Defacing an atheist sign

Posted on June 29, 2010 by Michael

An atheist group in North Carolina had a billboard which read “One Nation Indivisible”. Some meat heads decided to deface it.

Unknown vandals unhappy about atheists’ billboard in Charlotte, N.C., spray-painted “Under God” on the ad, the city’s atheist association discovered Monday. The defaced message will remain in place until after July 4, the group reports, which is the soonest that workers can furnish a fresh billboard image. Here’s how the vandalized billboard now looks:

Acts like this aren’t so uncommon. A few believers will get angry about being forced to actually think and use logic, get frustrated, and take out their aggression. And don’t they just always love to do it in a way that ignores the secular history of the United States?

The attacked group is taking this pretty well, I think.

“It was done by one or two people off on their own who decided their only recourse was vandalism rather than having a conversation,” Charlotte Atheists & Agnostics spokesman William Warren said. “It does show how needed our message is. As atheists, we want to let people know we exist and that there’s a community here.”

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News | Tagged: , , , | 8 Comments »

Australia is led by an atheist

Posted on June 28, 2010 by Michael

Australia’s new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has confirmed she is an atheist.

This morning during a Melbourne radio interview, the new Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard was asked point blank:

“Do you believe in God?”

Her reply:

“No I don’t, John”

And if all the lies Christians loved to tell were true, Australia would quickly be led into genocide, eugenics, and all sorts of other nasty consequences. But atheism is not a philosophy. Nothing normative concludes from atheism. It’s a descriptive position. And Australia is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Gillard is going to be led by the politics of her party, her own ethical system (which I’ll hazard is somewhat libertarian, but maybe someone from Australia will read this and be more specific and/or accurate), and – thankfully – not religion. In other words, reality is firm in her mind.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

Alone on the Appalachian Trail

Posted on June 27, 2010 by Michael

PZ has his Sunday Sacrilege post up today. It’s all about this idea of God as a father figure that brings us closer to the Universe, that makes us feel important.

Beyond just the family and tribe, though, this vision has been extended to the entire universe. There is a great Patriarch in the Sky, who is our leader and guide, responsible for making the grand strategic decisions about where our tribe will go, and is also watchfully making sure the unity of the tribe is not disrupted by wayward ideas from nonconformists. He has a central concern that we all share, that our people should thrive, and even if he is stern at times, it is because he cares so much that we succeed. And of course, he knows each one of us personally, just as the leader of tribe or clan in our pastoral days would have, and he can give us an approving stroke or a damning angry smiting, depending on whether we help or hinder the work of getting the flocks to the summer pasturage.

But scientists and atheists (I would be more specific and say anti-theists) shatter that faux relationship.

It (said shattering) makes that whole business of breaking the news about Santa Claus look like small potatoes. Reality is harsh, man.

But it is reality. We’ve done the paternity tests, we’ve traced back the genealogy, we’re doing all kinds of in-depth testing of the human species. We are apes and the descendants of apes, who were the descendants of rat-like primates, who were children of reptiles, who were the spawn of amphibians, who were the terrestrial progeny of fish, who came from worms, who were assembled from single-celled microorganisms, who were the products of chemistry. Your daddy was a film of chemical slime on a Hadean rock, and he didn’t care about you — he was only obeying the laws of thermodynamics.

This is true and only certain stances will deny it: the anti-science stance, the ignorance stance, the religion stance. And those often all go come as a single package deal.

But there’s good news – and it’s from someone that actually exists.

But here’s the wonderful revelation. If you’re a well-adjusted person, once you’ve discarded the unhealthy fictitious relationship with a phantasm, you can look around and notice all those other people who are likewise alone, and you’ll realize that we’re all alone together. And that means you aren’t alone at all — you’re among friends. That’s the next step in human progress, is getting away from the notion of minions living under a trail boss, and onwards to working as a cooperative community, with no gods and no masters, only autonomous agents free to think and act.

PZ wasn’t making any reference to hiking trails, much less the Appalachian Trail (AT), but just the word “trail” in the context of being alone triggered a whole slew of thoughts for me.

I was fortunate enough to hike the 100 Mile Wilderness last summer and I quickly came to discover an entirely new culture out on the trail. My poor knees only suffered for 8-9 days (while being partially supported by an infected ankle wound), but it was the toughest physical thing I’ve ever done in my life. Let me start with a description of the trail.

The 100 Mile Wilderness is considered the toughest part of the entire 2,174 mile AT. It runs from Abol Bridge just outside Baxter State Park (where the Northern Terminus of the trail is located on Katahdin) to the hiking town of Monson, all within Maine. It’s recommended that hikers bring 10 days worth of food as well as the rest of their supplies. This makes for a pretty heavy load, even for thru-hikers (those doing the whole trail from Springer Mountain in Georgia to Katahdin, or vice versa). My own pack came in around 45lbs.

I started and finished with two friends. I’m not sure if I could have done it alone. We started at Abol (where some kind gentleman smashed my window and stole my CD’s – because CD’s were worth so much in 2009) and ended at Monson. The rationale for going north-to-south was that the northern end is less mountainous than the southern end and it would an easier start since our packs would be heaviest in the beginning. It didn’t really matter. It was still horribly difficult, horribly painful.

While I was with friends, I only recall my own world on a lot the trail. There’s a lot of silent suffering. And that’s part of the pull of the AT, I think, part of its charm. But at the end of the day, no one is really alone. Hikers will gather at campsites, most of them with lean-to’s. And that’s where the culture of the hiker is solidified.

Everyone out on the trail understands through what everyone else is going. Everyone knows that particularly sharp joint pain. Everyone knows how distant a shower feels, how far away the idea of clean clothes really is. It’s its own culture.

I specifically recall one arduous, torturous day. It was already raining before we even woke up. We had forded rivers with our regular hiking boots on because it would be too painful to try and take them off to put on sandals. And really, we didn’t think we could get any more wet. We were wrong, but it was too late when we found that out. But we trudged on, probably near 15 miles. There was a lot of yelling and screaming, too. It wasn’t ever directed at each other – you need each other – but it was there. It was boiled pain and frustration come to the surface. But it had to end. We saw the sign – “150 feet to lean-to”. Such relief. Until, after spending all my time since walking in that river trying to keep my feet dry, I managed to slip into the swampy, flooded waters at the bottom of a hill. It just sort of just right, though. Now I was angry, frustrated, and in a way, alone.

My world was one of huge discomfort at that moment and it wasn’t anyone else’s. That is, until we climbed that final 150 feet. The lean-to was nearly filled. Five hikers had seemingly used every hanging nail available (so mice don’t get into everything). All their gear was spread out, just as they were, already in bed long before the sun had set. They didn’t look like they wanted to move. Sure, we had our tents, but no one wants to set those up at the end of a day like this, and in the rain. And then that one special thought, maybe the most important one on the trail, crossed all of their minds: There’s always room for one more.

It was only a six person lean-to, but we managed to squeeze in six men. And that’s the culture of the AT in a nutshell. Those 5 hikers saw the look on our faces when we came upon a filled lean-to at the end of the day. They knew our pain. They weren’t about to cast us aside. We weren’t alone.

I think a good life experience for everyone capable is to hike either the AT or some other significant trail system. It’s entirely different from the coldness one might find in Time’s Square, or even Portland, Maine. Of course, it isn’t free from that coldness – families will do simple overnight hikes, taking entire lean-to’s from the thru-hikers, offering them no relief in their 5-7 month journey. (I don’t know how the thru-hikers do it.) But for among those who are on the trail for any length of time, there’s a joining warmth.

The Appalachian Trail is an isolating beast, but those who discover it are ever alone.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Hiking | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Giberson gets it before Maloney

Posted on June 16, 2010 by Michael

Karl Giberson is one of those insufferable BioLogos accommodationists who loves to make up stuff about New Atheists. He has recently offered up a sort of apology for his crappy rhetoric. This comes after Dan Dennett pointed out that his attacks make him a fibber for faith.

As I reflect on the various exchanges [via email with Dan Dennett], I see no evidence that religious believers are standing on any higher moral ground. The vilification of the New Atheists is accompanied by caricature, hyperbole, misprepresentation (sic) and a distinct lack of charity.

On the Answers in Genesis site, to take one example, Ken Ham published a report about the atheist that Christians love to hate entitled “Dawkins Ranting in Oklahoma.” The audience was described as “mind-numbed robots,” and Dawkins’ ideas were sarcastically dismissed as communications from “an extraterrestrial.” Anti-evolutionary religion sites across the Internet make similar claims. But not all the charged-up rhetoric is on the lowbrow backwaters of the Internet. A passage from the 2007 book “Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists versus God and Religion,” compares Richard Dawkins to a “museum piece that becomes ever more interesting because, while everything else moves forward and changes, it remains the same.”

Alas, I have to confess to having authored the museum metaphor. It was a cheap shot and, while hardly the cheapest of all possible shots, it was probably about as cheap as could reasonably sail past the staid editors at the venerable Oxford University Press. Certainly my co-author, the late Father Mariano Artigas, would have objected to anything less charitable.

…

Confession, they say, is good for the soul. So Dan, I was a faith fibber. Sorry about that.

My only hope is that this doesn’t get confused as a call for unneeded civility. I always like to see substantial, cutting arguments that address issues; Giberson didn’t always do that, instead making up whatever about an entire group of diverse individuals who aren’t even held together via a common philosophy. But I think he could have let his language soar, a la Hitchens or Dawkins or Myers, and not been charged as a Faith Fibber by Dennett.

I have to confess that the temptation to ridicule one’s debating opponents is all but unbearable, especially when playing street hockey on the Internet, where one must shout to be heard. In the past few months I have tried hard to come up with clever rhetorical attacks on Jerry Coyne, Sam Harris, PZ Myers and countless others whose ideas I was supposedly challenging. PZ once wrote the following about me, which I thought was pretty clever: “I will have no truck with the perpetuation of fallacious illusions, whether honeyed or bitter, and consider the Gibersons of this world to be corruptors of a better truth.” Of course, I responded to his evangelistic assault on me by calling him “Rev. Myers” in an essay on Salon.com. And so it goes. (I recommend against verbal swordfights with PZ Myers — you can’t win.)

If only his rhetoric could soar to such levels.

But notice his use of “Rev. Myers”. My, oh my. Who else has done that?

Dear “Reverend” PZ Myers,

How fitting that, three hundred years later, the witch trials continue. If you recall, it was the herbalists that were burned then as well. Your flock has spoken to me, Reverend Myers, with the shrieking common to all fundamentalist cults. I believe if you check you will find that fundamentalism involves a closed mind while doing science requires an open mind. It also involves a thing they call research.

Yes, yes. Christopher Maloney.

Now I understand why Maloney refers to me as The Maine kid with an English degree who can’t read: his writing reads like a child’s and maybe he’s looking for (made-up) excuses why everyone else does so much better. Honestly. Aside from the fact that he has qualified that an English degree is unable to read (which I suppose is true), his rhetoric is about as strong as his medical background. But then he’s taken all sorts of homeopathic classes. Maybe that explains why the strength of his responses are so diluted?

At least Giberson has figured out how the Internet works.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Pure bullshit | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Bill Nye is a humanist

Posted on June 7, 2010 by Michael

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

Kilimanjaro, Kilimanjaro, Kilimanjaro

Posted on May 28, 2010 by Michael

It doesn’t even seem like a word if you keep saying it. Solution? Better break out the eye candy. (Also, my plane ticket and tour are completely paid off. I just need a little bit more gear and I’m prepared. Oh. And I get to go to Utah in the weeks before hand, so expect some Zion and Bryce eye candy down the road.)

Filed under: Administrative, Atheism/Humanism, Hiking | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Op-ed: Dalai Lama

Posted on May 26, 2010 by Michael

The Dalai-Lama had an op-ed in the New York Times a couple of days ago. His piece was titled “Many Faiths, One Truth” and in it he laments the lack of tolerance he sees among not only the religions of the world but also among those darned atheists.

Though intolerance may be as old as religion itself, we still see vigorous signs of its virulence. In Europe, there are intense debates about newcomers wearing veils or wanting to erect minarets and episodes of violence against Muslim immigrants. Radical atheists issue blanket condemnations of those who hold to religious beliefs. In the Middle East, the flames of war are fanned by hatred of those who adhere to a different faith.

Isn’t that just so cute. He notes that in Europe there is a violation of libertarians principles towards Muslim clothing and architecture. He then notes there is a violation of basic human rights in the violence against Muslim immigrants. Next he throws in atheists who criticize religion. Then he notes the warring that goes on in the Middle East.

Okay, let’s review.

  • Not letting people wear the religious garb of their choosing is bad.
  • Violence against members of a particular religion is bad.
  • Criticizing religion is bad.
  • Religious war is bad.

It’s like one of those tests where the question is “Can you choose which one doesn’t fit?”

To be fair, the Dalai Lama sticks to atheists who “issue blanket condemnations”, not merely those who criticize religion. Fair enough, right? Well, it would be if there was a whole group of atheists out there actually doing any such thing. I’m hard-pressed to think of a one and I consider myself well-steeped in atheist literature and happenings. Hell, even Richard Dawkins has repeatedly gone out of his way to point out that religion can be a source for good. Of course, that would be inconvenient for the Dalai Lama to acknowledge.

But notice the Dalai Lama’s stereotypes. There is no such thing as a “radical atheist” (save for Douglas Adams who used the term to be sure no one would confuse him with being an agnostic; of course, this was clever semantics and connotations on his part). “Radical atheism” implies that atheism comes with some sort of philosophy or ethical system. It doesn’t. It can’t. It’s a factual position. No morals, no ethics, no shoulds or oughts, no ideology, no nuthin’ follows from atheism. The same goes for deism, agnosticism, and the belief that rocks are usually really hard.

The Dalai Lama really means anti-theists. That’s an entirely different set of individuals. I include myself within that group, but I separately consider myself an atheist. And just as the same goes for millions, it goes the other way for millions of others. That is, it does not follow that because one is an atheist that one is also an anti-theist. There’s no way to know an atheist’s position on whether religion is generally good or bad or whatever without actually asking the atheist.

But that would have been too difficult for the Dalai Lama, I guess.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Politics and Social, Religions | Tagged: , , , , , | 15 Comments »

Objective morality

Posted on May 20, 2010 by Michael

The idea of objective morality doesn’t even make sense. It’s the biggest sham, the most ludicrous game out there. It’s this meme that just falls apart, landing with a thud. It’s just a crashingly bad notion.

There are two definitions of objective which are important here. First, there’s the ultimate sense sort of objective which transcends all life, thoughts, actions, events, etc. Then there’s the second sort of objective which means without bias, without personal preference. For instance, when I say the Tampa Bay Rays are doing really well this year, that’s an objective statement in that there is no input of my team preferences or any such thing. It’s just that they’re a good baseball team right now. This is the same sort of “objective” people tend to want in their journalism.

It’s unfortunate that the two terms get confused so easily and often, but alas, it happens. But with this distinction now in hand, it is possible to move on to the next point.

To say a moral claim is objective is to say there is some sort of ultimate source which dictates it be so. This is always God and it’s a bunch of malarkey to beat around the bush and pretend it isn’t. But this claim is itself a subjective one. Who is deciding that God is an objective source? Of course, within the useless field of theology, it is God who has made the decision, but in reality, people are making the call. They are making the choice to believe their holy books. They are the ones who are interpreting the ‘data’, the ones who are determining truth from fiction. Whether they’re right or wrong is besides the point. What’s important is that even a claim of objective morality is a subjective position.

The next point theists (especially on FTSOS’ Facebook Page) like to make is that this also means science is subjective. Yes, but it only means it in this ultimate sense. Science is still objective in that it is without bias, without personal influence (at least ideally). The sole reason for pointing out the necessary subjectivity of science is to bring about a false equivalence, a favorite tactic of creationists and their theists in arms. Science still remains the most powerful tool for gaining knowledge in the world, and it does so because it objectively analyzes the Universe. To get a little more specific, a double-blind study is objective because no bias can possibly be introduced to the raw data. (Incidentally, that’s why homeopaths never subject their bullshit to such rigors of science.) This doesn’t mean the results of the study are ultimately true – one can always go back to philosophy 101 and ask how anyone even knows any of this is real – but they are true in the operation of the real world. But, I lament, the theist will distinctly and intently drive on by this point.

The interesting point here is when the theist is asked to defend why something is right or wrong. If he’s simply, he’ll just say “because God said so”, relying on his subjective interpretations. But if he thinks he’s clever, he’ll answer with some common basis which goes beyond religion, usually reflecting some ethical theory of some sort. Take the teabaggers. They’re all religious nutbags, but they’ll loosely reflect libertarian ideals (until they become inconvenient, but I digress). Those libertarian ideals say that personal liberty and autonomy is good. Of course, this runs counter to much of what Christianity teaches them, but they’ll still stand behind their reasoning. The reason is that while libertarianism is not a very good ethical theory, it is a defensible one. And more importantly, people think it’s objective morality when they can apply particular situations to the principles of certain theories. For instance, using libertarian principles as a basis, it is possible to say that most taxes are objectively bad. In this instance, “objective” references a particular standard. In other words, when applying X event (taxes) to Y principle (liberty is good), it is possible to reason out a correct answer. Of course, X event may be a great thing according to the principles of another theory. That’s where the subjectivity comes in. It’s still possible to apply X event objectively within a certain construct, but that presumes there’s agreement with said construct.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: , , , , , | 13 Comments »

You’re a coward, Jack Hudson

Posted on May 18, 2010 by Michael

In continuing his Ken Ham tactics of creationist cowardice, Jack Hudson is quoting from other blogs without linking directly to them. Maybe he’s afraid his following of 3 fellow creationists won’t be able to handle it?

Saying, “Nothing can be caused by atheism because there is nothing within atheism TO cause anything.” is like saying that cutting the breaks on a car won’t cause it to crash because brakes don’t cause cars to move, accelerators do.

This is a direct quote from a commenter on FTSOS’ Facebook Page. In most circles, not giving credit where credit is due is known as plagiarism. But then, it’s okay to lie so long as it’s for Jesus.

It may be true that atheism didn’t cause Maoists, and Stalinists, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Ill and Fidel Castro to kill, torture and imprison tens of millions of people; however it was certainly atheism that allowed them the freedom to completely disregard human rights and human worth and reduce entire populations down to political chattel. This isn’t a matter of conjecture, but history and fact.

This isn’t history; it’s just poor lying. Jack starts by admitting that the arguments he has been parading around the Internet for years are wrong – atheism didn’t cause Mao or Stalin or anyone else to act in any way – but then he pretends like atheism somehow allows for more evil. It doesn’t, that’s non-sense, and it runs counter to the extensive arguments that have been presented on FTSOS without addressing any of them. Atheism is a descriptive claim. It literally cannot allow or disallow for good or evil any more than a claim that rocks exist allows for anything. Jack, like so many other dumb Americans, is incapable of distinguishing between descriptive and normative claims.

Of course, New Atheism, being primarily an emotional response, is not concerned with either history or facts.

This non-sequitur does a couple things. First, it aims to cry “You’re emotional!”, thereby evoking an emotional response. It is an attempt to bring people to emotion because the reality of the situation is that people like Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and Richard Dawkins just aren’t going there. Maybe if people like Jack lie enough then a sliver of emotion will push through, thus justifying his lying claim. (Maybe he was also trying to get an emotional response when he texted my cousin.) Second, Jack’s lie is assuming that emotion is somehow invalid. It isn’t. Emotion is an important aspect of the human experience and it can act as an aide in argumentation. Look at John Kerry and George Bush in their ’04 debates. Kerry destroyed Bush on the facts, and I think was later vindicated by the rest of Bush’s failed presidency, but Bush came out looking much better in the latter debates because he was emotionally assertive in his responses. That alone wouldn’t have won him points – he did present actual arguments, and those acted as the primary catalyst to his improved debate image – but they were key in his success (and the country’s failure, but I digress).

The funny thing about all this cowardice is that it was Jack who actually influenced me to use my real name on the Internet. In some ancient message board he would point out that anonymity was an excuse to hide from one’s words. This was a reference to my use of a secondary name in an effort to finish a discussion that had begun under a different name. In reality, I was forced into doing this because the board had banned my first name (how dare I say homosexuality wasn’t a choice!) and it would have been stupid and pointless to come out and say “Look! I’m the guy you just banned!”, so Jack’s criticisms actually made no sense whatsoever in that context. However, his broad point was an important one (again, just not to the situation, despite his silliness). It seemed to me his was saying, ‘Own up to what you say’, and I agree with the sentiment. It’s just ironic that he now rejects it.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Atheism, worldviews, and responsibility

Posted on May 18, 2010 by Michael

A bit of a firestorm has broken out on FTSOS’ fan page (or is it a “Like Page”? Silly Facebook). A number of claims have been made which deserve a response (if only because I initiated the discussion), but since the comment system on Facebook is inadequate, an entire blog post is necessary. Besides, a number of logical mistakes have been made in the discussion which are all too common among theists.

To give some context, this is the line which started it all (minus an apparent typo).

This is worth repeating, too: atheism has never been responsible for an act of evil. Ever.

The first substantial criticism was one that amounted to little more than semantics.

Of course those are not examples of atheism being responsible for acts of evil. No more than Christianity is responsible for the crusades or Islam is responsible for suicide bombings. People are responsible for these things.

This person was likely trying to excuse ideas as having any sort of responsibility, and strictly speaking, I suppose that’s true. An idea is powerless without a conscious act or consciousness behind it. But I think it’s also obvious that ideas influence, inspire, and drive people. No one ignores Islam as a major component in 9/11 or the abuse of women in places like Saudi Arabia.

It’s inappropriate – and plainly wrong – to try and separate people from ideas. If we aren’t a composition of ideas and memes, what are we? The vast majority of the people – especially the religious – don’t want to say humans are merely their genes, but that’s the alternative to excusing all manner of ideas in order to create this inane wall where no ideology or systematic pattern of thought bears any responsibility. Just ask: if people are responsible for all actions, not ideas, then what causes people to act?

Of course, some people do get it.

The difference is that atheism is NOT an ideology. Atheism has no moral grounds, no rules, no dogma, no tenets. Nothing can be caused by atheism because there is nothing within atheism TO cause anything. Atheists come from all walks of life, there is not one type of atheist, which (sic) one set of beliefs.

This is precisely correct. Atheism is a descriptive, not a normative claim. The same goes for agnosticism and pure deism. There are no values which come with the claims themselves. People can and do build values around particular claims, but the claims themselves remain merely descriptive.

The next one goes a little off-topic, but still deserves a response.

This is worth repeating. Ideologies are not responsible for acts of evil. Only people are.

And also, for one to call something evil, one must have an objective moral standard.

An atheist has no objective standard with which to back up his rants against “evil” because for the atheist objective evil does not exist. He is full of contradictions.

Again, if ideologies are not responsible (and again, in the semantic sense of being a primary inspiration or drive), then how are people responsible? Are we genetically driven towards action? If so, we aren’t really all that responsible. Do all humans have an equal set of facts on which they act? Or, to bend over backwards, do humans only act on facts, whether real or perceived? If that was true, then ideological actions would become less consistent: the Republicans wouldn’t compose a solid block of doing nothing because plenty of facts fall far outside their current ideology (and the same goes for Democrats or any political party).

As for calling something evil, no objective standard is necessary. This whole line of argument obviously assumes that morality is an objective endeavor. The whole thing just pigeon holes all moral cases to needing a god. Ironically, even those who claim to have an objective source for morality often call things evil even when their source is silent.

Looking back through all the ethical philosophers, it becomes obvious that very few who weren’t also theologians (and really, are theologians even philosophers?) bothered with claims of needing an objective source. Those espousing utilitarianism, libertarianism, and even natural law theory often ignored the use of any gods in their systems. They came up with a basis – the good is pleasure/reduction of pain, the good is liberty, the good is what is natural, etc – and developed systems of thought from there. These systems of thoughts, in turn, influenced their actions as well as the actions of those who agreed/agree with them. That’s what ideologies, ideas, and systems do. The modern day teabaggers, while extremely inconsistent with their ideology, are generally moved to action by libertarian ideas. Of course, since they’re inconsistent (and they don’t really know it), they strictly apply their ideology in a way that will garner them more personal wealth. But regardless of this inability to recognize their own internal philosophical flaws, they are loosely driven by libertarianism because ideas are what bring people to action.

This next one is a response to the claim that atheism is not a philosophy or world view.

Let’s put your grammatical error aside for one moment and look at this statement with the help of my old friend Althusser. Althusser is a great guy when it comes to Ideologies. He states that we are interpellated into an ideology by our reject of other ideologies. For example: I do not believe in God, I am NOT a theist/deist. Therefore I am an Atheism (sic). Please note, this is not referring to me. I am certainly not an Atheist, but a trainee Priest instead. And, my dears, Atheism is as much a world view as anything else. It influence the way you VIEW the WORLD. Therefore, world view.

(Link added by me.)

The fact that volcanoes and Earthquakes happen also influence the way I view the world. Poverty and wealth hold influence, too. Oh, and the existence of such varied landscapes as the deserts of Utah and the mountains of Maine influence my world view. That doesn’t mean any of those constitute world views per se. They are not ideologies or even ideas. It takes more than something to merely be a fact (or perceived fact) in order for it to be a world view.

And finally, this old canard had to be trotted out.

PS. You call De/Theists ‘predictable’ for using Stalin/Mao/Hitler/etc as examples of ‘Atheist Evil’, yet spew out The Inquisition/Crusades/Salem Witch Trials as your examples for the counter-argument. Are you familiar with the notion of the pot calling the kettle black?

First, whether or not Hitler was an atheist is dubious at best. As late as 1941 he was saying he would always be a Catholic. Second, Stalin and Mao never acted out of some sort of atheistic inspiration. They couldn’t have. The idea is as absurd as saying someone acted out of deistic inspiration. How? How can descriptive claims also be normative claims? What would that look like:

“The fact that there is some sort of creator has told me to do X, Y, and Z. Just ignore for a moment the fact that my belief inherently tells me nothing about the characteristics or traits of this creator, thereby giving me no normative information.”

Or agnosticism.

“The fact that I don’t know has told me to do X, Y, and Z. Just ignore for a moment the fact that a lack of clarity doesn’t tell me how to act.”

Or atheism.

“The fact that there is no god has told me to do X, Y, and Z. Just ignore for a moment the fact that my belief is not an ethical system, makes no normative claims, and doesn’t inform me of any sort of morality.

The fact is that religion was what inspired the Inquisition, Crusades, and witch trials. It is the inspiration for the great tragedies, like the anti-science movement that has existed for so many thousands of years, to the more benign such as the Blue Laws many states still hold. Religion is a divisive ideology which drives people to act and behave in particular ways.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Misc | Tagged: , , , | 6 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »