this the natural response to the growth of fundamentalism in both the west (US) and middle-east...religion and politics is posion.

Ah, Kevin.

Don't be so coy. You know precisely why this is going on, and I'm sure the corners of your mouth curl insideously upwards in contemplation of it.

Years of cultural erosion put in motion by the liberal cultural elite, the liberal media and liberal academia have resulted in this turn against G_d. Liberals comprise of a very small subset of the population, but because they have insinerated themselves into positions of power, they weild undue influence. It's part in partial the liberal onslaught.

I tremble for my country.

Ah, Egbert.

I tremble for my species, if you are a member.

egfart: "I tremble for my country."

So stop jacking off on the flag, already! Go "insinerate" yourself, turd-breath.

The reason for this "surge" of joyous doubt is that we don't like our Taliban any more than we like theirs. Period.

is it really true that there's a sudden avalanche of popular books extolling the virtures of atheism? ...Is there any particular reason for this?

Because the GodBots have screwed up everything?

Isn't this an obvious backlash to an era in which people without religeous affiliations are openly and regularly assumed to be incapable of being moral beings? It's a very offensive presumption and I'm glad to see the reaction in print.

"because they have insinerated themselves into positions of power"

Liberals from Hell!

Jonathan Miller was on Bill Moyers last night, talking about his new series "A Brief History of Disbelief", to be shown on some PBS stations.

There's been quite a bit of this going on for the last hundred years, with Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan and Steve Gould doing their part. The market for this has apparently been growing, though.

Fred Phelps et al.

I think I have it figured out - scrambled egbert is the product of an evangelical christian madrassah, and his deranged rantings are part and partial of why this particular brand of social cancer has always reminded me of the Bugblatter Beast of Traal.

I would guess this is a response to the perceived rise of religious fundamentalism, both here and abroad. Creationism/Intelligent design has risen in its public profile, while abroad the Islamic version of the same fundamentalism has, for obvious reasons, also risen in public profile. It's not too surprising that the mirror of this is also rising in profile.

Actually, though, the current rise in public atheism isn't exactly a mirror, as it's not violent, unlike the domestic and foreign religious fundamentalists. Not that there's anything inherently peaceful in atheism - as long as there are human beings, there will be a potential for violence, regardless of what belief system they profess - but thankfully so far there's been no large-scale atheist mirror to militant religion.

G_d

how can you worship someone who yow are so fucking terrified of that you can't even spell his name?

Is your "God person" related to Voldemort?

Unfortunately the word "atheist" has a negative ring to it for much of the population -- it sounds like a negative, like "immoral" or "unpatriotic". Whereas, by implication, those who believe in god don't need a word to describe them -- they are normal.

It would be good if we started using an adjective to describe those who do believe in god, leaving the implication that those who do not are the normal ones.

I smell an egbert-fake. He is too funny!

Now if only Christopher Hitchins sees the light on the subject of Iraq.

He has always been quite a skeptic on religion, and so his wholesale purchase of the imperialist policies of a political party that derives the core of its strength from religious fundamentalism is quite inexplicable.

"It would be good if we started using an adjective to describe those who do believe in god, leaving the implication that those who do not are the normal ones."

Nope, just go back to calling non-believers "freethinkers". That should do the trick.

For years there was an unspoken truce between the nonbeliever and the believer. Each accepted the existence of the other and went about their own business not trying to impose upon the other their own ideas. Beginning with Reagan that bargain has slowly been eroded. Then with the ascendancy of Junior there has been a total collapse as the theocrats have taken a sledgehammer to the wall of separation of church and state.

It is only natural that we must now stand up before all is lost.

gregor, if you stay drunk enough you can square anything.

Clearly the rise of atheism proves the existence of god. It also despisies the religous loonies who claim to be acting it's name.

What Rich Ramos said. There used to be a tacet quid pro quo: The religious community will not attack accepted scientific ideas (even if they do contradict what it says in the bible), or try to establish a state religion (at least not by directly referring to the bible).

In return, no one will point out that the bible is a work of fiction (and not a plausibly-written one at that) and that God does not exist

I've always tried to be polite-- it's not my business what someone chooses to believe. But when their beliefs start affecting my life-- as it has in the last few years-- it's my responsibility to object and set the record straight.

So when someone starts starts talking about (say) the "THEORY of evolution" at a party, I go right after them: "As opposed to the theory of Jesus?" I;ll get them in full retreat, stumbling over themselves. I don't care how many people I upset (almost everyone, usually), how many people I reduce to tears (more than you'd think) or how angry someone gets (and I've been swung on).

I don't think this improves the quality of discourse, but staying quiet gives people the mistaken impression that everyone agrees with them, and that nonbelief is beyond the pale.

That's no longer acceptable.

Bush has been stupifyingly wrong one every other issue; why should god/religion be any different. If the Shrub believes in it; it is probably fucked up and wrong. Of course Hitchens' batting average has been 0.00 for some time too.

Stephen Prothero trashes Hitchens's new book at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301907.html.

God sent GWB to be the President of USA so we discover the fact of His non-existence all by ourselves.

BG, hat would be "part and parcel", not "part and partial".

And, by Skitt's Law, "hat" should be "that" in my previous message.

hello? possibly 'the people' are just getting tired of war/death/loss no change in sight...and realize that religion is at the root of many of these wars. Maybe they have decided it's time to get out of 'bad relationship' and move on. They are tired of the cycle of addicts/enablers and want a better future. Maybe they 'see the light' as in enlightenment--let's just get on with it. I would like some progress, I would like to evolve.

Anonymous Nitpicker - you need to look at egberts post and then the part I set aside in italics.

See where you went wrong now?

@Woodrow: awesome, the theory of Jesus. Never thought of that one; I'll keep it in mind.

Stephen Protheoro's critique of Hitchens' book (in Wa Po) is reminiscent of the protestations of Marxists that Stalin was ideologically not really a Marxist.

In case we haven't met - I'm a redheaded bitch.

I'm curious: have I just not noticed books like this before? Or is it really true that there's a sudden avalanche of popular books extolling the virtues of atheism?

Not sure "avalanche of popular books extolling the virtues of atheism" is an appropriate description--more like "extolling the evils of organized religion", especially given some of the excesses of late. In any case, this seems to be a somewhat cyclic phenomenon that is coupled to broader social cycles (no surprise); see, e.g., The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief.

It may have been just a fluke that Sam Harris's "The End of Faith" and Dawkins' "The God Delusion" came out within a couple of years of each other, or possibly Harris's book built a little fire under Richard the Prolific. After all he had just finished the 600 page "The Ancestors Tale" in 2004.

And don't forget Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", pub. last year as well as the recently discovered transcripts of Carl Sagan's 1985 Gifford Lectures which were edited by his mate Ann Druyan and published as "The Varieties of Scientific Experience", also last year.

Hmmm... as I sit here and type more things come to mind which inclines me to think that maybe we do see the beginnings of an avalanche. If this keeps up maybe we'll see a Hundred Monkeys phenomenon.

egbert proves that homeschooling by wingnuts isn't so great. The inability to construct simple sentences, spell common words, and correctly repeat something like "part and parcel" must come from the absolute failure to read at a fifth-grade level.

His mama must be so proud. Seriously. I'll bet she is.

And leaving out one third of your diety's name seems much the same as considering a pictorial representation of your prophet to be all kinds of sinful.

Fundies are all pretty much the same, whatever their preferred religion.

What is happening is there is a growing split between the fundamentalist Christian and the economic conservative wings in the Republican party. Only 3 of the 10 Republican candidates said they didn't believe in evolution. That seems to imply that 7 of 10 Republican candidates, including all of the front runners, do believe in evolution.

Today in the NY Times Patricia Cohen published an article on the subject called "A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin."

Why are split? Cohen's article points to the strong strain of social Darwinism underpinning the modern economic conservative movement. One wonders if it is the same strain of social Darwinism that gave rise to both Communism and Fascism during the end of the 19th and start of the 20th centuries, but social Darwinism is what she is talking about.

I am not sure she's right. I think economic conservatives have figured out that being against science, especially biological science, just isn't good business. If they want to maintain their economic edge they are going to have to move the Republican party to reject the anti-science fantasies of the Christian fundamentalists.

These books and articles are all part of a newly emerging effort by economic conservatives to push the Christian fundamentalists out of the Republican tent.

Keith Parsons has the answer.

That Stephen Prothero review is very like the reviews of Stephen Dawkins's The God Delusion. The objection is made that Dawkins/Hitchens/Not Fortunate Enough to be a Person of Faith does not really know anything about religion or religious believers. The argument is made that non-believers suck as well and what about Stalin? The reviewer nonetheless affects magnanimity toward the author because of the author's genius in a profession other than anti-religion screed writer. And so on.

And anyway, if there is a Hell, Christopher Hitchens must be in it.

I kind of liked "part and partial." It's better than "towing the line" or "viola!"

bad jim, my favorite shall forever be the one about how *dispicable* it is of the Democrats to use politics as a political football.

During last night's episode of Bill Moyer's Journal, host Bill Moyers interviewed Jonathan Miller, creator of a three-part series titled "A Brief History of Disbelief" to be aired on PBS stations beginning this week. Or perhaps "some PBS stations" would be a better description.

As it turns out, many PBS affiliates are apparently choosing not to run Miller's predictably controversial look at the roots and philosophy of atheism. And a quick check of the calendar shows that Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) has buried Miller's series from 2:00 AM to 5:00 AM on Monday, June 25.

That "A Brief History of Disbelief" might be controversial is unsurprising. Right-wing groups, such as the Concerned Women of America, are already ramping up opposition to Miller's program, which originally aired on the BBC in 2005. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council deemed the work of the actor-director-author Miller to be "an evangelistic piece for atheism."

For the story, see:
"Are PBS Stations Burying 'A Brief History of Disbelief?'"

They've never read Huston Smith.

Gee, just in time for the '08 elections. The GOP has a million ways to distract you from their hand on your wallet.

"extolling the virtures of atheism"? Well that's a glass half full way of looking at it. I am glad to see that the athiest are finally standing up for their, um, non-beliefs. There is a movement to drive religion from America and this is but one manifestation of it.

JS
"It would be good if we started using an adjective to describe those who do believe in god, leaving the implication that those who do not are the normal ones." Your argument would be better if athiests were anywhere near a majority of the people. However, the simple fact of the matter is that in the US and around the world, a very solid majority believes in a god. That puts us in the norm and atheists outside.

It is in human nature for us to seek out the essential patterns behind everything. This nature, nor the behavior that it in turn feeds does not begin nor end with religion. If it's not Almighty God, it will be the Almighty Dollar. If it's not the Almighty Dollar, it will be a political party, a technological phenomena, or something else.

We cannot destroy fanaticism at the source because it's source is humanity.

Which is not to say humanity is inherently bad. What we talk about with religion, politics, and other areas of concern are things of legitimate concern to people. Because we do not see all ends, do not know all things, and do not always have means or wisdom to know how to do everything right, we are bound in our lives to be in error at some point in some way. Imperfection is our lot in life.

Our imperfections can blind us, lead to value things and devalue things in our life arbitrarily to how they really are.

Which is to say that the kind of evil many of the militant atheists say they could eradicate from the world by destroying religion, or organized religion is not an evil in and of itself, but a tendency in humanity that if allowed to proceed far enough in any direction can push beyond the boundaries of good conscience.

I believe that if you want to fight evil, you first have to fight the evil within you, and then do your best to shine brighter than that darkness. The key is to not try to oppose one excess by creating another.

Ultimately, following a religion, or denying religion altogether is a choice, and its a choice that cannot be forced. What's more, to try and force the choice is to make many people just make the choice with even more stubborn resolve.

Persuasion is the name of the game in dealing with religion. Beyond what will convince you of your point, what will convince them? Perhaps you have more common ground with people thant you imagine.

It has just been discovered that Mercury has a molten core. If the universe is bazillions of years old, how can this be? Would not it have cooled off by now?

"Gee, just in time for the '08 elections. The GOP has a million ways to distract you from their hand on your wallet."

Bingo. This could be gay marriage and the war on Christmas.

Why can't we have a special name for those who actually do believe in avalanches?

Of the books mentioned, I like Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" the best; it does the best job, as the subtitle suggests, of dealing with religion as a phenomenon without demonizing it, as Harris's and Dawkins's books do. It's still from the standpoint of a nonbeliever, but does the most interesting job of finding the answers to what benefit religion provides, and thus why it persists.

Dave Howard:
Hmmm... as I sit here and type more things come to mind which inclines me to think that maybe we do see the beginnings of an avalanche. If this keeps up maybe we'll see a Hundred Monkeys phenomenon.

I found myself thinking the same thing as Dave and Kevin, but I was convinced by a New York Times article by Alan Finder on how darn fascinated today's students are with religion.

Matters of Faith Find a New Prominence on Campus

At Harvard these days, said Professor Gomes, the university preacher, “There is probably more active religious life now than there has been in 100 years.�

However it's not the traditional, I-was-brought-up-in-the-one-true-religion-and-won't-kill-my-mother-by-apostasizing kind of devotion.

More students are enrolling in religion courses, even majoring in religion; more are living in dormitories or houses where matters of faith and spirituality are a part of daily conversation; and discussion groups are being created for students to grapple with questions like what happens after death, dozens of university officials said in interviews.

At Berkeley there are 50 to 60 Christian groups on campus, and student attendance at Catholic and Presbyterian churches near campus has picked up significantly, [the Presbyterian campus pastor, Rev. Randy Bare] said. On many other campuses, though, the renewed interest in faith and spirituality has not necessarily translated into increased attendance at religious services.

Some sociologists who study religion are skeptical that students’ attitudes have changed significantly, citing a lack of data to compare current students with those of previous generations. But even some of those concerned about the data say something has shifted.

Here I think we get to the heart of it.
David D. Burhans, who retired after 33 years as chaplain at the University of Richmond, said many students “are really exploring, they are really interested in trying things out, in attending one another’s services.�

In reference to a new club at Colgate created last year to encourage students to hold wide-ranging dialogues about spirituality and faith a student gave this reason for joining.
Gabe Conant, a junior, said he wanted to contemplate personal questions about his own faith. He described them this way: “What are these things I was raised in and do I want to keep them?�

I think what we're seeing is students applying reason to faith. They're "trying things out" and deciding what they want to keep. We'll see whether this approach leads to a more religious generation or not. It's my opinion, as an atheist, that it will lead to more skepticism. I don't think there is any more successful path to making people religious than raising them to be religious, and training them not to question their faith. It's very hard to convert someone who has been raised to casually assume that there is no invisible spirit world. In addition, through how many generations will religious people pass on their faith if they believe most faiths are pretty much OK, and it doesn't really make any difference (Salvation for all!) which one you believe and practice?

I think the popular books on atheism are meeting the needs of people who are questioning more than ever before.

Kevin, you're welcome to join the battle yourself.

Contrary to Egbert's claims of "coyness," you do know why. More atheists have gotten tired of the bullshit.

The least you can do, being one yourself, is tout these books more.

It has just been discovered that Mercury has a molten core. If the universe is bazillions of years old, how can this be? Would not it have cooled off by now?

Mercury isn't as old as the universe. So it's only had umpteen years in which to cool, not bazillions.

HTH

absent observer:

Valanchers? Valanchists?

doc:

No. The reason why not was discovered at the turn of the last century. Hint: why do A-bombs go boom?

Any particular reason? Of course not. It's a complete coincidence having absolutely nothing to do with "Faith-Based Initiatives," weekly phone calls between the White House and Ted Haggard, a Middle East policy seemingly aimed at bringing about the events in the Book of Revelations, Regents University alums thronging the executive branch, Intelligent Design, Dutch cartoon riots, fatwas like the one on Salman Rushdie, Fred Phelps, or 9/11.

Dave!, fair point. I don't expect you -- and others who believe in god -- to call someone who doesn't agree something other than "atheist".

But I don't think that those who do not believe should be using that term about themselves. Why? Because it makes it harder, for example, for young people to accept their views. Words are powerful. "Freethinkers", suggested above, is fine -- but maybe we can do better.

In the abortion debate, the sides have picked words that define their beliefs in a positive way in terms of their own convictions ("pro-life", "pro-choice"). In contrast, when someone says "I'm an atheist" they are defining themselves with a negative word coined by the other side. That's bad marketing, and bad politics.

It would be good if we started using an adjective to describe those who do believe in god, leaving the implication that those who do not are the normal ones.

Dennett suggested the noun "Bright", if memory serves. It didn't seem like using it would make one many friends.

Anonymous Nitpicker - you need to look at egberts post and then the part I set aside in italics.

See where you went wrong now?

Very much so. Sorry.

Dennett suggested the noun "Bright", if memory serves. It didn't seem like using it would make one many friends.

Very true. We need a good advertising firm that specializes in branding.

A.N. - Accepted. we're cool. I'll try to keep the bitchy in check.:)

It has just been discovered that Mercury has a molten core. If the universe is bazillions of years old, how can this be? Would not it have cooled off by now?

Ah, but it was through Science that it was discovered that the core is molten, and since Science is always wrong, the core is actually *not* molten, and therefore the universe *is* a bazillion years old....

When I first discussed my godlessness with my equally faithless father, he explained that we were agnostics, not atheists. Atheism, he thought, required an affirmative faith in the nonexistence of something that couldn't be sufficiently defined to be denied.

Lately it seems that people of various spiritual tendencies have appropriated the once proudly antispiritual label of "agnostic" for themselves. Even some Unitarians are complaining that their church seems to be getting religious. (Last Sunday I reassured someone that the candle ceremonies were basically pagan.)

"Atheist" is a clearer label than "agnostic", even though Paul Meyers and Richard Dawkins are precisely the sorts for whom Thomas Huxley coined the latter title.

We can even meet the Muslims halfway. "No god but God?" We're halfway there: "No god."

Apparently about 1/5 Americans under 30 or so doesn't believe in god. That's a shift.

bad Jim, it sounds like your father was describing a "soft atheist" rather than an "agnostic". Strictly speaking, an agnostic believes that it cannot be known if there is a god, whereas a soft-atheist believes that there is no evidence for the existence of god. What your dad defined as an "atheist" is better termed a "hard atheist".

Well, atheists are pretty discriminated against--over 50% of the American public said they wouldn't vote for a well-qualified atheist.

And there was a study at the University of Minnesota that showed atheists among the most mistrusted minorities in the US.

I think it's good to have these people out there making it more mainstream.

Myers, not Meyers. Gleek.

Well, atheists are pretty discriminated against--over 50% of the American public said they wouldn't vote for a well-qualified atheist.

Yeah, that same poll found that atheists are more hated than gays. Think about that for a sec.

No dispute, Disputo, but this was forty years ago. We had Communists then, militant atheists. Moreover, my father had a little more respect for philosophy than I do.

Once upon a time, the religious authorities used "atheist" to mean a sort of mythical nihilist hard-ass, an unregenerate sinner (not that there's anything wrong with that!) and that may be why the odd evangelist might yet ask "Why do you hate God?" I don't know anyone who hates God, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Barbie or G.I. Joe. George Bush may profit by their example.

On Bill Moyers, Jonathan Miller mused that he once thought it odd that there was a special word for someone without faith, since it seeemed to be a general condition. He noted, I think, that there wasn't a special word for people who don't believe in ghosts.

1) It's a matter of shifting the Overton window. It's cool to be a freethinker, radical to be an atheist.

2) I can relabel myself an atheist in lieu of getting a tattoo. It's a quick & easy update.

3) COME OVER TO THE DARK SIDE
We have cookies!

Mr. Goode,

You do realize it is correct to refer to the THEORY of evolution (by natural selection). Evolution and all other scientific theories remain tentative in that they are open to correction.
Jesus on the other hand is not a theory since he can not be verified by the scientific method. Try to remember this the next time you are making an ass out of yourself at a party.

It's because fundamentalists Christians have taken over the US government and are threatening the entire world with its hate and lies. I’m a born again atheist who was once a Baptist. Now my mind is free to think for myself. It’s time to organize and fight back. Islam is not the only or greatest threat to freedom in the world. It’s Christianity that we must fear the most.

Religious, supernatural explanations for reality flourished without a rival, naturalistic paradigm. Atheism always had skepticism, but not a fullblown alternative to teleological, theistic frameworks. Increasingly, since Darwin, that is no longer true. Some writers, like Harris and Hitchens, are driven by revulsion at religious excess. Others not, I would argue. Stengar, for example, "God: The Failed Hypothesis," argues simply that theistic explanations should be evaluated like any other, and he finds them wanting (badly) against a naturalistic framework.
Simply put: the universe appears just as one would expect it to look if there were no supernatural deity, most probably because there isn't one.

Religious thinking is how we got in the current mess. By religious thinking, I mean believing things because we want them to be true, not because there is any evidence that they are true. We want to believe that we can cut taxes, increase spending and have a balanced budget. Who cares if the math doesn't add up? We wanted to believe that Iraq qould be a cakewalk and we didn't want annoying facts like 1300 years of oppression and hatred between Shia and Sunni to get in the way of that. We want to believe that we can win the war there if we just keep fighting when it is clear that we don't even know what winning looks like. We wanted to believe that kids will just not have sex if we teach abstinence and the fact that this just doesn't work is not relevant.

All of these policies are enabled by religious, non-critical thinking. Atheism is the only position that one can take if one claims to think critically. I only want to believe things that are true, regardless of how unpleasant they might be. It's the only way to make progress.

Last September Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion and Sam Harris published Letter to a Christian Nation. In January Victor Stenger published God: The Failed Hypothesis. This month Christopher Hitchens is out with God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

On a somewhat smaller scale, you can add Julia Sweeney's one-woman play "Letting Go of God" and Penn Teller's NPR Essay "What I believe" to the list. I found them both profoundly convincing.

Four books do not an avalanche make.

I hate coming late to a thread on a topic I'm interested in. Oh well, anyway -
A lot more Americans are non-theists than are willing to admit it. The problem is that the politicizing of religion turns it into a method of identifying tribal allegiance, as will always be the case. The requirement to profess believe in a set of supernatural "facts" is part of the arrangement. That's why you don't see many Americans admitting their doubts: the religionists have managed to make it unpatriotic.

I kind of liked "part and partial." It's better than "towing the line" or "viola!"

I've seen it spelled "Wala!" Written, doubtless, by a home-schooled theist.

Oh, Gee Whiz, could it be that pairing the climate (now receptive to such observations) and the fact that many people actually allow their brain to continue functioning AND learning/growing/questioning as they proceed on life's journey has brought more and more of us to be skeptical of RELIGION????? I doubt that all come to athestic conclusions but certainly more and more of us can become aware that it's the man-organized characteristics of religion that work against any loving CREATOR!!! You might want to add WHEN RELIGION BECOMES EVIL to your growing list...

My hope is that this spate of "coming out" as atheists is a bit like gays coming out of the closet. As more and more do it, it becomes more socially acceptable to do so. People find that they've been co-existing with atheists all along, who turn out to be normal, hard-working, moral individuals just like gay folks turn out to be a lot more "normal" than society otherwise suggests that they are.
I find this discussion of atheism refreshing in a country that otherwise views religion as almost a social imperative.

This is a natural response to stupid books like Steven Carter's....The books extolling faith in the public square are repudiated every single day in Iraq, but that doesn't stop additional dummies from writing them.

The more religious insane wackos like Egbert, the worst we get. There should be heavy financial penalties for relgious wackiness.

If you are an agnostic--which is to say, you don't know if there is a god--then you are, logically, an atheist. How can you believe in something that you don't know for sure exists?

Oh, by the way, I homeschooled my kids in order to give them a decent education. They are good little atheists like their Mommy and Daddy. The oldest is about to graduate from Berkeley law school, so they aren't illiterate either. Homeschooling is much more diverse than some of you realize. Lots of heathens, pagans, and pastafarians. Even some rationalists!

You do realize it is correct to refer to the THEORY of evolution (by natural selection). Evolution and all other scientific theories remain tentative in that they are open to correction.
Jesus on the other hand is not a theory since he can not be verified by the scientific method. Try to remember this the next time you are making an ass out of yourself at a party.

You do realize that in scientific parlance, a Theory is not merely something we dreamed up after drinking all night, don't you?

"bad jim, my favorite shall forever be the one about how *dispicable* it is of the Democrats to use politics as a political football."

Thank you for that BG, it brings tears of joy to my eyes.

Yoki,

Agnosticism does not mean the same thing as atheism: you're saying that lack of certainty about the existence of something is the same as absolute certainty that something does not exist. Agnosticism encompasses several different types of skepticism, from the "I don't know, but I'm open" to "I have no active reason to have faith" to "If there is a God, he in unknowable by man". None of these flatly reject the existence of God (or deities, or supernatural forces) as Atheism does.

Strictly speaking, an agnostic believes that it cannot be known if there is a god, whereas a soft-atheist believes that there is no evidence for the existence of god.

T. H. Huxley would urge caution: don't make a claim that you cannot demonstrate. That includes sweeping statements about what can or cannot possibly be known.

His words,

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able [246] to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

Most non-scientists don't realize that evolution is both a fact and a theory. All living things today arose from more primitive creatures from long ago. That is a fact, and it is called evolution. *How* that happened is explained by various theories of evolution (e.g., natural selection, punctuated equilibrium and the like).

Not that it matters at this point, but I meant Penn Jillette's NPR Essay "What I Believe", not Penn Teller's.

It may sound trite at first thought, but I think Iraq, corruption, loss of civil liberties, torture and the whole list of crazy behaviors of the Bush administration just slaps rational people in the face and motivates them to respond.

The slap makes you ask yourself the question implied by Woodrow L. Goode above: should I really remain quiet why this idiocy occurs? The answer has become: nah, I need to respond a bit more aggressively because this is serious.

Exercising patience with people who disagree with you is one thing. Exercising patience with people who cannot even tolerate it when you state your point of view is another.

I tolerate people who have drastically different points of view from myself regarding politics, religion, and who should be eliminated next from Dancing With the Stars. (Aren’t you glad I didn’t say American Idol?) Now days I proceed upon the theory that folks should be able to tolerate my opinions when they are offered in a rational, adult-like fashion. If your religion tells you that I can’t be your friend and that your children cannot be friends with my children, that’s your loss Mr. Right-wing-know-it-all-via-faith.

And some of us contentiously insist on retaining the label hypothesis when the certainty falls short of gravity and flat out blanch if someone want to proclaim something a Law.

We know evolution happened, and we have the fossils to prove it. But how? Was it phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium?

And on a lighter note...

They haven't read Huston Smith.

I'd say the reason for the rise in atheistic texts is in response to christian evangelicalism at home and muslim fundamentalism abroad. It's reached the point where atheists had finally said 'enough is enough. You people are killing millions worldwide and twisting laws of a free nation over disputes of who is more real: santa or the easter bunny.'

I don't have a problem with people who believe. Believe in God? Fine. Believe in Santa? Fine. Believe in alien conspiracies? Have fun. Believe in the people under the stairs? Don't forget to make them a sandwich. I don't care what people believe and I don't pretend that I know what they should believe. I'm not them. They're not me. What I care about is what they do with their belief. When they project their belief onto the freedoms and rights of others, I have a problem. You think the bible says to hate gay men? Fine. Don't be gay. But don't think that justifies your passing of laws barring them from service in the military. You think the bible prohibits abortions? Fine. Don't have one. But don't think your belief entitles you to deny others from having one. If God has a problem with it, he'll deal with it. He's the one that's supposed to be omnipotent. He doesn't need your help. Be content with living your belief rather than trying to use it as an excuse to hate and derride those who either don't believe it, or choose to believe something else.

Entitlement. I think that's the word that sums up the crux of the problem. The 'faithful' seem to think that because they believe they are entitled to change the rules that govern people irrespective of their beliefs to suit their own. Or the 'faithful' believe they are entitled to bring death and violence to people just trying to live their lives, even when they happen to be fellow 'believers'. It's this 'entitlement' that's the problem, because people who think they are entitled to special treatment, rules, or consideration then feel obligated to exploit them for their own gain. Atheists, and I'd like to think most people, know this is bullshit. Under equal protection of the law, no one is entitled to special treatment. That's why there is a seperation of church and state. To remove entitlement. And our founders wisely decided that, rather than assume everyone is a believer, assumed that no one is a believer and the laws should reflect that, while maintaining protection for individual belief.

That's it in a nutshell.

It's sad but true that the neurochemistry of humans is pretty messed up. Roughly 80% of the population still carries the 'belief center' mutation. That mutation no doubt had tremendous survivial value when man was crouched in a dark cave grappling with the development of self-awareness.

Now it appears this will be our undoing. The human population has reached a critical mass both in numbers and possession of destructive technology... now the belief gene and it's associated behaviors may take out the entire planet.

Bummer, that.

As I recall from a recent study, the fastest growing 'religion' in USA is 'none'. Hence the upsurge in 'atheist lit'. Every market is eventually served.

Personally, I figured out the religion scam by age 11 and have never looked back.

Pure liberty - including freedom from ridiculous gods and their equally ridiculous and delusional followers- is a most refreshing and enjoyable experience. No gods - no guilt. It's great.

Off topic again (apologies), but about Mercury's suspected molten core:

"[A] light element alloyed with iron is necessary to prevent the outer core from freezing completely during Mercury's lifetime. A core sulfur content of several percent, for instance, would maintain a fluid outer core to the present and yet permit the solidification of an inner core that would release energy or chemical buoyancy to stir a convective core dynamo."

Science Magazine (subscription)

If only BillO would post here, he would be ranting about the effects of all of that Secular-Humanism thought destroying traditional values.

Of course, as a married man and father of small children, BillO only bought his loofahs and falafels from a Traditional Religious store.

Newtons Third Law: "To every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force".

What we are seeing is the opposing reaction to the very public coming out of theocracy under this administration...

"...I don't care what people believe and I don't pretend that I know what they should believe. I'm not them. They're not me. What I care about is what they do with their belief. When they project their belief onto the freedoms and rights of others, I have a problem..."
Posted by: Somber Cat on May 6, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Excellent post.

Past = physical economy = Religionists

Present = knowledge economy = Skeptics

Future = knowledge economy = No Al, No Egbert, etc.

Pendulums swing. That is their nature. And we know that all movements go to far. (Interestingly enough, this truism that describes the situation with the R^3's overreach was articulated by that renowned atheist Bertrand Russell).

On June 25th, 2005 Kevin posted this bit from the Newsweek from the week he was born:

LOS ANGELES — Culbert Olson, California's last Democratic governor (1939-43), is now 81 and lives modestly on his savings with two widowed sisters in a ten-room stucco house in the Wilshire section here. He is still an avowed left-winger ("The socialistic and atheistic philosophies have been the guiding principles of my life") and is president of the United Secularists of America, which publishes an atheistic journal.

According to a Pew Research Center worldwide survey , the US differs significantly from other developed countries when it comes to attitudes toward religion.

When asked if religion is important in their lives, the percentages of populations that answered "yes" were 59% in the US, but: 33% in Great Britain, 30% in Canada, 27% in Italy, 21% in Germany, 11% in France. The US was similar to Turkey, Venezuela, and Mexico.

Is there any particular reason for this?
Duh!!
It is hard to think of any reason why a so-called civilization would retain such archaic practices.
In the balance of detriment vs benefit to humanity, who really can doubt that the net result of organized religion in the world is tilted massively to detriment.
Christians, Muslims, Jews, and their poisonous effluent of racism, denial of women's rights, terrorism. The 9/11 attack, the Invasion and blowback of Iraq, the resurgence of Taleban, Saber rattling in the Persian gulf, the pillage of the environment and the denials of scientific knowledge, all have their religious underpinnings.
This reaction has been a long time coming

There's always been a steady stream of atheist publications in the philosophy catalogues. Any reason why more right now? Maybe because the snake handling right has gone from being an American curiosity to full metastization and is now running the world's lone super power? That would be my guess.

Being anti-evolution and anti-stem cell are now mainstream positions in American politics. Having generals who see Satan in the sky (without diamonds)and a president who thinks his disastrous adventure in Iraq was based on orders from god etc. all would tend to inspire atheist manifestos.

mentally handicapped reject:

In case you didn't get the memo, the Cold War is over and we won. Move on.

It's hard not to see the rise of atheist advocacy as part of an inevitable pushback against the ascendancy of religion in today's politics.

One way to think of the last 6+ years is as a kind of ideological Armageddon in America. The Conservative movement, over the decades, has gathered around itself a nearly perfect conglomeration of reactionary interests and causes, consolidating them into a maximally coherent ideology. It has imbued that ideology into one party alone, the GOP, and purified it of other kinds of influences.

Likewise, and partly in response, progressive forces have brought about a maximally coherent overarching ideology and set of constituencies. These too have been instilled into a political party, the Democrats.

This circumstance is one reason that it is so absurd and irrational to expect any real measure of bipartisanship in today's America. The underlying conflicts between the parties are not small and negotiable. They are as deep and irreconcilable as political and social differences can be. They go to the core of one's concept of what makes something right or wrong, or worthy of belief or not.

In previous eras, most of these profound questions were not confronted directly in politics, because political parties were too much confounded by both geography and social class. People on both sides of the ideological divide might be found in either party. The confusion allowed compromise.

Today, we have stark clarity and sharp conflict.

It is our job, simply, to win -- which we shall.

BTW: I love it when some credulous believer asks me if I believe. I just say, "No, I'm not superstitious." This has the dual effect of somewhat subtly insulting the morons while framing the question in terms of believing in bullshit without evidence, which is how the question should be framed -- put the burden of proof where it belongs.

Disturbance - I say the same thing but add "I'm a scientist."

(The stem cell people shut up when you ask them about telomeres too. That's where science abandons them.)

BGRS,

So true that the Cold War is over and we won.

Same as the Class War is over and they won.

ttP, Mr. Blue Girl won a half gallon of Makers Mark and fifty bucks on the Derby yesterday. Last night, he won the damn thing all by himself.

I just say, "No, I'm not superstitious."

I say the same thing but add "I'm a scientist."

This is further demonstration that, in practice, we are searching for positive ways to describe our beliefs -- rather than negative words like "atheist" which have been demonized in the past and scare people.

For the last 10 to 20 years many of the pseudo-Christions; e.g., Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, George W. Bush, are living proof that there is no God. If there is, they give God a bad name.

If we're looking for a term to replace "atheist" (and I agree we should) what's wrong with just "Skeptic?" A skeptic makes no religious assertion of any kind; she simply says that extraordinary claims require an extraordinary degree of evidence to back them up and rejects any appeal to "faith" as irrelevant. As has been demonstrated again and again no religion of any variety has been able to provide any compelling evidence of any kind for its supernatural claims; but presumably if one could do so the skeptic would look at them. This is not confrontational or an assertion of unbelief; it's simply defining the rules by which the game should be played. And the fact that this game has been played for a couple of centuries now without any of the religions seriously taking on the challenge says all that needs to be said about their claims.

The future isn't going to wait for Jesus.

It is clear from the writings of the founding fathers that they believed in God. Some variety in belief, but nevertheless the overwhelming majority believed in a supreme being. Our country was founded on this belief. Inalienable rights, morality derived from religious belief as essential to our nations success. First school text books christian in content. Open Congess with a prayer, military chaplains, etc.. How is it now that religion is irrelavent today? I am a Christian who believes that the new covanent makes it very personal. I have no right to impose my belief on anyone. However I have as much right as anyone to be involved in the political system and try to keep America true to its original vision. There is an awful lot of ridiculing of religiuos people on the blog. Please realize that the ones you ridicule are NOT in the majority of religiuos people. Just like the radical left zealots Micheal Moore, Rosie O'Donnell and the like are not representative of the majority of agnostics/athiests. I know and have meaningful discussions with some and we coexist peacefully. If religion is outdated and no longer relavent, what prevents anarchy? A social contract based on what? The good of the majority? Dangerous territory! Recent eminent domain controversies make sense. Individual rights are lost. Is this what you really want?

No, there is an avalanche. Previous books on atheism were pretty crappy --- the most interesting perhaps being the Jefferson Bible, where Thomas Jefferson took all the mystical stuff out of it.

Presumably the avalanche is because publishers have noticed these books are doing really well. The hidden atheist minority. Or at least the book-loving hidden atheist minority.

About time.

doc, Jeferson quotes on religion:

Question with boldness even the existence of a god

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments... But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?

Madison quotes on religion:

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution

Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.

Sorry -- "Jefferson".

Most non-scientists don't realize that evolution is both a fact and a theory. All living things today arose from more primitive creatures from long ago. That is a fact, and it is called evolution. *How* that happened is explained by various theories of evolution (e.g., natural selection, punctuated equilibrium and the like).

Posted by: es on May 6, 2007 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, but I wouldn't put it that way. Evolution is, technically, defined as "change in gene frequencies over time." That part is as indisputable as gravity. It can be positively demonstrated in population studies and even directly observed in petri dishes. The how and what that means is the theory part - as you say. But I wouldn't say "all living things today arose from more primitive creatures from long ago" is a fact. It's a very reasonable inference but you can't really call it a fact.

Maybe I should clarify - not a fact in the since that we can directly observe it or refer to some Almanac. It's not the same as saying "on such and such day the sun rose at this time" or "this fossil is so long and was found in such a place." Instead, saying life on earth has evolved from other species is an inference we make from the evidence. It might be the ONLY reasonable inference, but it is not a fact.

Its probably not a new thing (people being against God) but until recently there wasn't so much evidence that religion can be so damaging. After all, this is the first war, as far as I can remember, in which religion was so central.

Well, in spite of the publicity of the stupid-again evangelical movement, isn't it a fact that church attendance rates have been steadily dropping in the US for decades? While some newer cults have a positive growth rate, they are mostly siphoning off the stupids from other cults---not attracting new members.
It's not surprising that books on atheism are selling. Even though the number of avowed atheists is small, I suspect that the number of people who believe in the literal truth of the bible myths is not as large as we are led to believe.

"If we're looking for a term to replace "atheist" (and I agree we should) what's wrong with just "Skeptic?" A skeptic makes no religious assertion of any kind; she simply says that extraordinary claims require an extraordinary degree of evidence to back them up and rejects any appeal to "faith" as irrelevant..."
Posted by: fyreflye on May 6, 2007 at 2:09 PM

I doubt if anyone here remembers this, but there was a Firing Line show back in the '70's or maybe early '80's with Sydney Hook (arguing against the existence of God), and a Catholic divinity professor from Notre Dame (arguing for the existence of God). The debate was highly interesting, but it went on and on and neither of them could clearly "win" the argument. You could almost see them visibly sigh and shrug their shoulders and almost laugh near the end of the show. I think this demonstrates that attempting to use "evidence" or "reason" to prove or disprove the assertion of God's existence is futile and relates to the concept of falsifiability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
"Falsifiability is an important notion in science and the philosophy of science. For an assertion to be falsifiable it must be logically possible to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. It is important to note that "falsifiable" does not mean false."

I liked the Einstein quote at the end of the article:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

doc: If religion is outdated and no longer relavent, what prevents anarchy?

The governors of the world believe, and have always believed, that virtue can only be taught by teaching falsehood, and that any man who knew the truth would be wicked. I disbelieve this, absolutely and entirely. I believe that love of truth is the basis of all real virtue, and that virtues based upon lies can only do harm.

I'm curious: have I just not noticed books like this before?

Apparently.

Or is it really true that there's a sudden avalanche of popular books extolling the virtues of atheism?

No, there's been a stream of them for at least the last few centuries.

Its probably not a new thing (people being against God) but until recently there wasn't so much evidence that religion can be so damaging.

Or, rather, it wasn't until comparatively recently (but, still, the last few centuries, not last year or anything) that other competing totalizing belief systems (often quite damaging themselves, e.g. Soviet Communism) have emerged which instead of distinguishing themselves from other religion seek to distinguish themselves from religion as a whole.

After all, this is the first war, as far as I can remember, in which religion was so central.

I guess you must be too young to remember the Thirties Years War.

God exists by two falls to a submission.

If religion is outdated and no longer relavent, what prevents anarchy?

Emily Post.

Your mother.

Feeding the cat.

Bravo, cld!

I would ad - as I do not believe that i am going to a better place, or indeed anyplace at all, I am in no rush to start hostilities that might cut my time short.

Living all those years on top of Titans, I always found the atheism of the Soviets coldly comforting. I certainly did not worry about them stirring the armageddon pot.

doc: "It has just been discovered that Mercury has a molten core. If the universe is bazillions of years old, how can this be? Would not it have cooled off by now?

No. Go talk to a physicist and have the square-cube law explained to you.

Oh, I forgot. You're a fundamentalist so you don't believe in physics.

he current rise in public atheism isn't exactly a mirror, as it's not violent, unlike the domestic and foreign religious fundamentalists.

How exactly do you get away with stereotyping all the fundamentalists as violent? Domestically, some of them may be supporting the war, but there are a lot of atheists who are doing/have done likewise (looking in your direction, Chris Hitchens/Dan Savage/etc.). The war was the brainchild of the Neocons, who are acolytes of Leo Strauss, who was, you guessed it, an atheist. Numerous religious groups/institutions/figures (e.g. the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Jim Wallis) oppose the war. As for other issues, the occasional abortion clinic bomber does not speak for the majority of the religious community any more than the Columbine killers spoke for atheists when they went around shooting kids who professed belief in God. Most religious people are using legit democratic principles to try and change the legal and social realities they don't like. You may not like that, you may think it's idiotic or irrational or whatever, but it's hardly theocratic, and shrill, overheated rhetoric to that effect doesn't make it so.

As for the foreigners, even among Islamic fundamentalists 99% are non-violent. If a few psychopathic religion-hating individuals such as Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. do not discredit nonbelief, why do a handful of terrorist nutjobs discredit belief? Most of the Iraqi insurgents are fighting because there's a foreign power occupying their country, not because of their religious beliefs.

I'm sort of a positive-minded agnostic, so I don't fall in either camp. I've read the current crop of atheist writers and find them unpersuasive/distasteful for the following reasons:

a.)the shrill, intolerant tone of much of it (apparently Hitchens et. al. do not realize the irony of painting all religious belief as as something fit for only knuckle-dragging, scientifically illiterate, warmongering cretins while simultaneously whining about atheists being caricatured as amoral, baby killing nihilists). I wouldn't want Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as a dinner guest - but I find Dawkins and Daniel Dennett equally obnoxious. The same attitude is manifested on this board - atheist partygoers, I don't anymore care to hear you harangue me for having an active interest in religious tradition than I do to have some fundamentalist harangue me about going to hell if I don't accept Jesus as my personal savior. They are, in my view, equally small-minded viewpoints resulting in equally boorish, uncouth behaviors.

b.)the relative lack of sophistication. So little respect for theology do the atheist writers have that with few exceptions (notably Harris) they prefer to ignore the various theological and philosophical developments of the past 200-300 years in favor of taking potshots at strawman arguments that no serious religious thinker has advanced for hundreds of years (if ever). If man's scientific understanding can advance, I see know reason why the same may not be true of his religious understanding.

c.)the overweening sense of grievance. No one is forcing you go to church, synagogue, mosque, etc. There have been no laws proposing any such thing. Sideshows like intelligent design have been shot down not only by scientists but by religious figures. Contrary to what you may think, a decision to pray before going to war does not make a man a nutcase - he may merely have been asking for the guidance to choose wisely in making such a momentous decision, something most people do whether they call it praying or not. There are legitimate non-religious arguments, ethical and otherwise, against unrestricted stem cell research, partial birth abortion, etc. Engaging these arguments on the merits, if you disagree with them, is a better tactic than calling people who subscribe to them morons. I think the raft of best-selling books, along with the fact that atheists/antireligionists are fairly prominent in the media today (and may in fact be disproportionately represented) gives the lie to the claim that atheists don't have a voice in the marketplace of ideas. As for voters being unwilling to vote for an atheist - it's apparently not true, at least in some places (Pete Stark's district for one) and I fail to see how it's different than being unwilling to vote for someone because they don't share your worldview in some other way. Having a majority of people disagree with you (even heatedly) is not equivalent to being persecuted.

d.)the absurd utopianism of their prescriptions for solving the problem of religious extremism. Humanity is wired for belief - even in secular Europe, more than 3/4 of people believe in some sort of a spiritual reality. To advocate the extermination of belief to me seems as ridiculous as advocating the extermination of hunger or the libido. Getting rid of religion has in fact been tried a few times (revolutionary France, Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Cambodia), invariably with horrendously bloody (and unsuccessful) results. The answer to bad religion is not no religion, at least not for most people - it's to make religion better.

Four books is an avalanche?

On that Mercury thing -

If it were just a matter of a cube/square law, Mercury's internal and external temps (and those of the much larger Earth, which also has a molten core) would have equalized in their first few hundred thousand years.

The Earth's core generates heat steadily, because of radioactive decay. Whether the same is true of Mercury, I'm not sure; because of its proximity to the Sun, it could also be internally heated the same way Jupiter's moon Io is: by tidal forces.

As a Christian, I find Dawkins obnoxious, Harris strident but interesting, and Dennett (aside from that supercilious "bright" idea) creative and engaging. What I'd rather see - and Harris at least considers the idea, if only to reject it out of hand as unimportant - is some objective criteria to help distinguish between toxic and benign forms of religion. Each major tradition offers innumerable examples of each, and it's not the content of the creeds that differentiates poisonous from salutary, but something about the different psychological needs served by the embrace of those creeds.

If you live your life like you're going to live forever you will get into far fewer conflicts.

For a certain kind of person death is an attractant force.

Atta boy Xeynon, show them how it's done. Show them how you express your opinions about religion and atheism without being shrill or exhibiting an overweening sense of grievance. Expose their strawman arguments without using any yourself. And give them a lesson in sophistication. Attack the guy who referred to violent religious fundamentalists in one sentence -- but make sure to omit his next sentence, where he says "Not that there's anything inherently peaceful in atheism - as long as there are human beings, there will be a potential for violence." Also ignore the fact that atheist warmongers (Hitchens, Rove) have also been criticised in nearby posts, and stick to the solid-steel argument that everbody here ascribes violence only to religion. Aned attaHeckuva job, Xeynie.

"There should be heavy financial penalties for relgious wackiness."
_________________

There is a small problem, in that the more religious are persecuted, the stronger becomes their belief. Thus, Polish Catholicism thrived under Communism, Chinese Christians are among the world's most dedicated, and much of our own country's center, pressured by bicoastal secular influence, becomes more religious, rather than less.

This is, of course, in addition to our secular belief that most any source of belief is protected and that there should be no prohibition of a group's political opinions being guided by their belief system.

I think I disagree that 4-5 books on atheism makes an avalanche. Especially compared just to the 60 million copies of the Left Behind series, it seems barely like frost on my windsheild. Perhaps Harris and Dawkins et al (read some Bertrand Russell if you have time) are positing something necessesay to present rationality to the irrationality of the religious fundamentalism that at present seems to be driving toward actualization of some kind of apocalyptic vision (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism). I am not sure polemics are necessary but the current mindset sometimes needs some kind of cattleprod to begin thinking about use and abuse of religious thought.

Mickster.

JS- whatever. Since with one exception I wasn't responding to anyone in this thread, but rather to Hitchens, Dawkins, etc., I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Judging from your snide tone and lack of substantive response to anything I said I'm probably fortunate for that.

Just a side effect of multi-culti embrace and tolerance of multiple belief systems that are in conflict with reality, frequently mutually incompatible as well. After a time it becomes more and more noticeable that we have to respectfully tip-toe around increasing numbers of arbitrary superstitions, and as time passes these superstitions leak into daily life in a way that becomes impossible to ignore (Stem cell research? No, sorry, we all have to respect the minority of people who imagine that a blastocyst has something called a soul). A backlash becomes inevitable.

I've been reading that Karl Rove is an atheist. So I don't think atheism is the solution to our problems. I think religion/worship and liberalism can go hand in hand - it is just the corrupt fundamentalist movements across all religions that are bastardizing the value of good works based on faith into 'faith' without good works, or even with evil/bad works and intolerence, as sufficient...

Christ, and most mainstream religious leaders were NOT intolerant or exclusive. They were 'rabble-rousers' that threatened the established political and religious establishments of their times. Modern day fundamentalist leaders are the opposite of this - that's why they avoid most all of the new Testament except the book of Revelations. All that Jesus stuff makes them nervous...

The only recorded time that Jesus lost his temper was when he threw the money changers out of the temple. Was he an atheist too? Anyway, to no one's surprise, he was killed that very week.

Hadn't yet seen Brian's succinct post when I posted.

Does opposition to stem cell research ring any bells?

I agree Xeynon. As a believer, I don't feel terribly persecuted (though my believes are far enough out of the mainstream that I am not often entirely at home, either). However, sometimes listening to atheists rabbit on about how no one with a brain and a bit of intellectual honesty could ever be anything but an atheist quickly grows tiring. I find that there are increasing numbers like me who would be willing to form a ready alliance with agnostics and atheists on many issues. However, we are just as unwilling to put up with their arrogant assertions about the "obvious" error of our ways as we are to put up with the other guys.

"It's part in partial the liberal onslaught."

Funny, I never knew Christopher Hitchins was a liberal.

AND I always thought it was "part and parcel" not "part in partial."

Cal Guy, Dr. Krauthammer says he is, in today's attack on Tenet for picking on "neocons" (Dr. Neo-K said that Cheney was not a neocon, maybe but does their work, and K never mentioned Perle, Feith, the OSP, the WHIG per se, etc.)

As for the argument about God, the best arguments are not the clichés put out by either the skeptics or the traditional believers, but thoughtful reflections about things like the anthropic principle, whether anything like a particular universe should be self-existent, and if so why not any or all other logically possible universes (Mortimer Adler's argument, about the principle of sufficient reason applied to existence itself, the alternative being modal realism which has lots of problems...) etc.

tyrannogenius

The Official God FAQ.

Two comments, and then I need to go to bed.

First: The argument that humans need religion to have a stable society. That without religion we will devolve into sociopathic, amoral monsters in which nothing is sacred or taboo. Dogs and cats marrying each other and mass hysteria.

This attitude is totally bunk. An atheist can be just as moral and ethical as some one who is faithful. The difference is that the atheist is respecting different foundations for their principles, such as philosophies of social contract, reciprocation, and civics. They don't need a holy text to tell them right from wrong. They use their own sense of right and wrong within the laws of their society.

Also, for those who fear an atheistic government would inherently unravel into anarchy fail to appriciate that America itself, and most western democracies, are areligious. There is no law requiring worship of a christian theism. There is no requirement of being a participating christian to hold public office or serve ones government. Yes, the bible does have some function in civil proceedings, such as swearing in of office and bearing witness in a trial, but these are traditions that can and have been waived by areligious individuals. They are not bound in law. And thanks to America's incredible diversity, not only are christians protected from the law, so too are all denominations.

The second thing... benign vrs toxic. I don't like the term toxic. For one, it's loaded. Let me use the word invasive. A benign religion is tailored to the individual. The individual believes whatever they want, lives according to the tenets of their faith, and limits demonstrations of their faith to themselves, their homes, or their places of worship.

Invasive religion is far less simple. It ranges from Mormons knocking on your door to Pat Roberts and other evangelicals, to muslim suicide bombers. Invasive religion seeks to mobilize people and to change society. It's not enough to believe something. They have to go out of their way to convince, persuade, intimidate, and do everything they can to advance the values of their religion. They literally can not simply keep their religion to themselves and they equally can not respect those who refuse to adapt and conform. Some one who follows benign christianity and opposes abortion won't seek one out. Some one of invasive christianity pickets abortion clinics, votes for candidates who want to outlaw it, and even kill doctors who perform abortions. Despite prohibitions of murder, the need to affect and change society to meet their values trumps religous restriction.

And that's the kind of religion that is so dangerous. The agenda of a very few is being disporportionally magnified by followers who fail to question their leader. It doesn't matter if it's Phelps followers protesting the funeral of a slain gay serviceman or a muslim extremist detonating a car bomb in a market. The invasive religion always trumps the rights of the individual. It refuses to respect that which lay outside its pervue.

"Enough. Time for bed."

Somber Cat

It would be good if we started using an adjective to describe those who do believe in god, leaving the implication that those who do not are the normal ones.

I thought this was already being done.

The normal people don't call themselves anything. We are normal.

The crazies call themselves Cristians and Muslims.

It just so happens we are outnumbered by the crazies.

Hey langs,
If crazy people are people who believe in things that do not exist then atheists could only be "normal" (non-crazy) if God does not exist. Are you so sure that that is the case? For if God does exist then it would be the atheists who are "crazy" (though I would prefer the term ignorant). Perhaps a little more intellectual humility is in order here...

It would be good if we started using an adjective to describe those who do believe in god, leaving the implication that those who do not are the normal ones.

how about "idiots", "brain tumors" or maybe "insane flying spaghetti monster worshipers"?

If crazy people are people who believe in things that do not exist then atheists could only be "normal" (non-crazy) if God does not exist. Are you so sure that that is the case? For if God does exist then it would be the atheists who are "crazy" (though I would prefer the term ignorant). Perhaps a little more intellectual humility is in order here...

if you think so, its on your and our parts, not just ours, trilogist.

(middle eastern trilogy = Christianity, Islam, Judaism

follower of above = trilogist

makes perfect sense, right?)