Friday morning February 26th, 60 representatives from the Secular Coalition of America met with White House staff to discuss three issues of concern to it’s members which consists of non-religious Americans. Those three issues included protecting children from religiously motivated neglect and abuse, ending proselytizing in the military and working to ensure that various faith based initiatives don’t cause religious discrimination to individuals in need.
While that agenda seems fairly benign and something most individuals regardless of faith or lack thereof would agree with, that didn’t stop the right wing smear machine from spreading fear and lies about the meeting. Apparently the idea that non-religious Americans should be treated with the same respect all other citizens expect from our government is enough to cause right wing hysteria. Sean Hannity of Fox News was found to have made at least 4 factual errors in his quick statement about the meeting falsely claiming that this meeting in some way meant that the nonreligious were getting special treatment from the Obama adminstration. Sean’s statement was nowhere near as inflammatory as what occurred in the right wing blogosphere, which basically labeled the groups participating in the Coalition as hate groups. For perspective on this issue, it is important to realize that one of the groups runs a summer camp and another one is the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.
Seems to me the apatheist is simply not taking his analysis far enough. Surely “part” of god, of belief, is accepting that God is important to every aspect of our life and afterlife? That being inextricably entwined as part of the faith model, then “to not care” really is a REJECTION of god. A rejection whether or not he actually exists.
Thats anti-theism.
Also of note, we do need another term on: while the existence of god/angels/devils/miracles/unicorns/leprechauns can all be equally questioned from the “can’t prove a negative” perspective, can we all agree that if god exists:
1. he certainly “can’t” exist as posited by any given religion?
2. he certainly isn’t “all good?”
3. he may be all powerful but given #2, he is just that–ie, all powerful and not really worthy of being worshipped because he is not all good?
In fact, if god is all powerful, he may very well offer heaven to everyone, or perhaps just the atheists, because at the last moment when it really matters, on that single issue, he is moral.
>> hoot said, on March 1st, 2010 at 8:02 pm
>> Enough with this bullshit of calling “the absence of religion” a religion. Please, just give it up. It is like calling the absence of water another form of wet.
There are people who simply don’t believe in God — this is NOT a pseudo-religion.
But there are people who believe that atheists are categorically superior and that religion should be eliminated. Atheism is a whole world-view thing for them and they love or hate others based on this.
It is only THESE atheist supremacists who are another fundamentalist cult.
So, if you simply don’t believe in God you aren’t in a religion.
But if you believe this nonsense that atheists are categorically superior to religious people, then you really are just another cult member.
#87 – deowll,
If the atheist faith based groups want service I don’t see why they shouldn’t be expected to band together to take care of themselves like the other groups have rather than trying to get free handouts from groups they oppose.
That would be a self-consistent opinion if you also believed that churches (the legal definition that includes temples and mosques and any other houses of worship) were also not entitled to federal bucks.
However, since churches receiving federal bucks is exactly what we’re talking about, and not only receiving them, but receiving them without oversight to ensure that they are neither discrimination nor preaching with the money, your statement is either irrelevant or utterly hypocritical.
So, did you misunderstand the topic?
#88 – Gildersleeve,
I believe that joke is supposed to be told with the last individual being an engineer and noting a knot in the rope. A stone in the gears is good enough, but I still think the joke is better as an engineer joke.
#92 – bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist,
Seems to me the apatheist is simply not taking his analysis far enough. Surely “part” of god, of belief, is accepting that God is important to every aspect of our life and afterlife? That being inextricably entwined as part of the faith model, then “to not care” really is a REJECTION of god. A rejection whether or not he actually exists.
Thats anti-theism.
As an antitheist, I disagree. Antitheists oppose religion. Apatheists, if we are to continue to use the term, likely don’t care enough to really consider the possibility. Of course, there is a minor inherent contradiction here. To not care about the existence of god but to care enough about the label to have a whole discussion about it and coin the term apatheist is a bit hypocritical. However, I think it’s a very minor hypocrisy with which most people would have no trouble abiding. We’ve all got a bit of hypocrisy in our beliefs if we examine them too closely.
Also of note, we do need another term on: while the existence of god/angels/devils/miracles/unicorns/leprechauns can all be equally questioned from the “can’t prove a negative” perspective, can we all agree that if god exists:
1. he certainly “can’t” exist as posited by any given religion?
This used to be me up until a decade or so ago. I had no idea about the existence of god but was sure that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion had it all wrong.
The term I used for this at that time was reformed agnostic.
I’ve since changed my mind and decided that it was hypocritical to give more credence to the god hypothesis than to the fire-breathing dragon hypothesis, the tooth fairy hypothesis, and the great pumpkin hypothesis. I also realized that atheism was not an assertion about god so much as an assertion about the level of evidence required to grant credence to any hypothesis. Realizing that, I decided that this was a level of hypocrisy with which I was not prepared to live. So, I rooted it out and am now an atheist.
(I’m also an antitheist; but, that’s a topic for a different thread, I think. This one is about not funding religious discrimination.)
BTW, I think it’s important to point out that that Secular Coalition for America includes Humanist Rabbis and other religious folk. It’s not an organization of atheists. It’s merely an organization in support of separation of church and state with a wide variety of member organizations who likely do not agree on many other topics but do agree that they oppose the idea of theocracy.
#93 – Greg,
There is another type of antitheist who merely sees religion as evil. It’s not that atheism is better than religion. It’s that religion has as an inherent purpose divisiveness. This divisiveness that is an obvious and integral part of the very word sectarian (dividing us into sects) and causes additional violence and hatred among people.
When religion is not present, we do still find reasons to hate each other and kill each other. It’s just that religion has that divisiveness in its very core and serves little or no useful purpose.
That religion has a deleterious effect on humanity can be measured by its large number of deleted humans.
Certainly atheists kill too. But, as far as I know, atheists have killed for other ideologies like communism, not because they were atheists. Many ideologies can be subverted to promote killing. However, the killing in the name of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion in particular is such an integral part of the scripture of any of the subsects of this most violent of religions that I see good reason to oppose it, especially in its many fundamentalist forms.
Further, if one wants to help the homeless, wouldn’t building many homes be a far superior way to do so than to build wildly expensive and extravagant churches, temples, and mosques that house no one and may or may not offer the occasional bowl of soup to the odd homeless person?
#96–Scott==I think I understand most of your points but when you give NO credence to religious dogma how is that giving more credence to religion than to the tooth fairy? Also, in our society, people don’t actually believe in the tooth fairy or build churches to her, or go to war over her, although we all do tend to finance her activities. (Weird huh?)
So, I disagree I think but I don’t care that much either. More apathy. (hah, hah).
Apathy certainly sounds a lot kinder than the Judeo Christian religions.
Atheists always say they aren’t a religion.
Now they are a religious group?
I’m an atheist to get away from the religious bullshit, not to emulate the religious bullshit.
Whatever “atheists” needs billboards and to meet with the President and establish meetings and groups and so forth obviously aren’t with the “program”.
So HMyers how do you stay away from the BS if you find your tax dollars going to religious groups, other atheists being discriminated against because of their being atheists, or basic scientific theory being avoided or subplanted by religion in your kiddies schools?
What would Jesus do if he was an atheist?
Hey Look I’m Bobbo and I’m so profoundly funny DURP DURP DURP!
Bobbo is a gnostic trapped is a fool’s body!
bobbo is not angry.
bobbo has no intuited knowledge.
bobbo does believe any god that affects hooman beings without their permission is above all a tyrant.
Perhaps that is a dualism?
I am not an atheist or an agnostic. I’m normal. Atheist, gentile, infidel, heathen, and such words are what YOU use to describe me, or anyone not subscribing to your myths.
I don’t have any religion. Or faith in a higher or superior being. I do have faith in the basic good of mankind towards one another; we are a herd animal. We are also territorial though and that becomes our mean streak or nasty side.
When someone can show me some empirical evidence that there is some “invisible dude in the sky” I will most likely re-evaluate that position. Until then, there is nothing to demonstrate there is one.
So Ralph what makes you think you aren’t an atheist?
“Other” people will also call you a man, 5 foot 8, or college educated. Why pose as if the dictionary meaning of words don’t apply to you?
#104 – Ralph,
I understand the desire to not be labeled by a negative, i.e. does not believe in god. Unfortunately, people seem to adore putting labels on everything and everyone. And, belief in god is quite pervasive. So, people want a label for none of the above. Also unfortunate is that there are many flavors of choosing none of the above with respect to religion. So we have many labels for it.
Deist: Rejects organized religion but does believe in god.
Agnostic: Doesn’t know.
Apatheistic: Doesn’t care.
Atheist: Believes there is no god, generally based on available evidence, though the god crowd likes to call it an assertion.
Antitheist: Believes that religion is evil, generally antitheists are also atheists. Though, I could imagine a deist being opposed to religion. I’m not sure what that would be called, presumably Thomas Jefferson.
So, I don’t mind the label atheist much. I’m also an a-stamp-collector, a-golfer, a-hunter, etc. And, I wear many labels that are based on my actual beliefs rather than a lack thereof, such as antitheist, liberal, progressive, environmentalist, pro-choice, feminist (yes, a male feminist, the belief that women have brains), pro-LBGT-rights, and I’d love to add scientist as the belief in science as the way to learn, though the word is already taken to mean a professional researcher.
And, how about sexist, the belief that sex is good? But, that word already has a negative denotation. Too bad really. I could see sexism as a religion based on the Kama Sutra. That would be much better than the current meaning.
Bobbo,
I don’t consider myself an atheist for the same reason you don’t consider yourself an asshole, regardless of what pedro or doill think.
😉
Misanthropic Scott,
Agnostic = lazy atheist
Apatheistic = stupid atheist
Atheist = Someone who knows there isn’t a supreme being. Usually has a higher regard for science and scientific methods than non atheists.
Antitheist = Someone who enjoys tormenting theists with their own religion. Richard Dawkins is a good example. Usually quite funny and always entertaining, in a good way.
Normal = Someone smart enough to know using labels is a trap.
Theist = Someone I don’t want piloting or maintaining my airplane.
Ralph, I’m a stupid atheist! Cool.
I’ll admit I really don’t know anything, it’s the beginning of wisdom. Being told that you know know nothing means you have teenagers.
If anyone quotes Psalms or Proverbs I’ll be deeply disappointed.
Voltaire said “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
I take that to mean that humans need to believe in something bigger than them. (But, like the 12-steppers’ “higher power”, it doesn’t have to be a Big Guy in the Big Sky. It could simply be the whole of humanity, or the universe itself.) But I digress.
So even if there isn’t a BGitBS, people will believe in it anyway. So it doesn’t really matter if God exists or not, people will believe anyway.
So we have
God exists
God doesn’t exist
I don’t know if God exists
I don’t care if God exists
And now we add:
It doesn’t matter if God exists
What kind of XXXX-theist is that? 🙂
Phydeau, I couldn’t have put it better.
Phydeau,
Maybe there is a third option Voltaire missed. The need to be labeled, although that is starting to sound like something Maslow would come up with. We want to be known, or are at least comfortable with being known, as white, American, male, professional, young, good looking, intelligent, follicle endowed, etc. (or whatever your label is). Yet elderly, native, Canadian, bald, women, laborers might object.
All of those adjectives are simply labels we either like, accept, or consider negative. Theist, agnostic, or atheist, depending upon which side of the fence you are on.
#112 I think there’s something to that, a need to be identified, and also to be identified as part of a group of similarly inclined people. Good survival technique in general.
Though I get the impression that atheists are less inclined to want to group together than theists.
RE #108,
I would like to rephrase part of my comment.
“Atheist = Someone who
knowsbelieves there isn’t a supreme being. Usually has a higher regard for science and scientific methods than non atheists. Thus an atheist believes there is no supreme being as there is no evidence to support such a theory.#114 Well, as you know, it’s very hard to prove a negative. Lack of evidence to support a position is not the same as disproving that position. That’s why I don’t consider myself an atheist. I haven’t seen evidence to make me believe a deity exists, but I haven’t seen all the evidence in the universe yet so I’m not ready to make a decision on that issue.
#113, Phydeau,
We are venturing into an area I don’t know. I tend to agree with your statement and put it down as Man’s tribal nature. we prefer to congregate with those we identify with, be it skin color, employment, sex, sport or other entertainment, sex, age, etc., with the one exception of our drive to mate. As an example, one of the biggest draws to join a religion (or church) today is the sense of community and the comfort that gives.
I would hope that as our technology has improved, the need to congregate for the more primitive reasons has diminished. Our tribal congregations today are less the need to find some beef to eat and instead has progressed to become divided between hamburgers and prime rib.
#115 – Phydeau,
Well, as you know, it’s very hard to prove a negative. Lack of evidence to support a position is not the same as disproving that position. That’s why I don’t consider myself an atheist. I haven’t seen evidence to make me believe a deity exists, but I haven’t seen all the evidence in the universe yet so I’m not ready to make a decision on that issue.
Just a quick consistency check, how do you feel about the existence of fire-breathing dragons? There’s lots of existing literature featuring them. Many people tell such tales. There is no less evidence of dragons than gods. Do you allow for the possibility that fire-breathing, flying dragons exist?
If so, you’re self-consistent. If not, why the difference between dragons and gods?
Ralph,
Labels are a quick shorthand. When I say I’m a liberal, most people can guess many of my political opinions. The fact that I do actually think for myself and have some differences of opinion with the liberal platform, if there can still be said to be a platform now that the party is dead, does not change the fact that it is still a convenient shorthand.
The idea of the labels is to convey larger chunks of data in shorter time frames. It’s not a perfect mechanism because few of us fit very many labels perfectly. But, it would take far less time to tell you my differences with most liberals than it would to tell you where I agree. So, the label works for me.
The idea of ridding ourselves of labels just means that discussions would take a lot longer to convey the same information.
#115, Phydeau,
No disrespect, but your post reminds me of an insult from when I was a kid.
(The person is so stupid that) When they were handing out brains he thought they said trains so he is waiting for the caboose.
When a theist states that “my god created the heavens and the earth in six days” I say show me the evidence. When a theist suggests “all great warriors end up in Valhalla” I ask where that is. When a theist tells me “you wassa goat, or maybe an artichoke, in a past life” I want to know how he knows this when I don’t. I don’t need to wait around for the evidence to arise that these theists are talking fantasy. Their claim, their responsibility to demonstrate that claim.
No, science hasn’t discovered everything. Science has demonstrated that so many previously common myths, such as lightening being god’s anger or Thor’s hammer, have a much more rational explanation. Babies aren’t god’s will, design, grace, benevolence, or blessing. Babies come about because an egg was fertilized by some male sperm, usually after some whoopy. Hurricanes are caused by very large low pressure systems being fed by the updrafts of the Canary Islands. Earthquakes are tectonic plates moving against each other. Droughts are caused by shifts in winds and sea temperatures.
These things we know that the gods don’t do. Waiting for the caboose means the train will leave the station without you.
#117,
If so, you’re self-consistent. If not, why the difference between dragons and gods?
Cuteness factor. Would you like to live with a god that has a reputation of smiting, floods, pestilence, and causing birth defects?
Ralph said “Would you like to live with a god that has a reputation of smiting, floods, pestilence, and causing birth defects?”
Apparently the Haitians got what they deserved and most people prefer it that way.