In which atheists behave like a flock of clucking church ladies
Image via Wikipedia
I’m usually good at ignoring crazy emails, but this morning I wasted some time arguing with Christian crazies who think the president is a Muslim and part of his war on Christmas is a new stamp commemorating the festivals of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha.
It used to be enough to send the people who circulate these crazy emails to snopes.com, where they would learn the stamp was actually issued in 2001, and then the humbled sender would issue a retraction, tail between legs. But it seems to me that Obama’s grassroots opposition is increasingly proud of its ignorance. As if anti-Obama falsehoods achieve a higher truth. It’s an ignorance that smells something like faith.
Still steaming from that observation I came upon this news item:
Why would the nation’s largest group of freethinkers spend good money to put ads that make light of religion on buses in San Francisco?
“If there’s any group of people overall that will take our message to heart, it’s San Franciscans,” says Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ad sponsor. “The city has a well-deserved reputation for openmindedness and tolerance,” Gaylor adds.
via Opposing Views
This rankles me as much as a crazy email about the Eid stamp. To be an atheist is to be, by one definition, closed to the idea of god. That thinking is not free, it’s limited. It’s the opposite of open-mindedness. It doesn’t matter how much evidence you have. What matters is that your mind is made up–closed, not open. The one quality you share with theists is certainty (and what a devil is certainty).
Now it’s true that in societies saturated with Christianity, the atheists seem to have science on their side. We now know that Jesus doesn’t live in a castle on the back side of the moon, having been there and looked and found it lacking in Him. But that’s a problem with Christian literality, not a problem with divinity.
There are traditions in which god means something like energy. Matter is energy in its grossest form, some traditions have held for thousands of years, or, as we put it more recently, E=MC2. Science is still working out the mysteries. The divine just is what we don’t already know, and to have a mind that’s already certain requires a leap of faith. Atheism is just negative theism.
Likewise, attacking other peoples’ faith is not the same as tolerance:
The Madison, Wis.-based association… is putting its messages on the outside of 75 buses. Messages like “Imagine No Religion” and “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”
Additionally, 200 interior bus signs are going up, featuring six provocative quotations by five famous skeptics of history, plus a quote from perhaps the world’s preeminent atheist, Richard Dawkins, author of the bestselling “The God Delusion.” The ad features Dawkin’s comment from the book: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction.”
The ads also feature quotes from Emily Dickinson, Butterfly McQueen, Katharine Hepburn and Clarence Darrow, who famously said, “I don’t believe in God, because I don’t believe in Mother Goose.”
via Opposing Views.
Some of these messages are witty, some mocking, some taken out of context, but all, as presented, are intolerant. I’ve spent a lot of time in San Francisco, and I’m sure that many San Franciscans will agree with these signs. That’s not the same as being tolerant of them. Other San Franciscans will not agree with them but will tolerate them because honestly, this campaign isn’t going to shock anyone in San Francisco. That’s a form of tolerance, but it’s not the high form.
I think we probably need atheists. We need atheists to prevent theists from running roughshod over everyone. We need them to sue the government when it starts getting too Christian, reminding it to issue an Eid stamp now and then. But let’s stop confusing atheism with “freethinking” or “openmindedness” or “tolerance.” Those words mean you’re uncertain, that you’re looking and listening. They mean that your response to someone else’s idea isn’t “no.” It’s “maybe.”
So now let’s back slowly away from postage stamps and bus signs. What we’ll see in our retreat is that theists and atheists are of a mind. Each is busy intolerating the other. What if instead of holding to some dogma–atheism, say, or a theism–we held, instead, to tolerance?
Imagine no divisions.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
My female Episcopalian priest friend puts it pretty simply: In America we have freedom of and from religion.
I’ve never been very excited about “tolerance.” It’s like “you have your right to be wrong and end up in Hell.” I prefer the word “acceptance.”
The ultimate paradox of America is that we are a nation of believers fleeing state religion, only to be tempted to reestablish it.
The irony about godless atheists is that they, above all others, act purely on faith.
Jeff,
Thanks for calling this out.
As a Christian, I would mildly object to some of the things you said. Hopefully, this will be a tolerant conversation.
The premise of Christians going against science is absurd to me, and slightly infuriating. Faith and science are not exclusive. As to believing something with certainty, I don’t believe much of anything with certainty. I can make semi-rational judgments, based on available information, but the information could change, or be shown false. As to God, I think he exists, and I think I will go to heaven. I don’t know though. I also think I will go get something to eat, but there are a lot of different outcomes that could take place. The future, and the unseen, they are both pretty tricky to deal with.
Thanks!
Skid, I just mean that literalist Christians are sometimes in conflict with science, as Libtree points out, and that atheists often have science backing their arguments. In that statement, I don’t at all mean to paint all Christians with one brush.
In response to another comment. See in context »The only time to question religion is when it affects my freedom or damages my community. Teaching children that the planet is 6000 years old and man coexisted with dinosaurs is preaching ignorance. The idea of fundamentalists co-oping my government is dangerous, so dangerous that our founding fathers, who were aware of the problems of religious intolerance in Europe, demanded a separation of church and state. We are all aware of the damage of Islamic fundamentalism mixing with governments. So I will stand up against these infringements but only to the ideas not someone’s right to believe it. There is money to be made into turning Atheism into a faith onto itself and this seems to be an example of it.
I agree completely. It certainly isn’t moving any sort of dialogue forward by simply mocking other people’s faiths.
Interesting article. I’m finally going to San Fran next weekend after a lifetime of wanting to see the West coast. I’ll be looking out for those signs in the city and should i see one, will chuckle to myself.
It’s kind of amusing the enthusiasm people will devote to trying to convince others to accept their own cosmological/spiritual views with something like a sign. It would seem almost intuitive that such views take a decade or more of one’s formative years to develop, and would thus not be so much as budged by something like a sign, or a pamphlet; no matter how pithy the catchphrases it may contain.
Andy, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has to do something with its funding. Enjoy your visit. Don’t forget to eat: SF is a great, great, great restaurant city.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. McMahon,
I am sorry this was not one of your better postings, it was not well thought out at all. You wrote: “But let’s stop confusing atheism with ‘freethinking’ or ‘openmindedness’ or ‘tolerance’. Those words mean you’re uncertain, that you’re looking and listening. They mean that your response to someone else’s idea isn’t ‘no.’ It’s ‘maybe’. You have muddled several different issues.
It is entirely possible for a person to be very certain about their beliefs and be tolerant of others beliefs, that is true for theists and atheists. The same is true for openmindedness or freethinking, just because I am very certain of something right now, does not mean I am not open to new information that can change my mind. If you asked a physicist in 1900 about the relative motion of objects, he might be very certain that Newtonian physics could answer all problems. In 1920, the physicist might give you a very different answer, one Relativistic physics might be provide better answers than Newtonian physics, but with as much, or even more certainty. Being certain of something is not the same as being closed minded or intolerant.
You have also confused the desire to express one’s views and share them with others as a form of intolerance and/or closedmindedness. Why is that so? If I say publicly “I think X is true, the opposite of X is wrong, and here is Y” what is intolerant or closedminded about that? Is not that exactly what this webpage is all about, is T/S “intolerant” because the people who post here have strongly held views about what is true or not true?
Intolerance is the “unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs” which is an entirely different issue. It is one thing for me to say to you, “I think you are wrong” and it is another thing to say “You do not have the right to disagree with me”.
Mr. LosAngeles,
You’re not the only reader I confused in this way. By saying x or y or z I did not mean to say that x = y = z. (Nor did I say that, actually). Having dealt with openmindedness by itself in the body of the post, and then tolerance, I was trying to cinch up these ideas in a single sentence at the end. And you’re quite right that I didn’t do it well enough. To clarify: freethinking and openminded means that you’re uncertain, that you’re looking and listening. But saying “maybe” instead of “no” means you’re both openminded and, when you refrain from asserting your NO, tolerant.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Imagine No Religion” how is that in anyway intolerant? Seems to me Jeff you should be questioning your own tolerance issues. By my read it seems to me you only want atheist to be visible when it suits your purposes:
“I think we probably need atheists. We need atheists to prevent theists from running roughshod over everyone. We need them to sue the government when it starts getting too Christian, reminding it to issue an Eid stamp now and then.”
Who exactly is this “we” you keep referring to? The normal not too over the top believing crowd?
Brian, thank you for bringing this up. I don’t think “Imagine no religion” is intolerant in the way that John Lennon expressed it, or in the way that it’s usually received. Misusing it in a campaign that belittles the faith of others is intolerant. This is the statement I’m referring to when I mention one being taken out of context. And this is why I took care to say they’re intolerant “as presented.”
“We” means you and me, Brian. I would not put myself in the normal and/or the believing crowd.
John Lennon was targeting all the ways we divide ourselves, all our excuses for war. So am I.
In response to another comment. See in context »Don’t include me in your “we” please, I’m an atheist.
In response to another comment. See in context »More power to you, Brian, but you’re proving my point: Your mind’s made up. How is that thinking free? Thank you.
In response to another comment. See in context »Of course my mind is made up, that doesn’t equate to close mindedness. You’re the one trying to suppress discussion, not me, as I said the only intolerance I’ve seen so far is your own. I find it odd that for whatever reason you’ve decided to take on we atheists. We are constantly bombarded by christian trying to enforce their belief system of us, where is your outrage, where is your scorn for the fact that I am constantly being bombarded with msges that go counter to my beliefs and values. Before you start pointing fingers at me and others perhaps a bit of self inventory on your part is called for. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve been told that as a non believer in Christ (I’m a Jew by birth and gay also) that I was doomed to the eternal fires of hell I’d be a very rich man right now.
In response to another comment. See in context »Taking issue with someone else’s opinion is not intolerance. It’s simply arguing. Intolerance is refusing to allow the existence of someone else’s beliefs. The atheists aren’t taking that position. As for closed minds, if atheism is close-minded, so is Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism and Islam, as adherents of those belief systems close their minds to other religions (not to mention to atheism). In fact, you could argue just as well that Democrats, capitalists and St. Louis Cardinal fans are close-minded. as is almost anyone who has taken a position on anything.
Excellent points Lewis.
In response to another comment. See in context »Much of what you’ve said reinforces my argument, Louis. A St. Louis Cardinals fan is unlikely to say “I’m openminded because I’m not a Cubs fan.” Yet that’s what those atheists are doing.
As for intolerance, an attitude can be intolerant, so speech certainly can be intolerant.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t see atheists saying they’re open-minded. It’s a meaningless term that you’re trying to tag atheists with. It can be used against any group you dislike. It’s irrelevant.
Certainly speech CAN be intolerant.But what’s the meaning of intolerant? Are you saying it’s automatically intolerant for an atheist to make his views on God known in public? That atheists must remain silent even though preachers, popes, missionaries et al may push their opinions? Because that’s what you seem to be saying.
In response to another comment. See in context »No that’s not what I’m saying Lewis. Would it help to read the post?
I’m not the originator of the term “open-minded.” And I don’t dislike atheists or any of the groups discussed above. I’m pointing to the irony and confusion of a group, and I don’t care what group it is, selecting an “openminded” and “tolerant” city for a message that’s neither open nor tolerant. And I certainly don’t think atheists should remain silent. In the post I said we need atheists to speak up.
Said that. In the post.
In response to another comment. See in context »OK, I give you not originating “open-minded.” I missed that. Sorry. But you’re still labeling the SF atheists’ message intolerant, which I disagree with. Intolerance would be denigrating religious people, not trying to convince them to change their minds on a public issue–which is what religious belief is, even though religious people are always trying to move it out of bounds. Religions wield great power, social, cultural and political and so are open to criticism.
In response to another comment. See in context »Lewis, denigration is not necessary to a definition of intolerant, which looks like this: “not tolerant of others’ views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own.” Criticism is by its nature intolerant. What I’m pointing to is the selection of “tolerant” San Francisco as the site for this intolerant advertising.
In response to another comment. See in context »I always laugh to myself when I see an atheist table at an event, so earnest with their literature and itching for a good scrap with an argumentative Christian. I wonder,”why bother?” If you don’t believe than that is your right. But why take precious time out of your life to argue about it with people who do? It seems fishy.
I buy your take on atheism, Jeff. I’ve always thought of it as the belief in “no.” Why, I wonder, would anyone want to define themselves in a negative? And what can one hope to achieve with a posture of opposition?
I feel just as wary of a strident atheist as I do someone who thinks that we should be teaching our children that Adam rode dinosaurs.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by San Francisco Towing and San Francisco Taxi. San Francisco Taxi said: Jeff McMahon – Scorched Earth – Athiests choose tolerant San …: I've spent a lot of time in San Francisco, and.. http://bit.ly/vc0f3 [...]
Your definition of an atheist is way off base. An atheist is not someone who is “closed to the idea of god.” An atheist is someone who has no belief in God and/or gods. I am an atheist. I don’t believe in God because I have no reason to believe in God. I have not seen or felt any evidence to indicate that God exists. But that doesn’t mean I’m closed to the idea of God. I’d convert in an instant if I saw any compelling evidence that God exists. But until that happens, I’m a non-believer.
Pauls, as you say, you’re a non-believer. You don’t have evidence to believe, and if you received such evidence you’d convert in an instant. (Myself, I’d stop short of converting). And I don’t see you telling anyone else they’re wrong about their faith. That looks like openmindedness and tolerance to me.
In response to another comment. See in context »Also Jeff the fact you have only called out comments that agree with you is another indication of your closed mindedness. This entire thread swims in your hypocrisy.
Brian, several of the comments I’ve called out don’t agree with me. I’m sorry I haven’t called out yours, but I’m not sure you read past the headline. I don’t think I’ve attacked atheists by pointing out that a made-up mind is not the same as an open mind or that messages belittling the faith of others are not the same as tolerant messages. You ask, “Where is your outrage, where is your scorn for the fact that I am constantly being bombarded with msges that go counter to my beliefs and values?” Such inflamed scorn and outrage probably deserves a post of its own, but nonetheless, I believe I get at some of that at the beginning of this post, when I discuss the Eid stamp and the ridiculous “war on Christmas” and at the end of the post, when I argue that we need atheists to keep theists from running roughshod over us and to keep the government from getting too Christian. I’m concerned that maybe you took such offense that someone would raise a question about atheism that you’ve lapsed into an opposition that’s blind to what I even wrote. Hard to call that out.
In response to another comment. See in context »Maybe it bugs me because I am an atheist, or maybe it bugs me because its an imprecise use of language, but your assumption that theists or atheists know is wrong.
theism or atheism describes belief – but says nothing about whether that person claims knowledge. That is why a theist or an atheist can be described as either gnostic or agnostic. There are many gnostic theists just as there are agnostic theists. An Agnostic atheist doesn’t believe that god exists, but doesn’t claim to hold a monopoly on the truth. There just isn’t any evidence to back up the claim so there is no reason to believe it.
On the other hand, there are atheists that are gnostic – they profess to know what is actually an assumption based off of the evidence.
Also, tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance. If religious ethics didn’t keep atheists out of government offices, advocate anti-abortion sentiment, and encourage abstinence-only education rather than condom use, maybe atheists wouldn’t feel compelled to speak out against religion.
While prayer in public schools may seem like just plain intolerance, remember that every few years we also have to fight to keep religious dogma out of our science text books. This isn’t intolerance, this is self-defense. We are protecting the minds of our children from confusing philosophy with science. While one allows us to explore how we see the world, the other allows us to see how the world is.
In my post, Tomo, I advocate actions like the defense of textbooks that you describe. And I think your addition of gnostic and agnostic nuance is very helpful. I avoided those terms because they are at least as disputed as atheist and theist. But this is a fine time to bring them in, along with definitions to discipline their use. Thank you.
It spares me from having to begin the post with a glossary. I think it’s safe to say, in Tomo’s terms, that the atheist messages being promalgated in San Francisco are mostly of the gnostic variety.
In addition to certainty, gnostic atheists, in Tomo’s terms, seem to share with gnostic Christians a rabid defensiveness. I haven’t seen anything like it since I posted on Mark Stricherz’s Catholic blog and was accused of attacking the church. When I hadn’t.
If we could only recognize the commonality, and its causes. I’m beginning to suspect that my final call for us all to tolerate difference in one another and imagine no divisions may not succeed in uniting the world. Better luck next time.
Jeff, you are so totally right about atheistic closed-mindedness! The faith that dare not speak its name has become the faith that won’t shut up (now where did I hear that before?!) What I find really intolerable is their smug self-satisfaction. And the beauty of it is, it’s the exact same smug self-satisfaction that you hear in the voices of born-again, hard-right evangelical Christians! Recognize that note and you know right away you’re dealing with a gnostic atheist.
I got so pissed-off with this that I just
started a blog–well, actually, it has a larger goal, but this was what got me started–where I’ve been bashing the New Atheists like they haven’t been bashed before. I think you’d enjoy it, so please pardon me for the indelicacy of advertising my own blog on your site:
http://www.beyondscienceversusreligion/blogspot/com.
Czech it out, as the Slovak said to the U.N.
(with apologies to HAP–Haters of Awful Puns)
I think it was Piaget who explained it this way: There are really just four religions, really psycho-spiritual states of being. Content–atheist, Christian, Jewish– matters not a whit. They are: 1st) mental organization is chaotic/social behavior is anti social. 2nd) rule-following/authoritarian, 3rd) skeptical/democratic, 4th) mystical/communal.
Most of the religion Americans practice is of the second type.
We have an interfaith group that meets at our home once a month. We wouldn’t have any problem including an accepting (3rd stage) atheist. I know a couple, actually.
Jeff, I have to that even though you may not have intended it, I find your article profoundly insulting.
You’re complaining about atheists purchasing billboards to promote atheism, because it’s “intolerant.” Yet, you do not host such outrage towards the numerous advertisements on television, on radio, and in print promoting not only a specific religion, but even specific religious sects. Right now in the SFBay area on I-880 there’s a billboard promoting Islam. Is that “intolerant?” I guess given that it’s central tenant is that not only do deities exist, but “there is only one god, and Mohammed is his prophet,” then by your definition is — as is every religion that claims a monopoly on the truth.
You seem to want atheists to either just go away, or remain closeted, because we’re a bad influence or something.
Apparently atheists’ “intolerance” comes from the fact that we reject the need for deities to explain the world and maintain morality, because strictly speaking we should be agnostic. True. But then where is the intolerance of the religious? Haven’t they rejected a conclusion? Isn’t their belief in a diety IN SPITE the lack of evidence for (i.e. their “faith”) just as intolerant and hostile to agnosticism? By your logic, aren’t we all “intolerant” if we reject the existence of unicorns, fairies, and leprechauns? I don’t know anyone that would describe themselves as “unicorn agnostics,” but by the same time, if a real unicorn was produced, I don’t know anyone that would continue to deny the existence of unicorns.
Your article is just more evidence to what American atheists have long known. You can practice any religion you want in America, no matter how bizarre and absurd, just as long as you practice one. If you don’t, you’re a horrible person. Or as George H W Bush put it, “[A}theists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.” If you said this about any religion, you’d have hell to pay, but you picked the one target everyone can agree on. Kudos.
Jonathan, you’ve had to range very far afield of what I wrote in order to come up with your objections. I don’t complain about atheists purchasing billboards to promote atheism. I do express outrage about Christian domination of our culture. You’re arguing with phantoms. Try reading the post.
In response to another comment. See in context »“To be an atheist is to be, by definition, closed to the idea of god. That thinking is not free, it’s limited. It’s the opposite of open-mindedness. It doesn’t matter how much evidence you have. What matters is that your mind is made up–closed, not open. The one quality you share with theists is certainty (and what a devil is certainty).”
From the above rant, you have obviously never talked to an atheist and have no idea what they believe. I could ask you why you are so closed-minded against Thor, Zeus, Krishna, Quetzlcoatl etc. etc. I know a lot of atheists and none of them states as a fact that there is no god. However, they all think that the probability of a god existing is vanishingly small, and therefore they are entitled to live their lives on the working assumption that there is no god, heaven, hell etc. unless and until someone produces evidence to the contrary.
Look in a mirror before accusing anyone of intolerance, small-mindedness, fanaticism etc.
Ray, as another reader pointed out, the dictionary definition of an atheist is “one who denies the existence of God.” That’s the definition I’m working from. I don’t accuse all atheists of intolerance; I point out that this particular advertising campaign is intolerant of a belief in God. And you couldn’t be more wrong about the assumptions you make: I know more non-believers than believers, and my emphasis in this article is openness not only to Thor, Zeus, Krishna, Quetzlcoatl, etc etc (I’m a big fan of Pan, myself), but also to all of the other possibilities, including the possibility there is no god. Where exactly did you get the impression I was against those entities? Certainly not from what I wrote. It’s the equation of a made-up mind with open-mindedness that I’m criticizing. It’s an obvious contradiction, yet many theists and many atheists cling to it like dogma.
In response to another comment. See in context »First you define an atheist as someone who denies God, and then you attack them for that position.
Perhaps I could define a Christian as someone who oppresses people, and then attack Christians for oppression.
Both are invalid arguments.
This is the problem when you rely on a narrow dictionary definition of atheism – perhaps you need a better dictionary?
Merriam Webster says that an atheist is, “one who believes that there is no deity”. However, the Oxford English Dictionary also includes “rejected as unfounded” in its definition.
Modern atheist writers such as Dan Barker put it more simply. Atheism is merely the LACK of belief in a god or deity.
You may have heard of Dan Barker? Co-president of the Freedom of Religion Foundation?
By narrowly defining atheism and missing exactly what it is that the FFRF actually stands for, you’ve created and knocked down a convenient straw man argument.
Thanks for your comment, Calladus, but talk about a straw man. Assuming that atheists deny God, when that’s the dictionary definition, is hardly parallel to your assumption that Christians are oppressors. The parallel assumption would be that Christians believe in the divinity of Christ. I don’t attack atheists in this post. On the contrary, I argue that we need them. I refer specifically to the messages on the signs in SF, and I critique the assumption that having your mind made up is the same as having an open mind.
In response to another comment. See in context »You’re using an old dictionary Jeff – one written by God-fearing people who created their own definition for the word Atheist.
Sure, some atheists “deny god” as you suggest. But many (most?) of us simply lack evidence. I don’t believe in a God for the same reason why you don’t believe in fairies – not enough evidence.
The dictionary defines “dogma” as “a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.” Since you enjoy defining another person’s strawman and then beating on it, perhaps you’ll agree that all Christian faith is merely dogma?
Look at it from an another point of view. If many people continually talk about fairies, and create laws that tell me that I can’t go shopping on special “fairy days” and tell me how bad I am for not putting milk in a bowl on my doorstep for the poor fairies – then I’m going to question the sanity of these people, unless I receive some sort of proof of their assertions.
Putting up a sign that questions fairies isn’t intolerance – it is instead a voice that is pointing out that believing in something blindly, without evidence, and refusing to change your mind about it is a sure sign of a closed mind. It is the little boy who points out the Emperor is naked.
But then, perhaps you are one of those people whose belief is weak, whose evidence is lacking, and who cannot stand honest intellectual inquiry.
Those who want to admire the Emperor’s clothing would be the first to shush the clear-eyed boy.
Keep on shushing us!
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes, Calladus, it has been firmly established for several months now that all the hoopla over this post is really just about different definitions. By your definition of atheism I’m an atheist, since I neither subscribe to nor deny an established belief or denial system. Those aren’t the atheists I’m writing about. I’m using the traditional and primary definition, as you seem to realize, which may very well have been made up by God fearing people, as you say. I think it’s clear enough from the post itself what definintion I’m using. If not, it’s clear enough from the comments. And yes, the whole reason I brought up dogma was to show that atheists who deny divinity were acting just like Christians in this regard. So I think you’ve grasped something there. Let me just add, if you are talking about atheists who really are open minded, why would we label ourselves “athiests” or anything else denotational, and why would we declare ourselves to be an “us,” a congregation, effectively, that’s being shushed? Why not just be open minded?
In response to another comment. See in context »Your argument isn’t one against atheism, it is an argument against labels. By that argument, why bother calling someone a Christian, or saying that they are religious? If they label themselves then they just are not open minded.
It sort of destroys the whole reason why you wrote this article – lambasting “intolerance”. If you attack one label, but not another, isn’t that a position of bias? Isn’t that just your own personal “dogma”?
In response to another comment. See in context »Calladus, my argument is not against atheism or labels, it’s against dogmatic claims to certainty on a topic that is by definition uncertain. And it’s against attacking other people based on those claims. And if you were to actually read the post above, you would see that I don’t “attack one label and not the other.” The first two paragraphs are about religious intolerance.
In response to another comment. See in context »And you’re still attacking a strawman.
There are people who are dogmatically certain that there isn’t a Santa Clause. Why don’t you post an article about that?
There are people who spend some serious time speaking out against fairies, UFO produced crop circles, and Bigfoot. You should write articles about those narrow minded attacks too.
The problem here is that religious people have had thousands of years to produce real evidence of their claims. And atheists are simply saying that it is premature to start talking about what we humans should do to please a god or gods before we have sufficient evidence that such a thing actually exists.
We’re not the 6-year old boy who trustingly puts cookies out for Santa. We don’t begrudge any cookies for Santa – and many (perhaps most) of us would be happy to put out some really great cookies – if only Santa would, unequivocally, give us some sign he exists.
Instead we live in a world of priests who claim to speak in his name, who point at natural events and call them evidence of his existence, and who force nonbelievers to conform or pay lip service to their beliefs through social or State sanctions or penalties.
And if an atheist organization has the temerity, the unmitigated gall to call out these people, we are labeled narrow minded, intolerant.
Atheism by itself is not a movement or a philosophy – it is merely a statement of lacking evidence.
But there are atheistic movements and philosophies: Secular Humanism, Positive Atheism, and The Brights. These movements all have something in common – they all agree with freedom of religion. They all support your liberty to worship (or not) as you like, as long as you don’t try to deprive others of the same liberty, or impede that liberty – in any way.
A refusal to say “So help me God” automatically makes a person suspect in American society. This is intolerance.
Pointing out that evidence is lacking is merely a truism. Starting a conversation on the dangers of dogmatism, and encouraging scientific skepticism are an established American tradition, and are part of America’s birthright.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not attacking a strawman. I’m critiquing a specific advertising campaign.
“Starting a conversation on the dangers of dogmatism, and encouraging scientific skepticism are an established American tradition, and are part of America’s birthright.”
Then why do you object to me starting a conversation on the dangers of dogmatism? And what are you talking about when you talk about “us” if not a congregation, and what are you talking about when you talk about “birthright,” if not a claim to natural or moral authority, a dogma? Your pope just wears a different hat.
People who are respectful of uncertainty would have a hard time insisting other people are wrong about the unknown, would respond to the beliefs of others by thinking “maybe or maybe not,” would be naturally inclined therefore toward tolerance, would have no need to form congregations around their style of thinking nor to preach from the pulpit of a claimed birthright.
In response to another comment. See in context »I remember Norman Mailer once asked a heckler the question, “So, which kind of totalitarian are you, a leftwing totalitarian or a rightwing totalitarian?” A similar question could be posed here, “So which kind of totalitarian are you, a theistic one or an atheistic one?”
But atheists should be proud of their atheism because it ironically takes more faith to live as a atheist than it does to live as a Christian-type certain that if they are good they will live with Jesus forever.
I believe in all of it, but I reserve Wednesdays for atheism. Randomness bless us and have a nice day.
As an atheist, I can state that atheists do not believe that they are by definition not open to a beief in a deity or that they are closed off. See, that “definition” of atheism is something created by Christians or theists and put on atheists. It is a strawman position that no actual atheist holds. Since it is not an actual position of an atheist, attacking and mocking it might be easy, but pointless. It is like attacking a position of a character in a movie. The movie chracter like the atheist strawman, not existing in real life. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. That is the basic position of all atheists, as defined by yes, atheists themselves!
There is no strawman argument here. Many atheists deny the existence of a deity with the same certainty that Bible thumpers maintain the existence of a deity. And many are hostile and intolerant toward theism. I think that’s Jeff’s point here.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think you’re closer to an agnostic and I think even Jesus dying on the cross expressed agnosticism when he cried, “Father, Father, why has thou forsaken me?” Acting in spite of uncertainty is the heart of existentialism, be it of the atheist type or the Christ type. Both must act on faith.
Check out Frank Schaeffer’s comparison of the “New Atheists” to religious fundamentalists. The common feature, according to Schaeffer? A closed mind:
http://www.alternet.org/belief/143674/are_the_%22new_atheists%22_as_bad_as_christian_fundamentalists/
Usually we call people who believe in unprovable things insane; yet we make an exception for those who believe in “religious” ideas. That said, nothing wrong with believing in a thing that cannot be proven true or false, unless it gets in the way of your interpretation of things that can be proven true or false. Because then you’re making your own practical stupidity into a thing that’s “divinely” justified. And that’s dangerous to both yourself and to society.