Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Free Minds and Freakin' Awesome License Plates
Atheists are apparently coming out of the same closet as
gays (it
must be a walk-in!) and comparing their strategy
to that of gay-rights activists, who in turn, have compared their
struggle to the civil rights movement. Really, is
nothing sacred?
The best part of the movement, however, has been the creation of faith(less)-based license plates...for obvious, err, reasons (Picture right ↑↑↑). And a New York Times article has oodles of numbers to show that atheists are on the up-and-up:
Nationally, the "nones" in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990. In South Carolina, they more than tripled, to 10 percent from 3 percent. Not all the "nones" are necessarily committed atheists or agnostics, but they make up a pool of potential supporters....
Ten national organizations that variously identify themselves as atheists, humanists, freethinkers and others who go without God have recently united to form the Secular Coalition for America, of which Mr. Silverman is president. These groups, once rivals, are now pooling resources to lobby in Washington for separation of church and state.
A wave of donations, some in the millions of dollars, has enabled the hiring of more paid professional organizers, said Fred Edwords, a longtime atheist leader who just started his own umbrella group, the United Coalition of Reason, which plans to spawn 20 local groups around the country in the next year....
Part of what is giving the movement momentum is the proliferation of groups on college campuses. The Secular Student Alliance now has 146 chapters, up from 42 in 2003.
At the University of South Carolina, in Columbia, 19 students showed up for a recent evening meeting of the "Pastafarians," named for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster–a popular spoof on religion dreamed up by an opponent of intelligent design, the idea that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that a higher intelligence designed them.
Whole damned thing here.
In 2005, Contributor Chris Lehmann discussed the tedium of dogmatic atheism. Senior Editor Jacob Sullum on Mitt "remember-that-guy" Romney's atheist bashing. Back in 2007, Radley Balko noted that most Americans would elect a president who was "Catholic, black, female, divorced, elderly, Mormon, or gay." But not atheist. And Tim Cavanaugh reviews The Atheist here. Prostrate before the Spaghetti Monster here. Earlier this year, Sullum blogged about my home state's atheist ban. Don't worry though, they're working on the problem.
|4.27.09 @ 11:13AM|#
I'm hoping for the Pastafarians to get enough members that they
can have a couple of schisms. Marinarians vs. Alfredans would be a
good start.
-jcr
|4.27.09 @ 11:17AM|#
I'm a moral person than most theists I've met. The
misconceptions and downright prejudice I regularly encounter gets
downright tiring.
I've often believed that agnostics, atheists and secular humanists
should start voting their weight.
Still, don't expect me to become a leader or even an active member
of the movement. Compared to most of the planet, it really ain't
all that bad being an atheist in the good ol' USA.
|4.27.09 @ 11:19AM|#
Make that "more moral person".
Dagnabit, we need a preview function around here.
|4.27.09 @ 11:20AM|#
Marinarians vs. Alfredans would be a good start.
With each receiving about 49% of the vote, the vastly unpopular
Olive Gardenians gets the remaining 2% and thinks it holds the
"balance of power".
Lester Hunt|4.27.09 @ 11:27AM|#
As others have said, some of those changing poll results are surely due to an increased willingness to say (ie., to "admit")that one's religious preference is "none." It is very hard to believe that only %8 of Americans were "nones" in 1990. Very, very hard. Though as an atheist myself I concede I am prejudiced.
|4.27.09 @ 11:28AM|#
I live near an Olive Garden, and I fear that "unpopular" may be the wrong word.
robc|4.27.09 @ 11:28AM|#
rah62,
Based on the lines I have seen, the OGs hold a strong majority,
sadly.
|4.27.09 @ 11:30AM|#
Man, I'm a libertarian and an Olive Gardenian (oh, how I love the breadsticks). I must be a glutton for punishment.
|4.27.09 @ 11:31AM|#
I'm not an atheist, and I don't have strong views on pasta. There is bad, mediocre, good, great, and genius pasta, as with most things.
LarryA|4.27.09 @ 11:31AM|#
Really, is nothing sacred?
I remember an old cartoon (Playboy?) where a couple of explorers
(pith helmet types) were asking this question, while they watched
the local natives bow down before a giant zero.
Naga Sadow|4.27.09 @ 11:37AM|#
Atheist? Nah, more of an agnostic really. The question just really doesn't interest me. Do you here that Jehovah's Witness! I'm not interested IN YOUR WATCHTOWER BULLSHIT! DO YOU HEAR ME! STOP WAKING ME UP AT 7 IN THE MORNING!!!
|4.27.09 @ 11:40AM|#
Naga, I think if they could figure out how to let me sleep until
7, I'd be a believer. This agnostic was up at 4 today.
Don't have kids.
Naga Sadow|4.27.09 @ 11:48AM|#
Nick,
I usually only sleep 4-6 hours anyway. Lately I've been managing
7-8 hours. Not sure what's up with that.
|4.27.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Sounds like you figured it out. The JW's stopped coming around
so early. Enjoy the sleep.
"Are you prepared for Jehovah's return?"
(Ice Cube slams door)
"Half-dead mother fucker."
|4.27.09 @ 11:55AM|#
Right, SF! He's paying my 2 year old to drive me insane. It's brilliant, really.
|4.27.09 @ 11:56AM|#
I remember an old cartoon (Playboy?) where a couple of
explorers (pith helmet types) were asking this question, while they
watched the local natives bow down before a giant zero.
Pedant alert! It was an "N".
Gahan Wilson was the cartoonist. He is one of the greats. A great
collection hier. My fav hier.
|4.27.09 @ 11:57AM|#
You laugh now, but in a couple of years, when Naga runs out of money to pay the kid, you'll go right back to sleeping normally.
|4.27.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Sounds like you figured it out. The JW's stopped coming
around so early.
Whadido, whadido?
Mad Max|4.27.09 @ 11:59AM|#
'These groups, once rivals, are now pooling resources to lobby
in Washington for separation of church and state.'
Do they want to revoke their own tax exemptions?
Naga Sadow|4.27.09 @ 11:59AM|#
Nick,
Sorry about the sleep my friend. But if it's any consolation my
life is great! Babes, bucks, I got it all. Now if you excuse me I
gotta go para-sailing with movie stars.
squarooticus|4.27.09 @ 12:09PM|#
The misconceptions and downright prejudice I regularly encounter gets downright tiring.
The downright overuse of the word "downright" is downright tiring.
:-)
Naga Sadow|4.27.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Pro Lib,
It's downright disappointing that you switched from "downright" to
"plumb tiring".
Colonel_Angus|4.27.09 @ 12:14PM|#
I don't know if I'm atheist or not. Still, it always warms my heart to see religious types get pissed off.
|4.27.09 @ 12:15PM|#
I feel nothing but deep, rotting shame now.
Don't worry. That usually passes in four or five years.
Glistening Lamb\'s Marrow|4.27.09 @ 12:17PM|#
Moving Language forward:
http://www.downtownjournal.com/index.php?publication=downtown§ion=51&story=13635&page=65
|4.27.09 @ 12:23PM|#
tedium of dogmatic atheism
Yes. It's tedious to call atheists dogmatic. Also tedious? The
phrase "fundamentalist atheist."
|4.27.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Worship _this_ :-)
http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/pub/s?f=PRN/prnpub&page=1&xtag=PRN-prnphotos-80981&redir=detail&TAG_ID=prnphotos080981
CAPTION: "The Truth" by Painter Michael D'Antuono which will be
unveiled on President Obama's 100th Day in Office at NYC's Union
Square. (PRNewsFoto/NOAH G POP FAM)
LOCATION: NEW YORK, NY, UNITED STATES
|4.27.09 @ 12:31PM|#
In 2005, Contributor Chris Lehmann discussed the tedium of
dogmatic atheism.
Dogmatic anything is tedious.
Appy polly loggies to everyone who may have aleardy pointed this
out in the (unread) earlier comments.
That is all.
The Angry Optimist|4.27.09 @ 12:51PM|#
you know what is tedious? Groups like "Secular Student Alliance"
or "Secular Coalition of America". I have one very, very limited
belief in common with you people; stop forming groups for
Chrissakes.
I mean, how do those meetings go?:
OFFICIAL: I hereby call this meeting of the SCA to order. First,
the clerk will confirm the minutes from last week. Does anyone have
any changes?
MEMBER: Uh, yes, last week, we passed the Resolution "God(s) suck",
not "God(s) blow". "God(s) blow" was two weeks ago.
OFFICIAL: OK, thanks for that. Hearing no other changes, let's go
to new business. The Chair on Atheist Affairs.
CHAIR: Yes, this is resolution #3 "We Heart Reason" and resolution
#4 "God(s) is/are a poopyhead(s)"...
|4.27.09 @ 12:53PM|#
I personally find the false-dichotomy between "atheism" and
"agnosticism" to be fairly tedious and tiring.
The two concepts are orthogonal. Agnosticism is about knowledge;
i.e., whether or not we can _know_ if there is a god. Whereas,
atheism is about belief; namely, atheists do not _believe_ in a
god.
So all you half-steppers saying you're "agnostic" as opposed to
"atheist", ask yourselves if you believe in god or not. If you
don't, then face it: you're an atheist.
Atheism is not necessarily the positive belief that god _does not_
exist, merely the lacking of any specific belief in god.
Sheesh, I get so tired of having to explain that everywhere...
Xeones|4.27.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Dogmatic anything is tedious.
This.
Self righteousness is self righteousness, whether based in
religious belief or the lack thereof. I'm no atheist, but i avoid
organized religion these days for that reason.
Mad Max|4.27.09 @ 12:59PM|#
Isaac,
ATHEIST: Down with the cowardly agnostics!
AGNOSTIC: Down with the arrogant atheists!
ATHEIST: Accept the truth, infidel!
AGNOSTIC: Up yours, fundamentalist!
The Angry Optimist|4.27.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Isaac - the reason that irritates people is because it's
basically stating you cannot be certain about anything. If you want
to be an agnostic about knowledge, fine by me, but it's possible to
know things, as far as I am concerned.
I mean, I suppose you're agnostic about green goblins too, right?
And China..I mean, how do you like, know it's really
there, man?
|4.27.09 @ 1:20PM|#
So all you half-steppers saying you're "agnostic" as opposed
to "atheist", ask yourselves if you believe in god or not. If you
don't, then face it: you're an atheist.
I'm an apathetic agnostic. I don't care if god exists or not.
stuartl|4.27.09 @ 1:21PM|#
So all you half-steppers saying you're "agnostic" as opposed
to "atheist", ask yourselves if you believe in god or not. If you
don't, then face it: you're an atheist.
I thought the difference was that agnostics just want to avoid
trouble. Saying you are an "atheist" all too often is an attempt to
have useless 3 hour argument.
Anonymous|4.27.09 @ 1:23PM|#
I don't want atheism to ascend, I just want theism to decline.
Like they say: when people don't believe in a specific thing,
they'll believe anything. The problem usually isn't man's
conception of their God as much as their conception of
their fellow man. Setting aside why they believe it: if
they think it's worth subjecting those beneath them to rudeness,
taxes, legal sanction, beheading, or destruction, then they're
going to try to do it.
Elemenope|4.27.09 @ 1:31PM|#
but it's possible to know things, as far as I am
concerned.
In the style of Samuel L. Jackson:
"I provide the belief, the universe provides the truth, and Mr. 9mm
here, he provides the motherfucking justification."
|4.27.09 @ 1:33PM|#
Since when are Pastafarians considered atheist?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is as legit a diety as any of the
other gawds.
T|4.27.09 @ 1:58PM|#
And China..I mean, how do you like, know it's really there,
man?
Well, technically speaking, I don't know China is really there.
However, the rest of y'all seem pretty convinced so I'm willing to
play along with the joke.
Besides, all that crap I buy at Wal-Mart had to come from
somewhere.
Untermensch|4.27.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Worship _this_ :-)
Please, please, please tell me this is someone's idea of a bad
joke? If not, I may have just lost my faith in everything except
the stupidity of this world.
jtuf|4.27.09 @ 2:10PM|#
From the linked story in the New York Times, it seems that
social stigma is the main complaint of Atheists and Agnostics.
While I agree that people should be civil to Atheists and
Agnostics, we're not exactly talking about a separate school
system, which blacks faced, or a forced stay in a pyschiatric
hospital, which gays faced.
The Church of All Worlds, a Theist group, spearheaded legal
equality regardless of religion half a century ago when they fought
for non-profit status in the courts. Atheists and Agnostics who
belong to a registered group actually enjoy the same legal
protections as any Theist. "Nones" on the other hand face regular
discrimination, because they don't belong to any registered group.
Ironically, this is the problem Ayn Rand warned us about when she
objected to basing rights on group equality rather than individual
freedom and equality. On the one hand, I'm glad to see more people
getting equality under the law and a recognition of their rights.
On the other hand, I would rather build reform on the concept of
individual universal rights than on the creation of yet another
protected class.
jtuf|4.27.09 @ 2:19PM|#
The Angry Optimist, I subscribe to the Baysian concept of degrees of belief. When there's not much evidience either way, it makes sense to believe 50% in one theory and 50% in the other theory. In other words, to stay skeptical and reserve judgement until you have more evidence. Based on my past life experiences, I believe in G-d 70% and disbelieve in him 30%. I believe in green goblins 1% and disbelieve in them 99%. I believe in China 99% and disbelieve in it 1%. These figures are rounded to the nearest whole percent for simplicity.
dhex|4.27.09 @ 2:20PM|#
i sort-of lead a small cadre of somewhat-militant agnostics,
sometimes.
our motto is "we don't know and neither do you".
:)
MNG|4.27.09 @ 2:23PM|#
"you know what is tedious? Groups like "Secular Student
Alliance" or "Secular Coalition of America". I have one very, very
limited belief "
I'm not sure about that TAO. There are a host of government
policies that could be said to impact an atheist differently than a
theist, so I'm not sure why forming an interest group around this
is any different than most others.
|4.27.09 @ 2:27PM|#
When there's not much evidience either way, it makes sense to believe 50% in one theory and 50% in the other theory.
I can't tell if you're joking but this is nonsense. Your default
starting position for the existence of anything without much
evidence is 50/50?
I believe in G-d 70% and disbelieve in him 30%. I believe in green goblins 1% and disbelieve in them 99%
I presume the absence of evidence for the existence of green
goblins pushed your number down to 1%. Exactly what positive
evidence pushed your belief in God up to 70% from your 50% starting
point?
dfd|4.27.09 @ 2:30PM|#
What the hell is jtuf talking about? By your own silly 50/50
standard you should believe in green goblins 50/50 since I haven't
seen anyone disprove them or really offer any evidence that they
don't exist. What possible evidence are you basing your 99%
disbelief on? Do tell. Likewise, there is about equal evidence on
the existence of God and goblins and you suddenly jump to 70%.
Please enlighten us on the additional evidence that has turned up
for God and the evidence that has turned up against goblins.
But I second the question to those "agnostics" -- are you also
agnostic about green goblins? If so, it's a pretty meaningless
agnosticism, and if not then where is the difference with the
equally evidence lacking claims of God?
|4.27.09 @ 2:33PM|#
it's basically stating you cannot be certain about
anything
How did you get from "cannot know about the existance of God" to
"cannot be certain about anything"?
Secondly, knowing whether or not China exists is at least
verifiable/falsifiable, whereas the existence of God is not.
Besides, my point was not concerning the validity of the agnostic
position, merely about the nomenclature surrounding the subject. I
personally am an atheist by virtue of Occam's Razor; the existence
of God is not necessary to explain the existence of life, the
Universe and everything.
dhex|4.27.09 @ 2:38PM|#
How did you get from "cannot know about the existance of
God" to "cannot be certain about anything"?
you know how those fundies are.
ho ho!
Paul|4.27.09 @ 2:42PM|#
Atheism shouldn't be a movement. It shouldn't evangelize. It shouldn't make itself a victim, or compare its plight with the civil rights struggle. If it does, I'll no longer consider myself an atheist. Remember, I'm a libertarian, which means I don't join.
Untermensch|4.27.09 @ 2:48PM|#
the existence of God is not necessary to explain the existence of life, the Universe and everything.
Actually, that's begging the question. If there is a God, then God
is (or might be) necessary for "life, the Universe and everything."
If there is no God, then God is not necessary for that. But we
really don't know enough to begin to answer whether God is or is
not necessary to explain all that since we lack fundamental
knowledge needed to answer it. The best we can say is, "based on my
understanding and my assumptions, I don't believe God is
needed." But if we're wrong in our basis for making those
statements, then the conclusion is wrong as well.
Note the reversibility of the argument as well. If someone said
"the existence of God is necessary to explain the
existence of life, the Univers and everything," you would be
perfectly right in asking how they know that.
It's sort of like Dawkins saying "we do know that, if there were a
god, the universe would be very different from what it is." (Sorry
I can't source the quote precisely. It's not exact, but I heard it
on an NPR program where he was interviewed.)
Well, no. If there is some sort of deity (posited as an empirical,
but hypothetical, question) then this is exactly the kind
of universe said deity would make (or at least it may be),
regardless of what Dawkins things about it. If there is no deity,
then Dawkins may have a point, but his point is only valid if you
know the answer from the beginning. In other words, what Dawkins is
really arguing is if he were a deity, he (Dawkins) would
make a very different universe, so therefore there is no deity. His
argument tell us nothing about what anyone other than Dawkins would
or would not do.
|4.27.09 @ 3:05PM|#
Belief without evidence is something worth arguing against. I don't have much of a problem with these groups organizing to counter some of the stupidity that other groups argue for and get from government. But, I don't think that's all they'll do, and then I have a problem. I see no need to waste time trying to get the Ten Commandments removed from court houses. But they should fight against ID being taught in science classes, since it's not scientific.
|4.27.09 @ 3:07PM|#
Untermensch,
Actually, that's begging the question.
Ok, ok. I am not aware of any logically sound line of reasoning
which necessitates the existence of a God. I made the mistake of
assuming that such verbiage would be implied.
With that said, even some of the more sophisticated arguments at
best necessitate some outside source, but still do not
lead to the conclusion of a full-on deity which can have anything
meaningful said about it.
When I say god is not necessary to explain reality, I mean
everything we observe has so far either been well understood and
explained by the natural sciences, or we have no reason to believe
they can't be. Introducing a deity in the equation is at best
pre-mature, per Occam's Razor:
"The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should
make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no
difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory
hypothesis or theory."
This definition would directly negate your argument that it would
make no difference.
As for the Dawkins quote, I think this makes sense unless we allow
for an incompetent deity. I believe his reasoning is coming from
the "argument from bad design" which is usually a rebuttal to the
classic "argument from design" (which is generally wrapped up as
the so-called "intelligent design theory"). I would need to see the
source or at least some context to be sure, however.
the innominate one|4.27.09 @ 3:16PM|#
Florida's response:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/article995257.ece
Anonymous|4.27.09 @ 3:21PM|#
"we don't know and neither do you"
That's something I can almost get behind!
|4.27.09 @ 3:26PM|#
If you were black man in 1809 walking hand in hand with a white
woman, you would have been lynched. If you were gay man in 1909
walking hand in hand with your male lover, you would have been
beaten to a pulp. But if you are an atheist in 2009 walking
downtown without a cross on your lapel, no one gives a shit. So
stop pretending to be the victim. Sheesh.
The presence of religion is not an oppression against you. A
nativity creche in front of city hall does not oppress you. A
mayor's prayer breakfast does not oppress you. The Ten Commandments
on the wall of a judge's office does not oppress you. So stop
acting like you're being crucified.
If gays were like atheists, they would be suing heterosexuals for
kissing on the courthouse lawn.
robc|4.27.09 @ 3:28PM|#
I believe in green goblins 1% and disbelieve in them
99%....These figures are rounded to the nearest whole percent for
simplicity.
So, your belief in green goblins is greater than 1 in 200?
Otherwise, 0% when being the nearest. :)
|4.27.09 @ 3:31PM|#
the innominate one,
We've got around 100 plates now. Jesus is just the newest.
I know that they've rejected plates before, but the whole process
has to avoid viewpoint discrimination. If Jesus gets approved, then
what about Zeus? And if Zeus doesn't get approved, the group who
submitted the Zeus tag would have a cause of action against the
state, right?
It's like $60,000 just to submit a plate, apparently.
robc|4.27.09 @ 3:35PM|#
Pro Lib,
Not sure about your state, but many require a certain number of
committed purchasers before it is approved. So, assuming it passed
the obscenity filter, a Zeus tag would be approved with enough
prepurchasers.
Mad Max|4.27.09 @ 3:36PM|#
'The presence of religion is not an oppression against you. A
nativity creche in front of city hall does not oppress you. A
mayor's prayer breakfast does not oppress you. The Ten Commandments
on the wall of a judge's office does not oppress you. So stop
acting like you're being crucified.'
Now, now, don't deprive the atheists of their precious victim
status.
|4.27.09 @ 3:42PM|#
Now, now, don't deprive the atheists of their precious
victim status.
If he can manage to post again, we'll have scientific proof that
unintentional irony to the point of rank hypocrisy, is not, in
fact, fatal.
Elemenope|4.27.09 @ 3:43PM|#
Hey Mad Max, you ever lose a job for being Catholic? Just
curious.
Brandybuck,
Metaphors are almost by definition partially inapt. No, being an
Atheist is not exactly like being gay or black. And, I agree with
you to some extent that "oppression" is perhaps not the best way to
characterize the way that Atheists are generally treated, once they
are identified as such; it is less severe than the other examples
you mentioned.
And I agree that the mere presence of religion is not an
oppression, and I could give a shit about creches and menorahs and
Christmas trees. But when policy decisions are made on the basis of
some special revelation that some special people think they have
access to, is that a good way to run a republic?
Mad Max|4.27.09 @ 3:46PM|#
'Hey Mad Max, you ever lose a job for being Catholic? Just
curious.'
Does it count if a university career advisor told me to leave
certain information out of my resume - specifically, my founding of
a prolife student group?
Bear in mind that I'm not claiming 'oppression,' but responding the
atheists' howls of same.
Untermensch|4.27.09 @ 3:47PM|#
"The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory."
Occam's razor sort of breaks down when we reach a certain point,
however. Do we need a God to explain why anything exists at all?
What happens if we assume there is a God? Doesn't that just push
the question off to "Why is there a God?"? If we assume there is no
God, then where did all this stuff come from? I really don't know
of any answer to the fundamental question of existence that is
logical. Here we go beyond logic. Present cosmology simply pushes
the question off too since the Big Bang is the horizon of our
knowledge and we cannot know what came before (we can only
speculate). Occam's razor is no guidance when you reach the
limiting cases like these since we don't have any way to approach a
hypothesis and test the need for any particular inputs. At the
point where you reach your statement about not needing a God to
explain everything around us, you have entered the realm of
philosophy, not science, and reach the point of the Dawkins
quote.
As for the Dawkins quote, I think this makes sense unless we allow for an incompetent deity.
I'm not sure what the antecedent of "this" is in your quote. I
assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you are saying
Dawkin's position makes sense if we assume that we don't allow for
an incompetent deity. I really think the "argument from bad design"
make about as much sense as the "argument from design". Both are
bad logic. What are confronted with is what is (as far as we can
comprehend it) and if there is a God, then this is the universe
that that God made; and if there is no God, then we have a universe
that doesn't need a God. In neither case do we know (or have a way
of knowing) which we're in, short of the deity revealing itself to
us (something religious folks claim does happen, but which
non-religious folks reject out of hand). We also have no way of
assessing the priorities of said God (or no God) and knowing
whether our ideas of what make the kind of universe a God would (or
would not) make have any bearing on anything other than our own
ideas.
I suspect, although Dawkins did not elaborate, that his argument
was the old one about if there is a God, then why is there
suffering? If that's the case, again, we have left the realm of
positive knowledge either way since we don't know anything about
what a God would want. Maybe we're really trapped in a Manichaean
universe ruled over by an evil deity who wants us to suffer, in
which case we are in the appropriate universe for that deity...
Maybe the God has something other in mind for us than we think and
Dawkin's ideal universe would turn out to be terrible. We don't
know, and, more importantly (and despite all pretense otherwise)
can't know.
My point really is that any statements, either way, about what is
or is not needed to explain the universe do not flow from the facts
themselves or from logic, but from something else. We may make up
logical arguments about them, but if it were really a matter of
logic, we would all agree. (For instance, this is why I think IDers
are disingenuous at best: they ignore the evidence for evolution's
role and argue that it doesn't exist. So they are being willfully
blind.) The fact that two people can look at the same facts about
the universe and come to completely different positions regarding
the need (or lack) for a deity suggests that we have left the realm
of science and entered something else. Each side will think the
other one is stupid, but that's not because of logic or "proof."
Think of it as Gödel writ large.
Mad Max|4.27.09 @ 3:48PM|#
(In fairness, the advisor went on to say that perhaps I should leave the information on my resume, on the grounds that I wouldn't *really* want to have a job with a prochoice employer.)
dhex|4.27.09 @ 3:51PM|#
max is right: leave the victimhood scripts to the neo-osirian
death cultists.
how much bigotry is there against atheists, anyway. is there an ADL
of sorts recording this kind of thing?
Mad Max|4.27.09 @ 3:53PM|#
'max is right: leave the victimhood scripts to the neo-osirian
death cultists.'
What part of 'I'm not claiming "oppression" went over your
head?"
Elemenope|4.27.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Does it count if a university career advisor told me to
leave certain information out of my resume - specifically, my
founding of a prolife student group?
People can be anti-abortion rights and not be Catholic, so it sort
of counts. It counts in favor of the point that there are acts of
discrimination which are relevant which do not rise to the level of
beating the shit out of and/or lynching people which are still
relevant, but is a little off-point when dealing with the specific
issue of religious bigotry.
(In fairness, the advisor went on to say that perhaps I should
leave the information on my resume, on the grounds that I wouldn't
*really* want to have a job with a prochoice employer.)
I'm curious, were you going into an occupation where one's opinion
either way would come up often and would be relevant?
|4.27.09 @ 3:56PM|#
"The presence of religion is not an oppression against
you."
I agree with most of this and dislike the victim mentality.
But I do think that displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse
is a problem... not a sign of discrimination, but a sign that
there's something wrong with that court. The first two commandments
are antithetical to the first amendment, and so have no place in
American law. I can only see two or three commandments that have
any place in a courthouse; the other 7 or 8, if put into law, would
make for the worst totalitarianism the world has ever seen.
Mad Max|4.27.09 @ 4:00PM|#
'I'm curious, were you going into an occupation where one's
opinion either way would come up often and would be
relevant?'
Law. And I *have* interned for a "pro-choice" lawyer. She
overlooked my heretical views.
The entire legal profession, come to think of it, is tainted by the
abortion-on-demand philosophy, which was underwritten by the
highest levels in the legal establishment.
I only mention this because of the assumption that I haven't
experienced discrimination, hence I cannot understand the awful
pain that atheists feel. The fact is, I've been an atheist myself,
but never experienced discrimination for atheism.
And of course there are pro-life atheists, like Nat Hentoff.
'counts in favor of the point that there are acts of discrimination
which are relevant which do not rise to the level of beating the
shit out of and/or lynching people which are still relevant'
While we're on the subject of prochoice violence, check out
this site. I certainly
can't claim to have been subject to the type of pro-abortion
violence documented at this site, although of course my prolife
organization was targeted for prosecution in the student courts -
something so obvious that it pretty much counts as dog-bites-man,
scarcely worth mentioning.
Anonymous|4.27.09 @ 4:01PM|#
The first two commandments are antithetical to the first
amendment, and so have no place in American law.
Good thing we have the First Amendment to prevent Congress from
ruling as if those commandments were legally binding. If the
Judiciary would stop legislating from the bench, then that would
cease the rent seeking all around.
|4.27.09 @ 4:05PM|#
"The presence of religion is not an oppression against
you."
I accept this only when it comes as a corollary to:
"Not being able to tell people what to do is not a form of
oppression."
Argue, whine, wheedle, cajole, even harangue to a certain extent...
but you make your beliefs into law and all politeness /tolerance
/deference is null and void.
Mad Max|4.27.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Just to be clear, the wrongfulness of abortion is apparent even
to many atheists, as indicated by the following links:
Home page of
the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
The home page of Libertarians for
Life, which was founded (surprise, surprise) by an
atheist.
The atheist Nat Hentoff, with one of his many denunciations of
abortion
PIRS|4.27.09 @ 4:09PM|#
"Jehovah's Witness! I'm not interested IN YOUR WATCHTOWER
BULLSHIT! DO YOU HEAR ME! STOP WAKING ME UP AT 7 IN THE
MORNING!!!"
Strangely enough, it is because of Jehovah's Witnesses that I once
again celebrate Christmas and Easter. I heard their arguments
against these two holidays and asked myself "So, why am I against
these holidays again?" I enjoy them now in the knowledge that they
are evil, pagan and unchristian.
PIRS|4.27.09 @ 4:14PM|#
Mad Max,
I am a pro-life, pro-gay marriage, Ignostic, anarchist, hardore
capitalist.
Mad Max|4.27.09 @ 4:16PM|#
PIRS,
More power to you!
Feel free to talk about spiritual matters with your fellow
pro-lifers, some of whom (so I am told) are theistic in their
orientation.
Elemenope|4.27.09 @ 4:17PM|#
The entire legal profession, come to think of it, is tainted
by the abortion-on-demand philosophy, which was underwritten by the
highest levels in the legal establishment.
Suffused or tainted, I imagine the normative characterization
depends on where one stands on the broader issues. Either way,
you're certainly right that like most upper middle-class
professionals, they do the social liberal/economic conservative
skew.
I only mention this because of the assumption that I haven't
experienced discrimination, hence I cannot understand the awful
pain that atheists feel. The fact is, I've been an atheist myself,
but never experienced discrimination for atheism.
And that is perfectly reasonable. It's hard to believe in something
that one hasn't experienced personally. In my personal experience,
while "groupings" bring out the stupid in all of us on a regular
basis, I have not seen more irrational hatred directed with little
provocation than I have seen of people talking about or to
Atheists, because it is still socially acceptable to do so in many
places. Some people get lucky and never experience situations or
people which are readily identifiable as being hostile
because of a religious choice or identity.
Honestly I think that anti-Catholicism shares a similar pattern; it
rarely rises to the level of *oppression*, but people will go to
great length to make sure that you know they don't like you (as it
is still socially acceptable to do so), and will impede you within
the narrow bands of official discretion they possess.
PIRS|4.27.09 @ 4:21PM|#
I thought the whole Catholic / Protestant animosity thing pretty much died in the United States?
Mad Max|4.27.09 @ 4:21PM|#
'Honestly I think that anti-Catholicism shares a similar
pattern; it rarely rises to the level of *oppression*, but people
will go to great length to make sure that you know they don't like
you (as it is still socially acceptable to do so), and will impede
you within the narrow bands of official discretion they
possess.'
Really? You don't say! :)
'It's hard to believe in something that one hasn't experienced
personally. In my personal experience, while "groupings" bring out
the stupid in all of us on a regular basis, I have not seen more
irrational hatred directed with little provocation than I have seen
of people talking about or to Atheists, because it is still
socially acceptable to do so in many places.'
I'm not surprised that *open* atheists come in for a lot of
criticism, especially from closeted atheists who feel some guilt
that they don't have the courage of their 'out' colleagues. Much of
the anger against open atheists is along the lines of, 'look, I
don't believe in that crap, but why must you go out of your way to
insult these misguided believers?'
Xeones|4.27.09 @ 4:22PM|#
I thought the whole Catholic / Protestant animosity thing
pretty much died in the United States?
www.chick.com
Mad Max|4.27.09 @ 4:23PM|#
'I thought the whole Catholic / Protestant animosity thing
pretty much died in the United States?'
It no longer poses itself in the same way. People with traditional
theistic views - whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, etc. - come
in for a lot of grief, and in some cases actual legal
discrimination. I haven't been on the receiving end, myself, when
it comes to *legal* discrimination. Not so far as I know.
PIRS|4.27.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Xeones, I am aware of Chick, I didn't think more than .0000000000000000003% of the entire U.S. Population took them seriously.
dhex|4.27.09 @ 4:25PM|#
"What part of 'I'm not claiming "oppression" went over your
head?""
none of it. i'm saying that as a death cult, christianity is far
more at home with the language of victimization than a generally
unaffiliated group of people who aren't particularly being
victimized, the semi-real court of public opinion aside. besides,
ricky dawkins looks far too hale and well-fed to even remotely
carry across the language of victimization for an audience which is
not deeply devoted to the concept in the first place. it may
certainly be inconvenient to live in some places and deal with
haranguing and heckling and the like, but that's a good argument
for not living where villagers with pitchforks and torches do.
Tacos mmm...|4.27.09 @ 4:28PM|#
The presence of religion is not an oppression against you. A nativity creche in front of city hall does not oppress you. A mayor's prayer breakfast does not oppress you. The Ten Commandments on the wall of a judge's office does not oppress you. So stop acting like you're being crucified.
I certainly don't feel oppressed. I don't encounter aspects of
frank bigotry, either, although I might if I ran for public office.
I suspect it feels to me more often like you might feel living in
Saudi Arabia or Yemen - surrounded by the trappings and shibboleths
of an alien religion. I have more issues with attempts by religious
individuals to pass laws against victimless sins. Blue laws, for
example.
Howver, I have to ask if you would feel perfectly comfortable in a
town where muslim calls to prayer were announced daily from the
courthouse lawn, along with muslim prayer breakfasts in the mayors
office and a copy of Qur'an behind the judge's bench?
PIRS|4.27.09 @ 4:32PM|#
I was going to link to the Cthulu Chick Tract Parody, unfortunately it was taken down for alleged copyright violations. Bummber, it was funny too. I hope someone has a copy to save for after the copyright runs out. This is another clear case of IP abuse on the part of Chick Publications.
Anonymous|4.27.09 @ 4:36PM|#
Howver, I have to ask if you would feel perfectly
comfortable in a town where muslim calls to prayer were announced
daily from the courthouse lawn, along with muslim prayer breakfasts
in the mayors office and a copy of Qur'an behind the judge's
bench?
Yes, that's a perfect analog to saying "Bless you!" after you
sneeze, or setting up a nativity scene in front of a Church
building, or praying for your salvation. Anyone who thinks you're
wrong is part of the vast conspiracy to make you miserable. I'm
glad you understand!
Tacos mmm...|4.27.09 @ 4:41PM|#
Yes, that's a perfect analog to saying "Bless you!" after you sneeze, or setting up a nativity scene in front of a Church building, or praying for your salvation. Anyone who thinks you're wrong is part of the vast conspiracy to make you miserable. I'm glad you understand!
Read the example again. I'm talking about religious symbolism on
public property or at publicly sanctioned events, not church
signs.
Anonymous|4.27.09 @ 4:48PM|#
I'm talking about religious symbolism on public property or
at publicly sanctioned event
No, you were talking about Arabaic being on loudspeaker throughout
a city (that's what passes for "muslim calls to prayer" in
Europe).
Elemenope|4.27.09 @ 4:49PM|#
I'm not surprised that *open* atheists come in for a lot of
criticism, especially from closeted atheists who feel some guilt
that they don't have the courage of their 'out' colleagues. Much of
the anger against open atheists is along the lines of, 'look, I
don't believe in that crap, but why must you go out of your way to
insult these misguided believers?'
There's certainly plenty of anger on both sides, from injuries both
real and imagined. The only problem with such analysis is that it
neglects one party being proportionately a great deal bigger and
more powerful than the other.
Really? You don't say! :)
I do. I really think the new model in our society for how people
will, due to grouping, be dicks to each other follows the mutation
from violence, legal oppression, and open bigotry (the prior model,
easiest on both sides to engage in for readily identifiable groups,
such as race and sexual orientation) to less visible forms, such as
it did and does with most modern anti-Catholic and anti-Atheist
action.
It manifests in couching arguments in terms that might apply to a
broader group (I don't hate Atheists, but anyone without a strong
basis for their morality worries me // I don't hate Catholics, but
bigotry against gays makes me sick), but attacking a disfavored
feature of that group and attacking the feature instead of
attacking the group directly. Where it steps from mere dishonesty
into actual discrimination is when someone uses these frames as a
heuristic for deciding things within their own officially
designated discretion (such as when hiring or reviewing a person
for promotion, or even the decision by a cop to or not to give a
person a ticket instead of a warning).
It becomes official discrimination when a supposedly neutral agent
of the state (like the aforementioned cop) uses that heuristic to
make his or her judgment calls with regard to their authority being
applied to citizens.
And good luck fucking proving it.
PIRS|4.27.09 @ 5:15PM|#
"No, you were talking about Arabaic being on loudspeaker
throughout a city (that's what passes for "muslim calls to prayer"
in Europe)."
They do that in Europe now? Honestly I had no idea. I mean, outside
of that tiny piece of Turkey that is considered part of Europe
obviously.
DADIODADDY|4.27.09 @ 5:23PM|#
I would refer everyone to that famous Gahan Wilson cartoon the punch line of which was "Is Nothing Sacred?" the caroon was two prelates in mitres are talking while all the worshipers were prostrate in front of a large N
Tacos mmm...|4.27.09 @ 6:51PM|#
No, you were talking about Arabaic being on loudspeaker throughout a city (that's what passes for "muslim calls to prayer" in Europe).
And there's a firm line between a call to prayer from the
courthouse lawn, and a benediction opening a legislative
session?
|4.27.09 @ 7:03PM|#
People believe all sorts of things. All sorts. So to act like
you are being especially mistreated because of your atheism is
absurd. Yes, atheists get denied jobs or get fired just because
they are atheists. So what? I've been fired for getting a
letter-to-the-editor published advocating drug legalization. I've
been asked, in violation of local law, what my political
affiliation was during a job interview.
Some people are going to hate you because of your personal beliefs
or opinions. It's a fact of life. No amount of coercive state is
going to change that. So grow a thicker skin and get used to
it.
The amount of abuse an atheist gets for not believing in
God is trivial compared to the abuse a libertarian gets for not
believing in the State.
Art-P.O.G.|4.27.09 @ 10:42PM|#
This is another clear case of IP abuse on the part of Chick Publications.
Huh. I'm not a lawyer but I thought that work would've been protected as fair use through satire. And it's damn funny.
Elemenope|4.27.09 @ 11:07PM|#
I was pretty much with you up until:
The amount of abuse an atheist gets for not believing in God is
trivial compared to the abuse a libertarian gets for not believing
in the State.
I ROFL'd and then I cried. Are you serious?
Max Sterner III|4.27.09 @ 11:08PM|#
You people are missing the point. The religious oppression
occurs not so much in society at large, but in families. Think of
the children (and I'm not saying this sarcastically)! They have to
put up with whatever crazy shit their parents believe. Even when
they are old enough to think for themselves, they are still
economically dependent on their parents. And, more importantly, is
the emotional bonds to family that could easily be lost if you made
it a point to be proud of your beliefs. Though it is not like being
lynched, in some ways lynching is easier than social alienation. At
least lynched people have usually had their friends to go to after
they are bloody, but not all atheists have even that.
Using coercion of any means to force people to compromise their
identity and be subservient to your view of things is oppression.
We are all oppressed, some just more so than others. We are all
oppressors as well. While having a nativity scene on a courthouse
might not seem like a big deal, it is a symbol of a particular
group. If you're part of a group that does not get its thing on the
lawn, then the message is that your not as powerful as they are.
Provided you wanted to get on the lawn and failed to do so, anyway.
It's symbolic warfare, group against group. If you're on the losing
side, and if whining will get you ahead, then no shame in
whining.
As individuals, we fight for ourselves by fighting for our groups.
The whole point of government is picking the winners and making
sure the losers know their place and don't try to start a war (in
this case it would be called 'terrorism'). And because I seem to be
on the losing side more often than not, I despise the government. I
do not care about libertarian philosophies, equality, all that
stuff. I'm just selfish, and think that if the government isn't run
by me, than it's better there were no government at all.
And further, I suspect that everyone is selfish like me. They just
choose to wrap themselves in fancy -isms and religions to make it
seem like they are more noble or something. And it is because of
these selfish tendencies and rationalizations that libertopia does
not exist. I hold that we are not libertarians because we have
found the truth, nor are we jews or christians or druze or
scientologiests because those things have it right. It has more to
do with politics than truth. And even atheists are driven to
unbelief more for the same sorts of reasons that others are
inspired to believe in Gods and the supernatural than because of
rational theological arguments.
engineer|4.28.09 @ 11:58PM|#
"I was pretty much with you up until:
The amount of abuse an atheist gets for not believing in God is
trivial compared to the abuse a libertarian gets for not believing
in the State.
I ROFL'd and then I cried. Are you serious?"
What's so funny? It's true. Hell, here in Georgia you'd probably
get way more crap for expressing consistently libertarian views
than for openly declaring yourself an atheist. I'd say almost
anywhere in the U.S., failure to believe in the state will get you
way more crap than failure to believe in God.
engineer|4.29.09 @ 12:00AM|#
"At least lynched people have usually had their friends to go to
after they are bloody"
Uh, I may be mistaken, but didn't most lynched people end up
dead?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245