Those Awful New Atheists

Frank Schaeffer, former fundamentalist, is angry about the "New" Atheists, who have a level of fundamentalism that he feels is on the level of Pat Robertson (lesbians caused 9/11) and Ted Haggard (anti-gay rights gay hypocrite).

The leaders of this movement make loud, repeated, and bold claims about atheism being better and more moral, more ethical, and a vastly improved alternative to religion.

The difference between the bold claims of atheists and the bold claims of christians is that the atheists can actually back theirs up. The christians have a book that advises wholesale slaughter of enemies and their children and the willingness to sacrifice one's own son to please one's deity.

Atheists can actually point to a thing called "humanism" for guidance in moral matters.

If we are to dismiss Christianity and other religions partly because of the likes of Oral Roberts, Ted Haggard, and their shenanigans -

You may as well stop right there. I don't dismiss Christianity because of the immoral acts of its followers. I dismiss it because a) it's factually incorrect and b) it encourages immorality. Whether or not atheists are mean people has nothing to do with whether they're right. And since atheism has no dogma, you can't claim that it has a dogma that causes atheists to be immoral. The argument doesn't wash, so don't bother.

Mostly Schaeffer seems to be annoyed that atheists are declaring their opinions stridently, selling t-shirts with those opinions printed on them, and getting other people to stop following religions.

Schaeffer goes on for a long time about all of Richard Dawkins' sins, but none of them seem to me to be on the level of the divorce from moral reality that comes from adhering to the doctrine of a religion. There's nothing in my appreciation of Richard Dawkins (or any other atheist's appreciation) that would lead us to obey Dawkins if he were to tell us to - for example - smash a plane in to a building, shoot a gynecologist, deny condoms to starving, diseased people or blame a terrorist act on completely unrelated gays and lesbians or women wearing pants.

That's just not our thing. You see, atheism relies on reason.

In a nutshell:

If Richard Dawkins becomes demented and tries to get his followers to do something vile or insane, they will balk. Can you say that for the followers of Pat Robertson and Ted Haggard? No, you can't.

h/t to the PZ.

Recommend this Post

Calgary and the Pro-God Ads

This is the one objection I had to the atheist bus campaign. Religion is on the wane. Belief is down in polls. Church attendance is dropping. Religion, ignored, quietly goes away, quietly becomes less dogmatic. Children don't go to church as often as their parents did. People find the old beliefs quirky and silly. The godless slowly win the long race.

Unless you agitate the believers.

So, fine, they have their own ads now.

God cares for everyone ... even for those who say He doesn't exist!

I'm not sure what religion they're speaking for when they say this. The ads were apparently purchased using the money of a number of people from a number of different faiths ("Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims", the purchaser claims). But I don't believe the statement is accurate.

A cursory reading of the christian bible, for example, states pretty clearly that god doesn't much care for atheists:

Psalm 14:1 Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!

Romans 1:32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

Romans 1:28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.

If this god of theirs "abandoned" us, I have a hard time believing the claim that said entity also "cares for us".

But that's just me, and they'll automatically declare that I'm "interpreting" their bible incorrectly then I point out that it says exactly the opposite of what they want it to say.

What's more to the point is that there will now be a brief agitation of the believers. We can hope that this will leave the fence sitters with more information on the issue so that, the next time a pollster asks, they can say, "No, I don't believe there's a god" and we can start doing away with this notion and god-belief is somehow necessary for moral behaviour.

Recommend this Post

Religion Prevents Anxiety?

I suppose that might be a comfort to a religious person, that his beliefs make him calmer. It would be hard to explain, I suppose, if religious people were more agitated. Why does your god want you be so frazzled all the time? I'm sure they would have an excuse.

The headlines are a bit over the top:
Religious brains more calm in face of anxiety: study
Religion protects against stress, study suggests
Believers stay calmer than atheists in trying situations, study suggests

That last one comes closest to the truth, in terms of headlines. From the conclusion of the actual study, which you can find here.

Our results indicate that religious conviction is associated with reduced neural responsivity to uncertainty and error on a generic decision-making task.

So, yes, religious people are less anxious. I don't know how far to take the significance of the results when the sample size is 28 people and only four are "non-religious", but I'll point this much out anyway: the anxiety they're measuring is the anxiety experienced after making a mistake.

Yes, you read that right. The primary and most significant conclusion of the study is that atheists and other non-believers experience a sharper pang of anxiety or stress in the milliseconds following an error.

Frankly, I find that disturbing but not surprising. It means that religious people make mistakes and don't seem to care about it as much. If you've ever studied any history, you certainly won't find it hard to believe that religious people gloss over their mistakes more easily than others.

Maybe it just takes practice. After all, if you can read all four Christian gospels with their accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ without feeling anxiety about all of the direct contradictions, I suppose you just build up an immunity to facts or something.

I'll take my anxiety over their certainty any day of the week - even Sunday

Update: A more thorough analysis The Neurocritic: Atheists Are Neurotic and Religious Zealots Are Antisocial

Recommend this Post

Atheism is Offensive

That's what I've learnt. When the religious want to pray over us, use their religion to deny us rights, declare us unfaithful, unwise and untrustworthy, this is fine and acceptable. When they want to declare us immoral, there is no hue and cry in the media. When they want to force our children to endure their prayers in taxpayer funded schools, they are considered brave and righteous.

When we, the atheists, tell them to stop indoctrinating the credulous minds of our children, we are considered oversensitive. They can tell us that we are raising our children poorly and this not considered insulting but rather "an expression of a viewpoint".

But if we ever, ever, go so far as to publicly say that we don't believe in their god, or any god ...

Well, that, that is offensive. According to Kanata North Councillor Marianne Wilkinson, a representative of the people:

“I don’t think we should be demeaning people in advertising at OC Transpo,” she said. “I think the words are offensive to everyone who believes in God, regardless of what religion they are. To me, as a Christian, it is demeaning. It grates on me.”

Demeaning? How is the statement that it's okay not to believe in god demeaning? Every Christian church and Muslim mosque makes its own public statements. The billboard frequently tells us that god gave us his only son, or that there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed was his prophet. I happen to think that Marianne Wilkinson's religion is very demeaning, but you don't see me telling her to take down her signs.

What does she even mean when she says that the phrase "There probably is no god" is demeaning and offensive? Is life of lesser value because other people don't agree with your religion? Is your belief so weak that it can't weather a spoken word against it? How is it offensive? How does it attack you? No one is stopping you from believing what you want.

And "it grates" on her. Really? The idea of people not-believing your beliefs grates on you? And you're in politics? If that's the way you feel, that just awareness of my very existence "grates" on you because we disagree, then I shall verily enjoy "grating" on you for as long we both are alive.

Speakers included resident Theresa Milligan, who said she felt the wording of the ads was “an implied statement of hatred against all people who believe God exists.”

Hatred? I hate you because I don't think that your god exists? No, dear, that's not it. There's nothing implicit in atheism that says that atheists hate those who believe. Most of the time, we atheists view most of you with a sad shake of our heads. But if you want to see which side of the street generates hate, insult and offense, try some bible passages:

Psalms 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Lev 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Matt 27:25 "All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" "

Yes, clearly the atheists, with their declaration of disbelief, are the big haters here. Clearly, our vicious and malicious offences are nothing in comparison to the biblical ideas that disbelievers are "fools", homosexuals should be put to death and the Jews killed Jesus.


h/t Galloping Beaver

Recommend this Post

Bwahaha! Atheism On Your Bus!

I know what you're thinking: shouldn't we atheists be dispelling the myth that we're out to eat babies or go on raping and pillaging?

I suppose, but I still think we should occasionally avail ourselves of ripe opportunities to laugh maniacally.

To wit: Ottawa refuses Atheist bus ads.

Apparently, the city has been allowing ads with bible passages on them but has refused the atheist ads which say, as they did in Britain: "There's probably no god, now relax and enjoy life." They wisely put it in all-caps to save the trouble of deciding whether to use a capital 'G' for the deity.

But talk about playing in to our hands. The Christian and religious majority are constantly harping on about how hard done by they are, about how persecuted they are, about how they can't even say "god" anymore without being vilified and mobbed by hordes of evil atheists.

But, when you get right down to it, it's really the atheists that have the hardest time just being who they are without having someone else's beliefs crammed down their throats.

When I see something like this, I know that it's generating yet another wave of cognitive dissonance that crashes against the faith of the religious.

And I see that it is good.

Recommend this Post

You Can't Be Good Without God.

I suppose that's what the Metro Transit Authority in Halifax is telling us when they denied the Humanists an opportunity to advertise on the sides of buses.

"So, if anytime we feel there's a message that could be controversial and upsetting to people, we don't necessarily sell the ads."

Indeed. I can't wait for the obvious corollaries to come through on a broad statement like that. I'm rather offended, quite personally and honestly, when politicians tell us that atheists can't be trusted because we don't believe in god.

The Humanists are simply responding to that multitude of religious people that insist religion and god-belief are necessary for morality, thereby insinuating that the rest of us are incapable of morality. The Humanists are saying that we can be good without god.

And this is controversial?

This stands, to me, as the typical rant of the religious. They get to swing their fists wherever they want: insulting us; tricking our children in to their cult; using our tax dollars to fund their worship. And if ever we tell them to stop insulting us and to leave our children alone then we are persecuting them. Suddenly, it's so difficult to be in that gigantic majority of Christiandom because they're not allowed to punch us in the face with their dogma.

Yes, I can see how that could be offensive: announcing that some of us, despite everything their priests have told them, can lead moral lives without their religion. I can see how that must grate on their nerves. After all of the abuse and scorn they've been permitted to heap on us, after all the nonsense they've taught their children about us, they're forced to face the truth that some of us actually lead decent lives without being cajoled or threatened with eternal damnation. What will their children think of this?

Yeah, that must really tick them off.

h/t to Red Tory.

Recommend this Post

Sam Harris, Sir, You Rule

Over at richarddawkins.net, there's an essay by Jerry Coyne on the subject of religion and science running together and how some scientists manage to remain religious.

The good stuff comes from the responses by various scientists (religious and not) of import and how they deal with the situation. After you've read Krauss's bit on how it's not worth the time to argue with the religious and Dyson's bit on how the number of books reconciling science and religion is a sign of success at doing so, scroll down to Sam Harris's eloquent essay.

Remember to wear goggles. The sarcasm ... it burns.

Recommend this Post

Agnosticism is not a Fence

Words are our servants, not our masters. I fully understand and appreciate this.

On the other hand we can not allow the misuse of words to guide people to faulty conclusions. If you want a good example of logical failure through the abuse of language, Anselm's "Ontological Argument" is always fun to read.

And so it is with a heavy heart that I hear people often "refusing to take sides" on religious issues by declaring themselves "agnostic". The misuse of the term "agnostic" even reaches in to technical fields where devices which can use many interfaces or protocols are referred to as "agnostic".

"Agnostic" is used to mean ambivalent or unsure. It is taken to mean that there are believers in god on one side and those who declare that there are no gods on other side. To avoid taking a side, one calls oneself "agnostic".

That's not what agnostic means and, furthermore, it shades atheism with meanings it doesn't have either. So let us turn to the dictionaries, every one of which agrees on the meaning of agnostic.

ag⋅nos⋅tic –noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Agnosticism is statement that it is impossible to achieve certainty on the issue of god's existence. It is not a position relative to belief in god. That's not how most people use it, though, is it?

The idea that agnosticism is a fence between theism and atheism, and that you can sit on this fence, is clearly false.

But, if we grant that both a theist and an atheist may simultaneously be agnostics (in that they acknowledge that there is no certainty) then we can't use "agnostic" to refer to the fence-sitters. What then do we call the people who sit on the fence between the two positions?

The answer is that we don't call them anything at all because - and this is the tricky part, so I'll put it in italics and bold - there is no fence between theism and atheism. There is no place for such people to sit.

A believer in god, a "theist", is a person who would agree with the statement, "I believe that at least one god exists". Atheists are those without this belief by which I mean to include every person who is not in the first group. An atheist is a person without belief in god. That person may additionally firmly believe that there are no gods, but that is a stronger statement than what is required to win the title of "atheist".

Simply put: Do you believe in god?

If your answer is "yes", you are a theist.

Everyone else, from "I haven't decided" and "I'm not sure" all the way to "no way, gods are for the weak-minded", is an atheist.

Welcome to the club. You probably weren't aware that you were a member but that's our fault for basically never having any meetings.

Recommend this Post

What Atheists Believe In

So the Atheist Bus Campaign is coming to Canada, or at least Toronto, which is a lot like the Centre of the Universe anyway.

Of the many misconceptions that atheists face about immorality, there's always this tendency to demand things of atheists.

The first thing to be demanded is that we prove that god doesn't exist. That's what I like about this campaign. It is clearly labelled the atheist bus campaign, and yet the statement is, "There's probably no god". This accurately describes the atheist position which is that we see no reason to believe in any gods. It's not that we positively declare "There are no gods". It's that we disbelieve the declarations of religious people that there is a god.

Then comes this bit from a minister. Sadly, the writer of the article paraphrased it rather than quoting, but I think the general gist of it is quite common.

The moderator of the United Church of Canada, Right Rev. David Giuliano, said he would rather see atheists say what they believe in, rather than what they are against.

The whole point of atheism is the not-believing, not the believing.

But if you really want to know what atheism means to most of us, I can take a vague guess with which most of us would probably agree.

It means freedom. Freedom from dogma and guilt and everything else religion brings us. But a youtube video already says it better than I could, so here ya go.

Recommend this Post

That Sad Victimized Religious Majority

You've seen them pull this trick over and over again. The massive numbers of religious people in our country caterwauling about how victimized they are by teeming hordes of vicious, selfish, intolerant, immoral atheists.

Yes, the multibillion dollar religious empire of the 700 club, the Vatican, the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family and the Republican party is now being threatened by the awesome, irresistible force of the University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics. Look at that website! Three posts in October!

So says Naomi Lakritz in the Ottawa Citizen and the Calgary Herald (where the subtitle is "Silent majority is awfully tired of being told to shut up").

Step one of the game plan is to minimize the actual desires of the pro-religious faction. All they want to do is just say "God". Why can't the evil atheists just let them say the word "God"?

Step two is to declare that atheists are intolerant because they want to stop religious people from even saying "God". Don't we have free speech in this country? What about tolerance?

Step three is to outright insult atheists as narcissistic, by which I'm sure she means "selfish". Then pretend that atheists want to stop people from being buried under crosses if they so choose.

Let's take them in order.

Step one. This is absolutely crucial. The desire at this convocation is not to "God Bless" the dentists (some of whom are atheists) but to instruct them to use their skills for the "Glory of God". If you don't understand why I wouldn't want to be told to use my skills for the glory of your god, then you haven't read the bible. I have read the bible. The last thing we should be doing is adding to continuous history of murder that is currently the "glory" of your god.

Step two. I am not being intolerant. Are you even aware of the sheer hypocrisy of looking me in the eye and telling me to worship your god while calling me intolerant? That's what you're doing. You're telling me to glorify your deity and then complaining because I object to your instruction. It is your intolerance that stands out here.

Step three: If you want "narcissistic", read about the cruelties supposedly ordered by your god. Isn't one of the commandments, "thou shalt have no other gods"? That's narcissism. Narcissism is usually associated with criminal behaviour and even sociopathy. Would you like to examine the prison statistics by religious affiliation and tell me which of us is underrepresented in prison? Go ahead. Have a look.

She finishes with one more comment that begs for a response:

Rather, it's about how, when you see or hear the expression of someone else's faith, you don't demand it be squelched because you don't like hearing it.

This isn't about squelching your free speech or your expression of your views. I support your right to your religious beliefs along with my right to tell you you're wrong. I don't generally exercise this right, because I don't much care, until you insult me or knock on my door on a Saturday morning and disturb my game of Zelda.

This is about religious people, with control of a public ceremony, commanding people to worship their god. It's about loons like you, Ms. Lakritz, telling people that we're immoral if we don't share your beliefs.

That's intolerant. That's immoral.

Recommend this Post

How to Make more Atheists

I'm going to take it as a premise that rationality is better than ignorant bliss.

While there's pleasure to be had in appreciation of the natural world and the human beings in it, the religious strongly believe that they have the huge share of "bliss" based on those tingly, orgasmic feelings they get from parts of their beliefs. Based on happiness alone, I consider it self-evident that we can not defeat religion - especially the fundamentalist varieties - by convincing people that atheism will make them happier.

That's not to say I'm not happier as an atheist, but rather that the joy of it is a useless basis on which to encourage others to leave their irrationality behind.

I'm writing this because of the tactics I see many atheists using. Insults and degradation get us nowhere. Trust me, I've tried. When I was new to atheism, I was angry at my former beliefs and rejected them and all who espoused them with vitriol and fury. It never impressed anyone.

Patience and rationality, however, can be convincing if they are consistently used. Let the religious rail, calling us fools. Let the religious advocate gruesome treatments of other religious people. Let the religious froth at the mouth. Let them knock on doors and be the proselytizers. This is not our place and not our tactic.

As atheists, we are best to be calm. We advocate freedom of and from religion. We must never attempt to limit someone else's beliefs - only their ability to force them on the unwilling. We will tell the truth, calmly, over and over again until people start to listen. It's the long, hard path, indeed, but the only time I've ever been credited with helping someone (#1172 if it matters) shake off religion is from that kind of behaviour.

Cruelty and mockery will only ever benefit the religious, as they already have a nice, safe rationalization that says that atheists are angry, miserable, hateful people. We have to show them differently.

As I'm watching the powerful people in this world use religion to get people to kill each other, Crusader against Jihadi against fundamental Zionist* against ... I don't even know the word for a crusading Hindu or Sikh ... I'm convinced that we won't be safe until we get society to shake off the shackles and blinders of religion and embrace rationality.

Does atheism proof a society against despotism? Of course not. Atheists are still human beings and can therefore be just as immoral as anyone else. Atheism does, however, deprive leaders of the religious excuse for immorality. It deprives them of a ready handle to grab which lets them declare immoral acts to be righteous and cruelty to be acceptable behaviour. If atheism is enforced, as in Stalinist Russia or present day China, it can be just as bad as enforcing religion. It is important, therefore, to let people believe what they will and convince them without suppression to follow the path of logic.

No, it's not an easy road, but it's the best, healthiest path for our society to take and we have an obligation, as humans to other humans, to do our best to shepherd it along.

* - this seems to be a vague term. I refer here to those people supporting, among other things, the building of Jewish-only settlements outside of the U.N. recognized borders of Israel.

Recommend this Post