bashing" / debating with so called alien abducitons folks.

|3.6.07 @ 4:26PM|#

Awesome Dan T.

To You,

EVERYTHING existes untill disproved.

|3.6.07 @ 4:26PM|#

Dan. T - the burden of proof is on the positive assertion. The negative is the default.

Does the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist? I have no way of knowing - it's invivisble and omnipotent. But I have NO REASON to believe in the IPU, therefore, until I'm shown evidence to the contrary, I don't believe in Her Horniness.

Does an afterlife exist? I have no way of knowing. However, as I have no evidence of an afterlife or of any supernatural power which could create an afterlife, then I must conclude that I don't believe in an afterlife.

Logic 101.

|3.6.07 @ 4:27PM|#

"Before you're born, there's no evidence to suggest to you there's anything more than life in the womb."

Well, there was that stubborn mattress stain.

|3.6.07 @ 4:28PM|#

You are wrong.
Please look up definition of faith.

From the Merriam-Webster online

Main Entry: faith
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
2b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Do you have "complete trust" that there is no god? If so, then you have "faith" that there is no god.

Oh, and FYI, it's "toe the line", not "tow the line".

|3.6.07 @ 4:29PM|#

I was concieved on a crab boat in Southeast Alaska.

Evidence for me was probably washed overboard.

|3.6.07 @ 4:31PM|#

Grotius | March 6, 2007, 4:13pm | #
Kwix,

Most atheists that I know are agnostics. I am also an atheist who is an agnostic.

Grotius, I know we have covered this ground elsewhere, and I apologize for not making my definition of "atheist" clear at the start. To me, the term "atheist" is someone who does not and will not believe in the existence of a god, period, no chance of ever changing their mind.

VM|3.6.07 @ 4:31PM|#

de stijl - hrumph.

I've seen only about 10 minutes of seinfeld. /kicks pebble.

|3.6.07 @ 4:32PM|#

Kwix please read Wesley's wonderfull lesson in Logic 101...

The burden of proof was/is/will always be your burden, not mine.

Sorry about the toe... You'll prolly get over it...

|3.6.07 @ 4:33PM|#

"To me, the term "atheist" is someone who does not and will not believe in the existence of a god, period, no chance of ever changing their mind." -Kwix

Nobody should claim that about anything. And I'm an atheist.

|3.6.07 @ 4:33PM|#

Kwix,

how bout looking up the def of Athiest...

Instead of making one up....

Or call my rose a rose brudda...

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 4:37PM|#

Jose,

Actually, yes. Many nonreligious groups are quite powerful politically.

Which says nothing about religious groups which are politically powerful.

Criticism of religion and other nonrational belief systems generally strikes me as mental masturbation.

This criticism is made in some sort of void; it exists in the context of a conversation that religious people openly and freely engage in. If they can't stand the heat, they need to leave the kitchen.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 4:38PM|#

Kwix,

Agnosticism speaks to knowledge; atheism speaks to belief. They are related, but they are not the same.

One can be an agnostic theist BTW.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 4:39PM|#

This criticism is NOT made in some sort of void...

Fenevad|3.6.07 @ 4:40PM|#

That's funny; I view theists as the hopeless ones, as they steadfastly deny the evidence of their own senses, and are too-often willing to torture and kill anyone who dares to disagree with their primitive worldview.

As opposed to all those nice lovey-dovey atheists who ran the Soviet Union and China and never killed or tortuted anyone who disagreed with their nonprimitive worldview? If we want to start looking at torture and killing as evidence for the truth or falsity of religion, I see absolutely no correlation either way to speak of. We're all a bunch of louts, whether we believe or not.

I think the one place you could find a correlation is with absolutist thinking in general, something atheists and religionists share in equally.

In other words, fundamentalism has nothing to do with religion. You can be an atheist fundamentalist. What I find funny is how dogmatic people get on both sides, all the while arguing that only the other side is dogmatic, stupid, and ideologically blinded.

|3.6.07 @ 4:43PM|#

I love the argument

If you call someone dogmatic, then you are being dogmatic in your dogmatic name calling, you dogma.

Nice strong grounding. Is that oak?

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 4:43PM|#

Kwix,

So you have to ask yourself the following:

What do I believe?

I do not believe in the existance of a God.

What do I know?

I do not know that at least certain types of God do not exist?

|3.6.07 @ 4:44PM|#

My comment is that the alien abduction camp is similar to "deep green" environmental movement. The main difference is that the environmental movement has been far more successful in shaping public policy... and religion for that matter. The local jurisdiction will not send me a Bible, but they will send a recycling bin and loads of "free" information on how I can save the planet.

You miss my point, dhex. Nonrational belief systems will always be attacked... sort of like rational belief systems. I just think it is more productive to advocate tolerance rather than simply calling my Southern Baptist neighbor a raving fucktard. The very attacks on nonrational beliefs form the intellectual foundation for intrusion into private life. In short, we can't trust these people to _________, so we need to ___________ to save people from themselves.

Finally, Grotius, if debating with religious people makes you happy, so be it. I think there are many libertarians more concerned with winning an argument than forming public policy. That's pretty much the history of the Libertarian Party in a nutshell. As for me, I think trying to convince a person that his or her nonrational belief system is, well, nonrational is pretty much a waste of time and may actually result in a negative consequence. I would rather have a large religious population feel tolerated than persecuted because, and this is entirely selfish, I don't want them dicking with my personal freedom. Of course, you will always have the satisfaction of knowing you are right, Grotius... and what really stacks up against that?

|3.6.07 @ 4:47PM|#

Jose Ortega y Gasset

"As for me, I think trying to convince a person that his or her nonrational belief system is, well, nonrational is pretty much a waste of time"

I obviously a waste of time, for you.

Federal Dog|3.6.07 @ 4:47PM|#

"Atheists are unelectable in spite because of a superior moral foundation."

A rather ironic article of faith, at best.

Dan T.|3.6.07 @ 4:48PM|#

Dan. T - the burden of proof is on the positive assertion. The negative is the default.

But remember that blogimi Dei was the one making the positive assertion - that each individual only has one life.

|3.6.07 @ 4:48PM|#

Kwix,
how bout looking up the def of Athiest...

Again, from MW

Main Entry: atheist
: one who believes that there is no deity

And just to make sure you got that entire definition let's do belief as well:

Main Entry: belief
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

So, an atheist has a conviction, a trust, a faith that there is no diety(god). If you have a lack of faith or conviction, a doubt, about the existence of god then you are not an atheist.

How 'bout that rose my brudda? And with that, I am off to lunch so will be away from this forum for a bit.

|3.6.07 @ 4:50PM|#

But back to your original point...

Alien abductors are not:

Telling me I am going to some kind of Hell.

Corralling children all over the world and force feeding them a particular flavor of dogma.

Or pulling from some magic book the "good news" tthat my non-belief in aliens is "foolish" and aall the undertones of that statement.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 4:50PM|#

Jose,

Why are you trying to personalize this?

Here's a hypothetical:

Local school board wants to teach exclusively in school that X God created the Earth in 37 weeks. Should I simply allow them to do so and let them spend my tax money in a way I would never spend it myself?

See, this is the sort of thing you are ignoring and which goes on throughout this country. You can paint religious people as "poor widdle victims" all you want to. But they excercise speech, voting, etc. in the public square. Which is their right.

It is my right to counter such. If you don't like that I'm fucking sorry.

Fenevad|3.6.07 @ 4:50PM|#

All people are religious - even those who refer to their religion as "atheism" are fond of talking about "rights","duties","morality" and other such mystical ideas.

Calling freedom of speech a "natural right" doesn't make the concept any less religious. You can't prove that the right exists.

Amen, Dan T.

By the way, the whole definition about belief in the supernatural is useless as it fails to define a number of belief systems broadly recognized as religions. When you start looking at the issue there is no single definition of religion that can account for everything out there. The whole supernatural bit was discarded by scholars (but not dictionary makers, apparently) about a century ago because it's simply a bad definition (for a number of reasons).

By most current scholarly definitions of religion (which you are free to disagree with), atheism is a religion...

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 4:53PM|#

Jose,

Oh, and this is not to suggest that non-religious groups who attack liberty shouldn't be opposed. This is to suggest that they be treated equally. Your religious belief does not give you a free pass in the public square.

|3.6.07 @ 4:53PM|#

I would rather have a large religious population feel tolerated than persecuted because, and this is entirely selfish, I don't want them dicking with my personal freedom.

Suppose this religious population has a deeply held belief that they are responsible for the fate of their neighbor, and also that their neighbor will only be saved by accepting their god. At this point, you're pretty much guaranteed to be dicked with, tolerant or not.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 4:54PM|#

Jose,

I'll repeat myself for effect:

One's religious belief does not give you a free pass in the public square.

|3.6.07 @ 4:54PM|#

Kwix,

The proof is still be burden of yours...

You hold on to your faith. It seems you cannot live with out it...

I for one have none. Brudda... Enjoy your lunch.

|3.6.07 @ 4:57PM|#

Fenevad's argument:

Nonbelief in Pink Unicorns = religion.

WRONG.

Fenevad|3.6.07 @ 4:59PM|#

If you call someone dogmatic, then you are being dogmatic in your dogmatic name calling, you dogma.

Not at all what I wrote. Merely calling something dogmatic doesn't make you dogmatic, but in these discussions there is a lot of dogma on both sides and each side considers itself miraculously free of the stain of dogma that has overwhelmed its opponents.

As someone standing on the outside, both sides look like they are populated by arrogant SOBs who think that they have got this universe thing figured out with no possibility of error.

Here's where the whole Christian thing about the mote and the beam would be useful (and where Christians should remember it when they start blasting the atheists, not just the other way around).

I would turn it around and ask how you can know you are free from dogma? To know you are free from dogma would mean that you know the universe as it really is and that your thoughts correspond with the true nature of things. That's a pretty lofty burden to meet. Otherwise you are always at least potentially being dogmatic, even if you think you are free from it. There is no way to know.

|3.6.07 @ 4:59PM|#

I think you mean alien abductees. The abductors are apparently kidnapping people and inserting probes up their asses. Personally, I'd rather deal with the Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door than aliens in my back door.

And Grotius, you offer a series of straw men. I don't think religious extremists are victims nor have I said so. I also don't think religious people who argue in the people square should be treated any differently than anyone else. I also think it is a small but vocal minority of religious adherents who propose silly ideas like teaching creation in the schools. There are, however, a rather sizeable number of religious persons who just want to be left the hell alone. I think some of the criticism that can be found on H&R unnecesarily attacks religious people who have no vision of world domination.

In closing, if you want to do something for effect, try a better argument.

Fenevad|3.6.07 @ 5:00PM|#

Fenevad's argument:

Nonbelief in Pink Unicorns = religion.

WRONG.

It's a matter of definition. By almost all anthropological definitions, atheism is a religion. You can argue that the definitions are wrong, but by them your statement is nonsense.

|3.6.07 @ 5:02PM|#

"Believing in God is retarded."

Yet, He belives in you.

|3.6.07 @ 5:04PM|#

Every day my dog farts allah.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 5:05PM|#

Jose,

And Grotius, you offer a series of straw men.

You don't even what a straw man is.

I don't think religious extremists are victims nor have I said so.

(A) Who wrote anything about "religious extremists?" That sounds like a change in the topic of conversation.

(B) Actuall you did paint the religious as victims. See your comments about them getting angry, etc. above.

I also don't think religious people who argue in the people square should be treated any differently than anyone else.

Well, quite frankly since almost the entire context of religious discussion by atheists about religious people concerns their efforts in the public square I really don't see what you are complaining about then.


I also think it is a small but vocal minority of religious adherents who propose silly ideas like teaching creation in the schools.

That may or may not be the case. Again the context of most religious discussion by atheists of theists concerns these public square issues.

There are, however, a rather sizeable number of religious persons who just want to be left the hell alone.

And they are.

|3.6.07 @ 5:06PM|#

By almost all anthropological definitions, atheism is a religion.

And not collecting coins is a hobby.

Fenevad|3.6.07 @ 5:07PM|#

For what it's worth, here is the most influential definition of religion in anthropology in the past fifty years (Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, p. 90):

(1) A system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the (5) moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic

Atheism actually meets all of these criteria quite nicely. You might quibble that atheism is true and therefore some of these points don't apply, but that is begging the question...

|3.6.07 @ 5:08PM|#

"all anthropological definitions, atheism is a religion"

Please show me one.

Fenevad|3.6.07 @ 5:08PM|#

And not collecting coins is a hobby.

I don't know, if it gets to the point where you hang out on blogs to tell anyone who collects coins how stupid they are, it sure looks like a hobby...

|3.6.07 @ 5:09PM|#

These debates become so cicular...

how do Dawkins and Harris keep at it?

|3.6.07 @ 5:10PM|#

Cab -

I have seen your response (after I posted my last) and I'm going to get to it as soon as I can, when I'll have time to give it my slightly-less-divided attention. Maybe by then, the growth of this thread will have slowed down some, as well.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 5:10PM|#

Fenevad,

So what are the "symbols?"

Fenevad|3.6.07 @ 5:10PM|#

Please show me one.

Just did.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 5:11PM|#

When Hit n' Runners (of the atheist variety) are discussing is largely because it is prompted by some statement of a religious person, or because we bring it up out of the blue?

|3.6.07 @ 5:12PM|#

Henevad,

How bout a dictionary?

|3.6.07 @ 5:17PM|#

"So what are the "symbols?""

Grotius,

Darwin fish decals.

Fenevad|3.6.07 @ 5:17PM|#

So what are the "symbols?"

Good question (I mean that seriously). We've seen plenty of them in this discussion. All the discussion of "pink unicorns" and "flying spaghetti monsters," etc., are all symbols in a broader system of culture. They stand in for concepts and ideas in a community of discourse, and merely to invoke one is, for someone opposed to belief in God, to invoke the whole system in which they occur, and they serve to provide assurance of the truth of the propositions to which they refer. They also tell you something about the nature of the universe presumed in the system. Geertz explains the concept at length, but includes the notion that you can draw lessons about how you should act and interact with the universe from such statements. If you buy Geertz's framework, symbols are an inescapable part of human existence, and the fact that we can talk coherently about atheism shows that it is a system of symbols. Basically, if it isn't (for Geertz) you can't really discuss it because it has no logic or structure.

|3.6.07 @ 5:18PM|#

I don't know, if it gets to the point where you hang out on blogs to tell anyone who collects coins how stupid they are, it sure looks like a hobby...

How about if I say collect whatever the fuck you want, but leave me out of it?

I'm frequently expected to follow the rules of a religion I don't belong to, here's a small example - I can't buy beer on Sunday morning. I'm not talking about going to a bar, which is closed then, I'm talking about going to a grocery store and buying (but not consuming) beer. I have no interest in forcing anyone to buy or consume beer at anytime, yet my tolerance of their belief system is not met by equal tolerance.

Grotius|3.6.07 @ 5:18PM|#

Jose,

BTW, on second thought, the idea that political measures of an intrusive variety are supported by a minority of religious people is well, on its face, just silly. Literally millions of Americans voted in favor of same sex marraige bans. I'd imagine that amongst those millions of folks a large segment of them - millions of people by themselves - were religious. That dog won't hunt.

Fenevad|3.6.07 @ 5:18PM|#

How bout a dictionary?

I provided you with an anthopological definition, which is what you asked for. My point earlier was that any dictionary definitions you are likely to find are pretty useless in this case. So did you miss what I posted are are you merely being perverse?

Fluffy|3.6.07 @ 5:18PM|#

Dan:

"At least under my definition, there's not much connection between a preference and a right. A right only exists if society is willing to provide it to you or defend it on your behalf."

This may be a threadjack, but I wanted to comment on this.

I think this statement is both ahistorical, and if taken literally would lead to absolute social stasis.

The question of rights arose first in a revolutionary context. In some order or other [impossible to map out now] first small numbers of individuals and then larger numbers of individuals decided that they had certain rights and they were going to kill the king's soldiers until they got tired of getting shot at and went away. Once that was done, they made a new polity that recognized those rights. That means that rights started out as a demand of individuals, and were recognized by society because society was given an offer it couldn't refuse.

And even if we tried to use a contract theory, it runs into Catch-22's. Society can't reach a judgment about what rights are unless someone raises a rights claim for that society to judge. But since rights come from society, all rights claims are false prior to their acknowledgement by society. So by definition, no one can ever raise a valid rights claim, and all rights claims should be disregarded.

Jorge -

Personally, I think that the world benefitted when Western man took a step back from his religion. But that step was only taken because of internal criticism of dogma ["the treason of the clerks"] and because of strident criticism by non-believers. In fact, the only reason that religion has retreated from making claims about the "real" world and has hidden itself in the unprovable and the unknowable is because all of its wider claims were debunked in a way that was quite humiliating to believers. So the question becomes: if gadflies of religion helped us out before, why shouldn't we assume that they'll help us out now? If the X% retreat of religion from 1500-1950 benefitted society Y%, why wouldn't further hostile engagement of religion benefit us Y + 1%?

|3.6.07 @ 5:23PM|#

How many eons of prayer, and in two good centries of science small pox was vacinated...

Fluffy|3.6.07 @ 5:23PM|#

Fenevad:

The argument between reason and faith historically was an argument between two competing systems for gaining knowledge about the world.

An anthropological definition of these two competing systems that treats them as identical really isn't very useful. Similarly, expanding the concept of "faith" until it includes everything other than Cogito Ergo Sum isn't very useful.

We still need a way to describe the distinction between those persons who thought that the way to find out about the world was to look at it, examine it, and test it, and those persons who thought the way to find out about the world was to read the Bible and listen to Authority. How would you suggest we describe that difference, since the definition you provide doesn't give us the tools to do so?

VM|3.6.07 @ 5:27PM|#

Gro or Blogimi or Fluffy or Fenevad (or whoever else):

Have any of you heard of The Cornell Evolution Project and have a comment on it?

thanks!

VM

|3.6.07 @ 5:32PM|#

"How many eons of prayer, and in two good centries [sic] of science small pox was vacinated [sic]..."

The first "vaccinations" for small pox were implemented by a Buddhist nun around 1022 AD.

http://dermatology.about.com/cs/smallpox/a/smallpoxhx.htm

|3.6.07 @ 5:36PM|#

Folks, if really try, we try we can make this thread go as long as the Ham Tears thread. Please, do it for me.

Fenevad|3.6.07 @ 5:39PM|#

An anthropological definition of these two competing systems that treats them as identical really isn't very useful. Similarly, expanding the concept of "faith" until it includes everything other than Cogito Ergo Sum isn't very useful.

You have hit on one of the primary criticisms of Geertz: his definition would include self-help books, popular science, and many other things that we don't normally consider to be religion... That is not, in my opinion, a problem, because it is a useful counter for the strains of thought that hold everything to be sui generis. It is useful here for the "we atheists are so smart because we know, don't believe" strain of thought, which often takes on an evangelical fervor.

Believe it or not, I don't shill for dogmatic Bible-believing Christians. I think any world view which says that a significant portion of the world is a lie (which is what Young Earth Creationists have to believe if they are to account for geological evidence) is nonsense. I also happen to think that any interpretation of the universe (atheist or Christian) is not inherent in the thing studied. That's why when someone says they don't believe in God because they looked around and universe showed them that there is no God, I give it exactly as much credence as the person who tells me that the universe bears witness of God. I don't think the universe tells me anything, and I think it does a disservice to science and faith to pretend otherwise. But I also don't think that it is fair to science or faith when someone says that science demonstrates that there is no God (a belief as much as anything normally called "religious" since science, in general, can't demonstrate an absence).

VM|3.6.07 @ 5:46PM|#

*Backs away from Fen slowly*
*jumps into filter*

|3.6.07 @ 5:59PM|#

blogimi Dei | March 6, 2007, 4:54pm | #
Kwix,
The proof is still be burden of yours...
You hold on to your faith. It seems you cannot live with out it...

What faith would that be that I cannot live without? Just what am I to prove to you?

Robert|3.6.07 @ 6:13PM|#

"What puzzles me is the why someone who believes in no god, is considered worse than some who believes in a different(therefore false)god?"

I think it's primarily because people have an inchoate fear of politicians, and are looking for something that indicates humility on the part of someone who got into a leadership position by virtue of lack of humility. Most (though not all) religions have in common some degree of humiliation, so that's taken as a plus for politicians.

Secondarily, people project their own religious thoughts onto others, regardless of the labels of various religions.

|3.6.07 @ 6:19PM|#

Why should I prefer an athropological definition over a philosophical one? Both are useful in their areas, but the anthro one doesn't describe the philosophical question well.

Let's check the online Merriam-Webster entry:

atheism
Pronunciation:
\ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:
1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
b: the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not "belief in no god(s), but "no belief in god(s)." One can have no belief in a god or gods, yet remain open to the possibility that one or more might exist now, have existed in the past, or may exist in the future. The "weak atheism" or "negative atheism" position is often held functionally by philosophical agnostics.

As for communism and atheism, there's a good argument that Marxism's materialist dialectic, and before it Hegel's dialectical idealism, is an essentially religious dogma, with History or Progress standing in for God. Theologians who worry about idolatry will frequently point to various types of scientism and positivism as substituting a political or philosophical theory for god. We've all seen leaders seeking to implement such programs make a god out of the state, and/or the state's leader. So, just as religious believers can range from Christian reconstructionists to Liberation Theologians, so can atheists and agnostics be all over the political map. Even though I'm a non-believer, I'm OK with taking the theologian's warning not to make a god out of a man or an ideology, not because I worry about worshipping the wrong god, but because I don't want any.

I am totally behind the idea that non-believing libertarians should be tolerant of believers, especially those who want to be left alone and are willing to leave me alone. I'll save my rhetorical wrath for those who try to use religious arguments to push anti-liberty laws and regulations on all of us. It's also often politic to let a libertarian believer take the lead in rebutting his statist brethren, as I wouldn't be credible making the arguments that might change their minds. 1 Samuel, starting at verse 9 might be a good start.

Kevin

Paul Freivalds|3.6.07 @ 6:40PM|#

Thus quoth VM: "*Backs away from Fen slowly* *jumps into filter*"

What are you running away from Fen for? As near as I can tell he(?) is just arguing that the universe doesn't come with instructions on how to understand it. Or did I miss something?

|3.6.07 @ 6:54PM|#

Cab -

Therefore, what is that "hope" or "optimism" based on that the future event will turn out ok?

Hope, to me, isn't a blind optimism that "things will turn out just fine." There's no reason to assume everything will turn out fine, because historically, things haven't always turned out fine. The "everything will be fine" idea is closer to what I think of as faith.

In my view, hope carries connotations of "I think that the efforts of people can skew future outcomes in a positive manner." I have hope that science will find a cure for cancer during my lifetime. Sure, they've never cured cancer before, but science has successfully knocked down more than one debilitating or deadly disease, and I think there's a non-zero chance that it will do the same for cancer. I hope it does (because I prefer that outcome), though I know there's also a non-zero chance that it will not.

What I do not have is faith that science will cure cancer in my lifetime. I have no way of knowing when (or if) such a breakthrough will occur, so I see no reason to assume that it necessarily will during my lifetime.

While faith and hope are related concepts, it is certainly possible to have hope without faith (or even faith without hope, I suppose).

Maybe a better way to describe the difference I see is this:

Faith: I expect that X will happen.
Hope: X or not-X will happen. I would much prefer it to be X.

I don't think hope needs to be predicated on faith - just on a judicious weighing of probability. I don't waste my time hoping for impossible things.

What good is hope without faith?

I'm not sure I'm really understanding the question. What good is blue? Hope is part of the human condition - I imagine we all crave certain outcomes, and are happy when those outcomes arise, and are disappointed when they don't come to pass - and so I don't know that hope really needs to be justified as "good" for any particular purpose. My argument ends at "as an atheist, I experience hope, and I presume other atheists do as well."

|3.6.07 @ 7:00PM|#

Mr. Balko,

You are a welcome addition to Reason.

Thanks.

tros|3.6.07 @ 7:04PM|#

holy shit I didn't know the guy from Bad Religion had a cult! That guy has like 3 degrees sure beats worshipping Noam Chomsky.

|3.6.07 @ 7:29PM|#

Jake, fair enough.

Thanks for taking the time.

VM|3.6.07 @ 8:53PM|#

No Fen, not for that reason at all.

Was making an obscure, obtuse reference to a Simpsons episode as well as having some cosmic fun!

Fenevad|3.6.07 @ 9:17PM|#

No Fen, not for that reason at all

Huh? I don't remember asking the question this answers, but maybe you're having more cosmic fun now by making me try to divine the question...

dhex|3.6.07 @ 11:02PM|#

"Nonrational belief systems will always be attacked... sort of like rational belief systems."

true. but what i'm speaking of is even more interesting - the impression of being under attack when no such thing is actually happening. the cnn clip that made the rounds a few weeks back is an interesting example; the one woman who kept saying "they took prayer out of public schools, what else do they want?" struck me as an attempt to keep to a victim-victimizer mentality despite some obvious problems with her logic. (most of these cases were brought and supported by minority religious families, not atheists; kids can still pray in school; no one is campaigning to take away rights from christians of any stripe, etc)

this may be a requirement of certain kinds of metaphysical attitudes, or it may just be a tremendously effective rallying cry (or both).

"I just think it is more productive to advocate tolerance rather than simply calling my Southern Baptist neighbor a raving fucktard. The very attacks on nonrational beliefs form the intellectual foundation for intrusion into private life. In short, we can't trust these people to _________, so we need to ___________ to save people from themselves."

i agree to a certain extent, except on that end part; paternalism, as you note, is no stranger to religious or secular causes. i don't see how this is exclusively tied to making fun of religious beliefs, especially given the utter lack of atheist PACs attempting to publicly attack or inhibit the practice of religion.

and maybe that's the problem here - or at least part of it - when people come out of the woodwork to get in cheap shots about religion x or y (or vice versa).

i have in-laws who are deeply committed baptists; they don't really think catholics are christians, for starters, and the only reason they don't get on my case is because i'm large and scary (and i use big words when required). they *are* fucktards, but it is their actions, not just their beliefs, which contribute to their fucktardedness.

what i think grotius is getting at is that religious beliefs - mainline that is, and broadly speaking - are given a special place in debates that other beliefs are not. one public facet of this is gay marriage, where the arguments are often religious in nature (and often hate-filled, though i do have faith - a ha! - that this will be seen as an unfortunate anachronism of bigotry within the next generation).

|3.6.07 @ 11:10PM|#

Atheists are as 'religious' as any person of faith. They are certain in their unprovable assumption, and deride any who believe otherwise

Seculars, on the other hand, dont really give a shit either way. Live and let live.

Many here seem to assume seculars are defacto 'athiests'. Nothing is farther from the case.

|3.6.07 @ 11:15PM|#

1. Morality isn't a matter of supernatural faith. To think something is wrong, you don't have to think there are magical supernatural entities out there. You just have to be against it.

2. Rights aren't a matter of supernatural faith. To think people have rights, you just have to think legal systems should protect people in certain ways.

2. Some beliefs are stupider than others. That's obviously true. But some people in the thread are acting like it isn't true.

3. Libertarians don't have to tolerate all beliefs as equally reasonable. What libertarians are against is using government force for something other than stopping aggression. Judging others for holding stupid beliefs is still okay.

4. Atheists don't "have faith" that God exists. Sure, maybe some of them do. But others simply hold a position on God's existence. Often it's a reasoned opinion. There's nothing wrong with holding reasoned opinions, nothing 'faith-y' about it.

5. Atheism doesn't require 100% knockdown proof or 100% cocksure confidence. No philosophical position requires that, no reasoned opinion requires that. Taking a position doesn't require declaring oneself infallible.

|3.6.07 @ 11:16PM|#

6. Sometimes I type 2 twice.

|3.6.07 @ 11:23PM|#

And allow me to change the less interesting "Atheists don't 'have faith' that God exists" to the more interesting "Atheists don't 'have faith' that God doesn't exist".

Yeesh.

|3.6.07 @ 11:38PM|#

"We need a person of faith to run this country."

I'm more astounded by the second half of Romney's sentence "...to run the country" than the first. However many virtues his faith may have endowed him with, humility isn't among them.

|3.6.07 @ 11:46PM|#

I really think we need a few more words to describe the gamut of belief/nonbelief in supernatural stuff.

Gilmore, above, is (I believe) describing "strong atheism," which is a positive belief that there is no god. Then there's "weak atheism," which is merely an absence of belief in a god. After that, there's agnosticism, which is the absence of experience of god.

A problem arises when "atheism" is taken to refer to only "strong atheism," and "agnosticism" to refer to either "I don't know if there's a god or not" or "I don't believe it's possible to know if there's a god or not."

So many positions... so few words.

I suppose, since I'm pointing out the problem, I should try and propose a solution. Therefore, I hereby decree (because decreeing is more fun than proposing) that Atheism refers to the lack of belief in a supernatural power. Agnosticism refers to lack of experience of the supernatural (both "Atheism" and "Agnosticism" will then agree with the meanings of their root words). Dunnotheism refers to the "I don't know if there's a god" position, and Cantknowtheism refers to the position that it's not possible to know whether there's a god or not. Certainlynottheism can be used to refer to the positive belief of no supernatural power.

Note that "Certainlynottheism" must be carefully enunciated to avoid sounding like "Certainlynaziism," which is a problem I'll leave to the next person to update the language.

|3.7.07 @ 12:07AM|#

Holy shit! People still believe in God?

Wake up, it's been almost 2000 years since Jesus promised he'd come back and sweep his disciples and all the righteous into heaven. Are we really still waiting for 144,000 righteous people to comprise the heavenly elect, or have we figured out that God is every bit as real as Zeus, Odin, and the FSM?

I hate to sound like Akira (and for all I know he's already said something similar, but I haven't made it through all the comments yet), but fucking get with the program already.

|3.7.07 @ 12:47AM|#

You must have missed the whole thing about Jesus coming to America. Too bad that nobody was around to greet him. At least some angels wrote some invisible gospels or something. Maybe Romney's the least crazy of them all?

|3.7.07 @ 1:30AM|#

LOL Ammonium.

Ya know, I don't have the hatred of God-fearing folk that some around these parts do (my parents are devoted Christians, which may have something to do with that), but it is exasperating to live in the 21st century and still have people argue on behalf of an omnipotent being that somehow is too busy dicking around waiting for Armageddon to argue for Himself. I'm not gay, but if Jesus and Satan were to have a pay-per-view battle like on South Park, I'd jump in the ring and fuck them both in the ass. Then, Jesus would say "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" as I dry-reamed his rectum so hard he wished he was on the cross again.

Do I win a blasphemy award?

megs|3.7.07 @ 8:30AM|#

I just wanted to respond to Ellen's point WAY up in the thread:

Mike, I'm a Christian, and very pro-property rights in this world, but have you not read the Acts of the Apostles lately? Ananias and his wife hold out part of the price for which they sold their land from the common kitty, and die for it. That part of the Acts is pretty much a Christian Communist manifesto, I'm afraid. I have know Christians who believed that they were obliged to be communists by the Bible's teachings.

I think you're misreading this in a very popular way. Ananias is not forced to sell a piece of land, nor is this even ALL their property (which you should sell all of except the clothes on your back and donate to properly follow Christ. Even just after he dies the message is watered down to hook in the more wealthy). His sin was pretty much to LIE about it in order to look good in the eyes of the congregation, which was a lesson many have found needed in the church for pretty much forever.
We need to remind politicians that pretensions of believing or being more devout than you are - these are more sinful in the eyes of God than not believing.
Not that there aren't more socialist passages in the bible. Most of them are voluntary and communal, which I have no problem with.

dhex|3.7.07 @ 10:10AM|#

"Atheists are as 'religious' as any person of faith. They are certain in their unprovable assumption, and deride any who believe otherwise"

yeah, i really don't buy this and think it mostly misunderstands what faith is. taking a negatory stance on metaphysics isn't the same as taking a positive stance, and to pretend that it is distorts how much, for lack of a better word, work goes into building a metaphysical sense. (it may also distort the notion of "proof" in a way that's a little too ID-ish for my tastes.)

it's a way of clearing the table as it were, so as to avoid the larger, more thorny issue - people get super fucking pissed about this stuff, and arguing with them is damn near impossible and so it works better to avoid arguing about this fucking damn near impossible stuff until we reach the point where it can no longer be avoided.

|3.7.07 @ 11:16AM|#

Gimore: We already dismissed your "atheists are religious" argument. It turns out, atheists may have faith like a religious person, but the definition of "religious" invariably includes worship of the supernatural, which is a trait atheists do not ascribe to, no matter how much spin you put on it.

|3.7.07 @ 12:03PM|#

Cab -

If you're still reading this thread, what's your definition of "hope"? I'm curious.

Fenevad|3.7.07 @ 1:58PM|#

…but the definition of "religious" invariably includes worship of the supernatural…

Not to put to fine a point on it, but that simply isn't true. There are many systems called religion that don't include a supernatural element. They may include what we call the supernatural, but within their own system there is no such concept. And in some cases they don't incldue anything we would call the supernatural. Ex cathedra pronouncements such as that don't hold up when you look outside of Anglo-America and at the rest of the world. I'm not trying to be politically correct, but you are subscribing to a definition of religion that, no matter how popular, no serious comparative scholar has subscribed to for a century...

|3.7.07 @ 2:11PM|#

Yeah, I know man. That's like saying no definition of mammals is possible because the platypus lays eggs, has a duck bill and is poisonous.

|3.7.07 @ 2:12PM|#

Somehow I doubt that "serious comparative scholars" are debating whether atheism is a religion or not.

|3.7.07 @ 2:14PM|#

Atheists: The new evangelicals. I have a friend who got into "End of Faith" recently. When I was home last, he and his friend used it to try to bear bait me into submission. They were obnoxious, hostile, rude, and insulting. And they were totally lacking in any kind of nuanced arguments about religion - conflating 'religion' with 'religious fundamentalism.'

Fenevad|3.7.07 @ 3:03PM|#

Somehow I doubt that "serious comparative scholars" are debating whether atheism is a religion or not.

Somehow you'd be wrong then. The major definitional problems of religion in the twentieth century revolved around exactly the issue of supernaturalism (or lack thereof), and in the late twentieth century there was a major move to consider secularism precisely as a religion because it was playing the social role of a religion.

When you make pronouncements about what comparative scholars (e.g., anthropologists) do or don't do, you might want to find out what they do first, otherwise you sound as ignorant as the morons who say that atheists can't be good people...

But to the platypus analogy, you would have a problem if your definition included major sectors of what it's supposed to define, like Confucianism, which has no supernatural component whatsoever (although its adherents may pick them up from other systems). The problem is that many of the systems that don't include supernaturalism are considered religions, and they aren't border cases.

Fenevad|3.7.07 @ 3:04PM|#

if your definition excluded included major

|3.7.07 @ 5:45PM|#

Fine, fenevad. Atheism is religion, and since there appears to be no defining trait, so is everything.

I like how you call me wrong, then admit that the major definitions are in line with my point. Fair enough. A few obscure academics don't see supernatural or mystical experiences as defining religion.

It's funny to me that all your academics and major social movements basically failed to put atheism in the world of religion, and the dictionaries today relate religion to supernatural or mystical underpinnings. BTW: Confuscianism is a philosophy, not a religion (and, yes, there is a debate about this).

|3.7.07 @ 6:38PM|#

Okay,
Jake Boone wins the thread. Those are some of the most useful additions to the English language since Shakespeare.

From here on I shall be known as a Dunnotheist with Cantknowtheistic leanings.

|3.8.07 @ 1:27AM|#

Well, thanks, Kwix... that Shakespeare thing is going onto my résumé!