Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
The Out Campaign
by Richard Dawkins
In the dark days of 1940, the pre-Vichy French government was warned by its generals "In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." After the Battle of Britain, Winston Churchill growled his response: "Some chicken; some neck!" Today, the bestselling books of 'The New Atheism' are disparaged, by those who desperately wish to downplay their impact, as "Only preaching to the choir."
Some choir! Only?!
As far as subjective impressions allow and in the admitted absence of rigorous data, I am persuaded that the religiosity of America is greatly exaggerated. Our choir is a lot larger than many people realise. Religious people still outnumber atheists, but not by the margin they hoped and we feared. I base this not only on conversations during my book tour and the book tours of my colleagues Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but on widespread informal surveys of the World Wide Web. Not our own site, whose contributors are obviously biased, but, for example, Amazon, and YouTube whose denizens are reassuringly young. Moreover, even if the religious have the numbers, we have the arguments, we have history on our side, and we are walking with a new spring in our step — you can hear the gentle patter of our feet on every side.
Our choir is large, but much of it remains in the closet. Our repertoire may include the best tunes, but too many of us are mouthing the words sotto voce with head bowed and eyes lowered. It follows that a major part of our consciousness-raising effort should be aimed, not at converting the religious but at encouraging the non-religious to admit it — to themselves, to their families, and to the world. This is the purpose of the OUT campaign.
Before I go any further, I must forestall one major risk of misunderstanding. The obvious comparison with the gay community is vulnerable to going too far: to 'outing' as a transitive verb whose object might be an unfortunate individual not yet — or not ever — ready to confide in the world. Our OUT campaign will have nothing, repeat nothing to do with outing in that active sense. If a closet atheist wants to come out, that is her decision to make, and nobody else's. What we can do is provide support and encouragement to those who willingly decide to out themselves. This may seem trivial to people in parts of Europe, or in regions of the United States dominated by urban intellectuals where support and encouragement is unnecessary. It is anything but trivial to people in other areas of the United States, and even more so in parts of the Islamic world where apostasy is, by Koranic authority, punishable by death.
The OUT campaign has potentially as many sides to it as you can think of words to precede "out". "Come OUT" has pride of place and is the one I have so far dealt with. Related to it is "Reach OUT" in friendship and solidarity towards those who have come out, or who are contemplating that step which, depending on their family or home town prejudices, may require courage. Join, or found local support groups and on-line forums. Speak OUT, to show waverers they are not alone. Organize conferences or campus events. Attend rallies and marches. Write letters to the local newspaper. Lobby politicians, at local and national level. The more people come out and are known to have done so, the easier will it be for others to follow.
Stand OUT and organize activities and events in your local area. Join an existing local neighbourhood atheist organization, or start one. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Wear a T-shirt. Wear Josh's red A if you like it as much as I do, otherwise design your own or find one on a website such as http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist; or wear no shirt at all, but please don't carp at the very idea of standing up to be counted with other atheists. I admit, I sympathize with those sceptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem. If in doubt, read PZ Myers's exuberant hortation at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/come_out.php.
"Keep" OUT worried me at first, because it sounds unfriendly and exclusive, like the Barcelona Travel Agent whose travel poster, in well-meant English, read "Go Away!" "Keep OUT" here means, of course, keep religion out of science classes, and similar expressions of the US constitutional separation between church and state (Britain has no such separation, unfortunately). As yet another delightful T-shirt put it, "Don't pray in our school, and I won't think in your church." Lobby your local school board. Quote Christopher Hitchens: "Mr Jefferson, build up that wall."
Chill OUT (exhort others to do so). Atheists are not devils with horns and a tail, they are ordinary nice people. Demonstrate this by example. The nice woman next door may be an atheist. So may the doctor, librarian, computer operator, taxi driver, hairdresser, talk show host, singer, conductor, comedian. Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins, nothing to be alarmed about.
What other OUTs might we imagine? Well, suggest your own. Vote OUT representatives who discriminate against the non-religious, the way George Bush Senior is alleged to have done when he described atheists as non-citizens of a nation "under God". Politicians follow where the votes are. They can only count atheists who are OUT. Some atheists are defeatist in thinking we'll never be effective simply because we're not a majority. But it doesn't matter that we're not a majority. To be effective, all we have to be is recognizable to legislators as a big enough minority. Atheists are more numerous than religious Jews, yet they wield a tiny fraction of the political power, apparently because they have never got their act together in the way the Jewish lobby so brilliantly has: the famous 'herding cats' problem again. And the argument applies not just to politicians but to advertisers, the media, merchants across the board. Anyone who wants to sell us anything caters to demographics. We need to stand up and be counted, so that the demographically savvy culture will come to reflect our tastes and our views. That in turn makes it easier for the next generation of atheists. Fill OUT 'Atheist' on any form that asks for your personal details, especially the next census form.
Break OUT! Some might like to throw 'coming OUT' parties where they joyously celebrate the courage of those who have decided to put behind them the habits of a lifetime, or the habits of their ancestors, embrace a realistic and superstition-free life and Break OUT into the real world. Break OUT of religious conformity and, in celebration of your new found freedom, Break OUT the champagne.
http://OutCampaign.org
Some choir! Only?!
As far as subjective impressions allow and in the admitted absence of rigorous data, I am persuaded that the religiosity of America is greatly exaggerated. Our choir is a lot larger than many people realise. Religious people still outnumber atheists, but not by the margin they hoped and we feared. I base this not only on conversations during my book tour and the book tours of my colleagues Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but on widespread informal surveys of the World Wide Web. Not our own site, whose contributors are obviously biased, but, for example, Amazon, and YouTube whose denizens are reassuringly young. Moreover, even if the religious have the numbers, we have the arguments, we have history on our side, and we are walking with a new spring in our step — you can hear the gentle patter of our feet on every side.
Our choir is large, but much of it remains in the closet. Our repertoire may include the best tunes, but too many of us are mouthing the words sotto voce with head bowed and eyes lowered. It follows that a major part of our consciousness-raising effort should be aimed, not at converting the religious but at encouraging the non-religious to admit it — to themselves, to their families, and to the world. This is the purpose of the OUT campaign.
Before I go any further, I must forestall one major risk of misunderstanding. The obvious comparison with the gay community is vulnerable to going too far: to 'outing' as a transitive verb whose object might be an unfortunate individual not yet — or not ever — ready to confide in the world. Our OUT campaign will have nothing, repeat nothing to do with outing in that active sense. If a closet atheist wants to come out, that is her decision to make, and nobody else's. What we can do is provide support and encouragement to those who willingly decide to out themselves. This may seem trivial to people in parts of Europe, or in regions of the United States dominated by urban intellectuals where support and encouragement is unnecessary. It is anything but trivial to people in other areas of the United States, and even more so in parts of the Islamic world where apostasy is, by Koranic authority, punishable by death.
The OUT campaign has potentially as many sides to it as you can think of words to precede "out". "Come OUT" has pride of place and is the one I have so far dealt with. Related to it is "Reach OUT" in friendship and solidarity towards those who have come out, or who are contemplating that step which, depending on their family or home town prejudices, may require courage. Join, or found local support groups and on-line forums. Speak OUT, to show waverers they are not alone. Organize conferences or campus events. Attend rallies and marches. Write letters to the local newspaper. Lobby politicians, at local and national level. The more people come out and are known to have done so, the easier will it be for others to follow.
Stand OUT and organize activities and events in your local area. Join an existing local neighbourhood atheist organization, or start one. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Wear a T-shirt. Wear Josh's red A if you like it as much as I do, otherwise design your own or find one on a website such as http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist; or wear no shirt at all, but please don't carp at the very idea of standing up to be counted with other atheists. I admit, I sympathize with those sceptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem. If in doubt, read PZ Myers's exuberant hortation at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/come_out.php.
"Keep" OUT worried me at first, because it sounds unfriendly and exclusive, like the Barcelona Travel Agent whose travel poster, in well-meant English, read "Go Away!" "Keep OUT" here means, of course, keep religion out of science classes, and similar expressions of the US constitutional separation between church and state (Britain has no such separation, unfortunately). As yet another delightful T-shirt put it, "Don't pray in our school, and I won't think in your church." Lobby your local school board. Quote Christopher Hitchens: "Mr Jefferson, build up that wall."
Chill OUT (exhort others to do so). Atheists are not devils with horns and a tail, they are ordinary nice people. Demonstrate this by example. The nice woman next door may be an atheist. So may the doctor, librarian, computer operator, taxi driver, hairdresser, talk show host, singer, conductor, comedian. Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins, nothing to be alarmed about.
What other OUTs might we imagine? Well, suggest your own. Vote OUT representatives who discriminate against the non-religious, the way George Bush Senior is alleged to have done when he described atheists as non-citizens of a nation "under God". Politicians follow where the votes are. They can only count atheists who are OUT. Some atheists are defeatist in thinking we'll never be effective simply because we're not a majority. But it doesn't matter that we're not a majority. To be effective, all we have to be is recognizable to legislators as a big enough minority. Atheists are more numerous than religious Jews, yet they wield a tiny fraction of the political power, apparently because they have never got their act together in the way the Jewish lobby so brilliantly has: the famous 'herding cats' problem again. And the argument applies not just to politicians but to advertisers, the media, merchants across the board. Anyone who wants to sell us anything caters to demographics. We need to stand up and be counted, so that the demographically savvy culture will come to reflect our tastes and our views. That in turn makes it easier for the next generation of atheists. Fill OUT 'Atheist' on any form that asks for your personal details, especially the next census form.
Break OUT! Some might like to throw 'coming OUT' parties where they joyously celebrate the courage of those who have decided to put behind them the habits of a lifetime, or the habits of their ancestors, embrace a realistic and superstition-free life and Break OUT into the real world. Break OUT of religious conformity and, in celebration of your new found freedom, Break OUT the champagne.
http://OutCampaign.org
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2007 | PermalinkComments 51 - 100 of 728 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #59844 by Spinoza on July 30, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Russell Blackford hit it right on the head. Perfect.Absolutely right on.
Other Comments by Spinoza
53. Comment #59845 by BT Murtagh on July 30, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I was already pretty outspoken and obvious in my atheism, so I wasn't sure this would be relevant to me. The longer I thought about it and read the comments, the more I've come to like the idea of a popular, recognizable symbol of atheist solidarity. (Note the absence of words like "standard" or "official"!) I've already added the A to my website and will shortly be wearing it. Is it a perfect symbol? Perhaps not, but it's a good starting place - I particularly like the Hawthorne reference, that this is something they tried to make shameful but we're going to wear it as a badge of pride.
If other symbols come out later and become recognized as atheist symbols, great; the Christians have several, after all, and who can count the number of pagan symbols? Prior to this the closest we had was the Darwin fish, which I still like to show, but that's more an anti-creationist icon - a theistic evolutionist could get behind that too, for example.
Other Comments by BT Murtagh
54. Comment #59846 by BT Murtagh on July 30, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Deja Fu quoth:BTW, the font of the "official" Scarlet A is *not* in the public domain, and I therefore reject it.
Typefaces are not copyrightable in the US, nor are bitmapped fonts; only scalable fonts can be copyrighted, after the manner of a computer program, and note that it is a copyright, not a patent. You can independently reproduce the exact same shape in your own scalable font if you like.
As long as no one is currently using this particular style of A as a trademark there's no real IP problem, at least in the US. Can anyone comment on whether the situation is different in other countries?
Other Comments by BT Murtagh
55. Comment #59848 by Yorker on July 30, 2007 at 9:04 pm
52. Comment #59839 by CruciFictionI watched the video and forced myself to read some of the comments. I've noticed before that YT attracts the thickest of the thick and the sickest of the sick, but some of these creatures are among the worst I've seen. Very noticeably, the religite pups were the vilest, stupid, and most perverted of all. This atrocious behaviour needs to publicised and rammed down the throats of religites, let them see the words of their own brainwashed little bastards. Let's make thousands of copies and flood newspapers, TV and radio stations, schools, churches and government offices with these despicable examples of the garbage spewed forth by these minions of Jesus.
Other Comments by Yorker
56. Comment #59849 by tuibguy on July 30, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Hey, SavageMickey - I would like to know where your restaurant is. Come to my blog and post a comment (don't worry, it's just as good as private) and let me know where I can get some good victuals and support a fellow Twin Cities atheist.http://tuibguy.blog-city.com, or go to http://mnatheists.org and check out the events. We will be having a freethinkers picnic soon and you are welcome to come if you can get away from work (it's on a Sunday.)
Other Comments by tuibguy
57. Comment #59850 by Happy Hominid on July 30, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Deja Fu -You said: "One should learn to read precisely so that one may think precisely. Language (math is a language) is all we have to communicate with, so we should first master that. Theocide didn't refer to his or her parents being dissuaded from religion by any of these books or arguments. In fact, he/she seems to be my "case in point" - his/her parents weren't convinced; he/she was. I'm neither correcting you nor arguing with you, but perhaps you'll see why language is so important. I learned English quite early, and of course Richard is quite proficient in his native tongue. It's important - "If you can't say what you mean, you will never mean what you say."
I think I read what he said very precisely. I'm not talking about his parents. I'm talking about him. HE is the one coming out. He was most assuredly educated and brainwashed with the religion of his parents - that's why it is worrisome to him to go against them now. Despite that, he listened and learned from others (specifically, he cites RD) and has decided he is an atheist and wants to come out.
Your message about reading carefully and thinking about it is well taken though. I certainly have made mistakes before and will make them again. I just didn't in this particular case, and I think you did.
And I'm not suggesting that you were all that far from the truth in your original post. It is EXTREMELY difficult to get someone to relinquish their cherished religious beliefs. They have to be ready for it and open to new possibilities. But if we, as atheists, aren't willing to share what we have learned about the world, fewer will ever BE ready. That's all I'm saying.
Other Comments by Happy Hominid
58. Comment #59851 by Tarkin on July 30, 2007 at 10:11 pm
My main problem with the 'A' is that it looks pretty dull, and isn't exactly a funky look on a t-shirt. Perhaps a design competition might be in order?Other Comments by Tarkin
59. Comment #59853 by BAEOZ on July 30, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Just ordered a army green t for myself, a baby blue for my wife and a sticker. Ahh, conformity :P Other Comments by BAEOZ
60. Comment #59854 by dlitt on July 30, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I was in my Doctor's office one day spouting my "no-god" diatribe to several others in his waiting room. It wasn't until compairing Santa Claus that my audience shouted "blasphemy!"Canada - "One Nation under Santa."
Other Comments by dlitt
61. Comment #59855 by kintaro_crab on July 30, 2007 at 10:44 pm
i think my post i just wrote didn't make it through a well.Anyway I came out about my atheism to my brother two days ago. My family and brother are fundamental Christians. I was very surprised that he listened to what i had to say compared to my mothers reaction of crying and telling me i was going to go to hell when i told her i no longer believed in Christianity four years ago after which she and i stoped talking to each other "wonder how she would have reacted if i told her i was an atheist now lol<- reference to the joke by Julia Sweeney"
I will wear my shirt proudly. I believe that it is time to come out of hiding in the shadows. I will promote reason and science in my community and show other atheists that they are not alone.
I live in honolulu Hawaii, msg me about groups in my area as i know of none :(.
Other Comments by kintaro_crab
62. Comment #59856 by Tinadr on July 30, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Try coming out in upstate SC with Bob Jones and the so called "christian exodus" people trying to move in. I have joined a great atheist group, and it is wonderful to see some intelligence in our state. I'm not so alone anymore. But I still keep a low profile in my small town to avoid any potential stonings.Other Comments by Tinadr
63. Comment #59857 by flyingfsck on July 30, 2007 at 10:57 pm
In Canada, only about 30% of people are religious. It appears that in the USA the numbers are the other way around. This is really weird, considering that many of the old US states were found with the purpose to escape religious persecution.Other Comments by flyingfsck
64. Comment #59858 by alovrin on July 30, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Religious people are scary no doubt, all the best to those looking for a way to declare what they think, unafraid.I always liked the idea of using the words Heretic or Blasphemer
as a big Fuck U somehow, but thats just me.
And also in memory of those killed. I know some heretics were just followers of another god sect. But maybe if they had been allowed to live, the world would have been a different place, this recurring monomania more dilute. Probably a vain hope tho'
Other Comments by alovrin
65. Comment #59859 by Corylus on July 30, 2007 at 11:47 pm
It's been really interesting to hear everybody's stories: thanks for sharing everyone :)I really like the T-Shirts myself, my only minor quibble is the sizing. Women's size 36 = XLarge. Huh? That's not extra large, that's normal.
So female atheists are not only cold and unnatural, it appears that they are flat-chested also. Sigh, yet another slur ;)
Guess I'll just have to buy a bloke's one...
Other Comments by Corylus
66. Comment #59860 by The Wee Flea on July 31, 2007 at 12:09 am
This is very interesting. And raises lots of questions - (I hope that questions and disagreement are still allowed here? and webmaster - don't worry I expect the abuse etc - but it would be nice for someone to think about what is being said - and I would be interested if any atheist actually disagrees with this new RD tactic)1) Firstly it shows, as RD admits the quasi religious nature of this site and the movement he is trying to start.
2) For something that is supposed to be based on empirical evidence and science it is somewhat amusing and ironic that RD bases his opinion that there are more atheists on 'widespread informal surveys of the Web!
3) Again the fundamentalism of RD and followers is clear. We know we are right. We know we have all the arguements on our side.
4) Good to see that RD has not lost his sense of humour! I like the joke about the 'gentle' patter of atheists feet - as Hitchins sticks the boot in and RD himself walks in all the subtilty of hob nail jack boots.
5) This whole political campaign is actualy a call to discriminate. Not for one minute do I beleive that RD and all you tolerant atheists will vote for a religious person, or allow a religious school or if you had power allow any public expression of what you consider to be so evil. In fact atheism whenever it comes to power is remarkably intolerant.
6) Its kind of sweet that you want to hold 'A' Fellowship groups where people who believe nothing (an atheist after all is just someone who does not believe in God) reaffirm one another in their lack of faith. What else will you do, united around your lack of belief? Hold tea parties? knit? listen to George Carlin?
7) If a religious group were to produce this kind of material (as many do) you would all be shouting about commercialism and making money etc. Does this not apply here?
One final thought - now that RD has given up on science (when did he last write a science paper?) and became a quasi relgious politician perhaps it is time for him to resign from his post at Oxford as the Professor of the Public understanding of Science? After all if a religious person such as McGarth were to use his post at a public University to politicise for his religious and philosophical beliefs, you would all be calling for his head. But of course this is different - RD of course is the Truth!
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
67. Comment #59861 by crabsallover on July 31, 2007 at 12:22 am
I've blogged http://tinyurl.com/2tgz7u
several times about the 'OUT' campaign over at Dorset Humanists blog (in Bournemouth on the south coast of England) http://dorset-humanists.blogspot.com/
It's going to be interesting to see what reaction we get from the 'T' shirts and stickers. I'm sure we will get some puzzled questioners!
Other Comments by crabsallover
68. Comment #59863 by pewkatchoo on July 31, 2007 at 12:43 am
I am very uncomfortable with the big red A.I see it as very cultish and actually quite twee, a bit like I view the Brights. It denotes a lack of confidence in our position. However, as I live in the UK it does not really apply here. Like Henri I can see that it has value in the US as they are facing a much more childish yet dangerous threat from religious influence.
I have always thought that humour and, if necessary ridicule, is the best weapon against the religious orthodoxy. Basically, the ultra-religious are totally lacking in humour, especially when it is being aimed at them, and tend to react to this. Here in the UK we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the late great Dave Allen (died 2005) and to the Monty Python team who totally demystified and debunked the religious twaddle that we used to have to endure. Then of course along came Father Ted to effectively pour scorn on the RC priesthood.
So Henri, you asked how to hit the Faith School thing in the UK. I say do it with humour. It is an absurd anacronism. I remember 'Call me Dave' and his mob, when they described the Grammar School system as an out-of-date 50's solution to a 21st century problem. Yet they seemed to be totally unaware of the absurd irony in their position of support for faith schools, a 15th (and older) century solution to a 21st century problem. Clearly showing that the only thing more ridiculous than the clergy are the politicians.
Humour.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
69. Comment #59864 by Quetzalcoatl on July 31, 2007 at 12:43 am
Wee Flea- welcome back to the site! Did you have a nice holiday? Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
70. Comment #59866 by scottishgeologist on July 31, 2007 at 12:49 am
Looks like the Flea is back from his summer indoctination camps Never mind, we are not disappointed, his style is the ususal condescending sarcastic "so obviously christian" that we've come to expect.
The problem with the faith heads is that they have had "the ball at their feet" for too long and now that they are being challenged, they dont like it. Not one bit.
They are running around like rabbits caught in the headlights. You want proof? Just go to the Fleas own church forum:
http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?action=forum
And guess what is the most common word on the page? No not "faith" not "church" not "sermon". Its Dawkins.
Great isnt it, an evangelical church website with Dawkins name all over it. I wonder what the good christian visitors to it think. Probably not a lot actually, since it is so heavily censored (sorry, moderated) that it is next useless. Anyway it is little more than David Robertsons personal web fiefdom.
And no doubt his church magazine will go the same way since he is now the editor of it.
Pwned! as they say...
BTW, why do so many evangie types have beards? Ever noticed that? Solidarity with their muzzie co-faith heads maybe....
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
71. Comment #59867 by epeeist on July 31, 2007 at 12:56 am
Comment #59860 by The Wee Flea
This is very interesting. And raises lots of questions - (I hope that questions and disagreement are still allowed here? and webmaster - don't worry I expect the abuse etc
It is good for you - suffering is part of the christian mindset.
1) Firstly it shows, as RD admits the quasi religious nature of this site and the movement he is trying to start.
Oh rubbish, it isn't that much different to the campaign against the Manchester Airport expansion that happened here a few years ago. No club, just a statement of your position.
3) Again the fundamentalism of RD and followers is clear. We know we are right. We know we have all the arguements on our side.
4) Good to see that RD has not lost his sense of humour! I like the joke about the 'gentle' patter of atheists feet - as Hitchins sticks the boot in and RD himself walks in all the subtilty of hob nail jack boots.
5) This whole political campaign is actualy a call to discriminate. Not for one minute do I beleive that RD and all you tolerant atheists will vote for a religious person, or allow a religious school or if you had power allow any public expression of what you consider to be so evil. In fact atheism whenever it comes to power is remarkably intolerant.
6) Its kind of sweet that you want to hold 'A' Fellowship groups where people who believe nothing (an atheist after all is just someone who does not believe in God) reaffirm one another in their lack of faith. What else will you do, united around your lack of belief? Hold tea parties? knit? listen to George Carlin?
You have had 1500 years or so to inculcate people in your beliefs in the UK, the last 500 years or so with state sponsorship. You have propaganda centres in every town with staff to man them. You even get to push your message in schools and get the state to fund it.
It is the realisation that this might affect your particular pyramid selling scheme that causes your outcry.
Other Comments by epeeist
72. Comment #59869 by Philip1978 on July 31, 2007 at 1:12 am
David, glad you are back, hope you had a nice holiday!Guess what? I am going to disagree with you!!
1) Atheism, despite your insistence IS NOT A BELIEF. For goodness sake young man will you finally accept that I and all the others here do not revere Professor Richard Dawkins or others as any form of quasi deity.
2) Discrimination? have you not read SavageMickey's post? Or Yorker's? I could go on for ever! I am sorry David but how can you say that religion does not discriminate against people?
3) Yes I would love to have a cup of Tea with anybody on this site, beats sitting around in church asking the invisible for the highly improbable if he/she/it possibly feels like it. Oh sorry was I stereotyping there?
4) You have no idea what a fundamentalist is, how many times do I have to tell you?
David, I hope you have read enough of my posts now that you know that I simply disagree with your faith, not with you as a person. If you think I want to discriminate against you and that everyone on here and I simply follow in the herd with the Professor as the shepherd then you are greatly mistaken. I can be just as sarcastic as you if I want but it hasn't got us anywhere has it?
The reason why I support this and that I am going to get one of these T-Shirts is because I have seen, read and spoken about the psychological atrocities that religion has inflicted upon people. I'll give you an example, I know a woman whose husband beat her quite badly on a regular basis. She eventually divorced him but I will never forget the tears she cried as she told me she thought that god was punishing her for doing something wrong and that her beatings were justified in some strange way. Even after she had left him she thought god would inflict more suffering because she had left him and that she was frightened of what god wanted from her.
That's just one example and I am sure others could provide you with similar stories
I want people to be aware that believing in gods is a waste of time and effort, I don't want people being destroyed like this, being hurt and battered is one thing, adding to your misery by adding god's wrath to it all I think is so wrong. So if it means wearing a T-Shirt and getting people asking questions about religion, then that's fine by me. I want to stop this, as BillySands mentioned in another post, Mental Slavery. I don't want to hit people over this, I don't want to discriminate anyone, I want to help.
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
73. Comment #59872 by Goldy on July 31, 2007 at 1:27 am
WeeFFirstly it shows, as RD admits the quasi religious nature of this site and the movement he is trying to start
Should make you feel very much at home, then :-) When do you join our ranks?
As for your other comments, I dare say you've not really read all the posts on this site, eh? Not like the nice church where everyone just says Amen...
Other Comments by Goldy
74. Comment #59873 by hungarianelephant on July 31, 2007 at 1:29 am
Just to add to pewkatchoo's comment (71), in the last UK census, 390,000 people described their religion as "Jedi".In its way, this was much more effective than if those same people had described themselves as "Atheist". It essentially said that there were lots of people who (a) didn't regard religion as being any of the government's business, and (b) didn't take it seriously. And it generated more headlines when the census-takers refused to include these figures in their results.
I'm guessing that most people who post here have thought seriously about religion and reached some firm conclusions. Most people won't fall into that category, but generally want to be left alone by the religious nuts. These people, even if they are churchgoers, are our natural allies in trying to keep religion out of politics.
Dave Allen's audiences weren't full of atheists; nor I would guess are Marcus Brigstocke's. Humour.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
75. Comment #59874 by Richard Dawkins on July 31, 2007 at 1:43 am
Others have done a fine job of replying to the Reverend David Robertson (Wee Flea: Comment #59860), so I'll just mention his "One final thought - now that RD has given up on science (when did he last write a science paper?) . . . " It looks as though this is going to be the new party line. Unable to answer somebody's arguments, fall back on accusing him of giving up on science.How dare anyone accuse the author of The Ancestor's Tale of giving up on science? I invite the Reverend Robertson to read it from cover to cover (he might learn something about evolution and other aspects of real life) and then try to estimate how many scientific papers that five year labour of love is equivalent to.
Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
76. Comment #59876 by Johan on July 31, 2007 at 1:44 am
I really applaud you guys who live in bigot States who have the guts to come out. I also applaud you guys who haven't made it over the threshold YET! It takes courage to admit being an atheist to your self if you live in a religious city or state.I'm a Swede and, like most of you know, the population of Sweden is to around 85% non-religious. I doubt that all of those 85% are true atheists but at least 85% of the Swedes don't belong to a congregation. That's terrific!
But even in Atheistic Northern Europe we are under direct influence of everything that's going on in America. It would be wrong to just sit back and relax and stop worrying about the state the world is in, just because things here are comfy, even for atheists.
However, I studied five years at Indiana University, so even I have first hand experience about what it's like to be a non-believer in the States. I'm going to buy the T-shirt out of solidarity to you, my fellow atheists overseas. Not that it will have much effect here in Sweden.
Although I'm far from being a communist, the old communist war cry slightly altered sounds pretty good:
"Atheists of the world, UNITE!"
Other Comments by Johan
77. Comment #59877 by UnholyFollower on July 31, 2007 at 2:11 am
To The Wee Flea,I appreciate your point of view most certainly and realise how some of this may seem, but I would like to put a few points across about your statements.
"Firstly it shows, as RD admits the quasi religious nature of this site and the movement he is trying to start."
It may seem to have a 'quasi religious nature', but it's purpose is support and allow closet atheists to come out and show people they are proud that they do not rely on superstition in their everyday lives. It may seem to have this religious appearance but it is many centuries of repression of Atheist (and other related groups) viewpoints that has prevented the non-religious from forming movements; the only ones that have been allowed to continue are those of religion therefore with only these to compare to it may seem 'religious'. It seems to me the OUTcampaign has been formed to allow those who are already atheists/ humanists or even secularists to show their view without being seen as 'fundamental'. It is only due to our critical views of religion that they are seen to be negative; but why like any other theories in our world should we not criticise the basis of religion?
.
"For something that is supposed to be based on empirical evidence and science it is somewhat amusing and ironic that RD bases his opinion that there are more atheists on 'widespread informal surveys of the Web"
May I quote what is in the article- 'Not our own site, whose contributors are obviously biased, but, for example, Amazon, and YouTube…' Many organisations/ companies use online surveys on sites such as listed above as they are seen as the least biased and best estimate of the average population. Unlike many official surveys/ censuses which can ask questions such as - What religion do you follow? , with many presuming they must answer with the religion they feel most associated with, whether they actually believe in it or not- it is a false question. And as for RD dismissing science? (After writing this I found he had personally replied to this statement therefore I will not argue this)
"Again the fundamentalism of RD and followers is clear. We know we are right. We know we have all the arguments on our side. "
It may seem an extreme point, but it is true. There are organisations which seek to find proof of the supernatural and paranormal e.g. The James Randi Educational Foundation. Sitting in a bank account is over $2,000,000 worldwide for the individual who proves an ability/ point of the supernatural. If someone had sound evidence of their religious/supernatural viewpoint/ability they would take the money. And as a scientist I would be open to the possibility of the supernatural but as there is yet no evidence I cannot accept it as a reality.
" This whole political campaign is actually a call to discriminate. Not for one minute do I believe that RD and all you tolerant atheists will vote for a religious person, or allow a religious school or if you had power allow any public expression of what you consider to be so evil. In fact atheism whenever it comes to power is remarkably intolerant."
In my case and many others that is just completely untrue and ignorant of you to make such a comment. I would never vote for a person/ party because they are/aren't religious, that would be discriminatory. I would vote on their policies and would vote for the one which I feel would benefit me/ my children and my friends. If the politician sought to combine their religious viewpoints with their political ones then I would think twice before voting for them, as I believe law and politics should be secular as this is then fair for all involved. And as for atheist power being intolerant- again untrue, I don't know what example you are thinking of but infamous 'Atheist' dictatorships and regimes were not truly Atheist/secular and used religious like ruling to oppress free thought, belief and reason. And even if that weren't the case, I would argue that many religious people who have come to power have been intolerant, in fact I would say all countries which have had religious leaders are/ have been intolerant of others at some stage. Based on your argument of government intolerance then religious leadership should be the first to not come to power.
" Its kind of sweet that you want to hold 'A' Fellowship groups where people who believe nothing (an atheist after all is just someone who does not believe in God)…"
See again you claim Atheists are ignorant and then make stupid statements like the one above. An Atheist is not someone who does not believe in god, Atheists believe in no religion or any belief systems based on the supernatural. The point you make, makes atheists seem 'anti-god' in particular when in fact we actually just believe in one less belief system than others. The term 'Atheist' does not mean they are anti-religious they just do not believe in religion which is different. Of course there are those among atheists who I are anti-theist but just as there are intolerant religious people.
"…reaffirm one another in their lack of faith. What else will you do, united around your lack of belief? Hold tea parties? knit? listen to George Carlin?"
You know what? A tea party wouldn't be a bad idea. Ironically its atheist based gatherings that would possibly have more to discuss openly than those of a religious kind. We could talk about anything in the common knowledge that those listening are not going to pull us down because we believe in the wrong type of fictional figurehead. And we could even talk about religion, where has it come from? Does it serve a purpose? As even though we are atheists we are not ignorant to religion and on the contrary I personally am highly interested in religion as an area of study whereas a religious gathering would take it as face value fact. We could openly criticise things we disagree with and have open debates in the knowledge that people around us would respect our views. And we could even discuss concepts of science which most religious gatherings wouldn't dare to such as origins of life, the universe and the evolution of our species on this Earth.
"If a religious group were to produce this kind of material (as many do) you would all be shouting about commercialism and making money etc. Does this not apply here?"
The answer is no, it doesn't apply here. The money will go to the RDF a foundation for Reason and Science. It is currently awaiting charitable status which once it has attained it will set out to try and promote science and reason which would benefit all those who take part- it is not a profit making organisation.
And one final thing I would like to point out I like the Atheist's Tea Party idea, we might take that if we ever have gatherings or events Thank you for your points of view.
The Unholy Follower
Other Comments by UnholyFollower
78. Comment #59882 by BillySands on July 31, 2007 at 2:47 am
Welcome Back Wee Flea - I've missed you. Did you get any on holiday then? How did you cope being separated from your hero Richard for so long?Why do you have a problem with Atheists getting organised? Is it fear? There are plenty of good reasons for this. Some are opressed and need encouragement (that's not religious) Others like the fellowship of like thinkers to echange ideas with (definately not religious) Some are concerned with the truth and want to defend science and free thought against fundie opressors (again not religious).
Other Comments by BillySands
79. Comment #59884 by steve99 on July 31, 2007 at 2:51 am
This whole political campaign is actualy a call to discriminate.
And I suppose that your doctrine, with its explicit statements against the rights of gay people, isn't discriminatory?
Not for one minute do I beleive that RD and all you tolerant atheists will vote for a religious person, or allow a religious school or if you had power allow any public expression of what you consider to be so evil. In fact atheism whenever it comes to power is remarkably intolerant.
That, you see, is the problem with belief that rejects evidence. Many, may of us have close friends who are religions. I would have no problem with them having any position of authority.. as individuals.
What is it issue is organised groups people trying to control others' lives based on magic books. Like your discrimination against gay people. Like the attempts to introduce God into science classes. Using politics, schools and other institutions to close up people minds and make them intolerant.
You need to stop projecting your own intolerance onto others.
And Billy: Yes, I'll bet it is fear. Harris and Dawkins (and now Hitchens) have really started something major. Atheism is now a frequent subject of discussion across all media, and I find it openly mentioned at social events I attend, whereas before it would have been 'impolite' to talk about. Things are changing.
Other Comments by steve99
80. Comment #59886 by Shuggy on July 31, 2007 at 2:59 am
What I'm delighted that RD calls... yet another delightful T-shirt ... "Don't pray in [my] school, and I won't think in your church."is available at http://www.cafepress.com/wero/1440313
along with "Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime" and others that I think are more likely to open up discussion than the Scarlet Letter.
Other Comments by Shuggy
81. Comment #59887 by bamboospitfire on July 31, 2007 at 3:00 am
The fact that atheists have countless varied topics to discuss is exhibited on the forums of this very site and many like it.On the T-shirts, having given the matter more thought I am all for it. The effect of wearing one of the T-shirts is simply to identify the individual wearer as an atheist and in that respect I regard it as nothing more than an exercise of freedom of expression. Whether people like the design is irrelevant. You don't have to wear it. If you want to identify yourself as an atheist in some other way, you can. Or you can keep it to yourself. The fact that association with the campaign is entirely voluntary should confirm beyond doubt that this couldn't be further from a "religious" concept.
On the issue of whether increased atheistic openness will result in a theistic reaction, I think the theists have already got the pedal to the metal. What is important is raising the profile of rationality.
Other Comments by bamboospitfire
82. Comment #59888 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 3:03 am
WeeFlea:Not for one minute do I beleive that RD and all you tolerant atheists will vote for a religious person, or allow a religious school or if you had power allow any public expression of what you consider to be so evil. In fact atheism whenever it comes to power is remarkably intolerant.
That's just testament to how people of faith project their own malignant world view on to others, not in any way an objective statement of truth. Your faith renders you powerless to think and be able to see the truth. Whenever christianity or any faith comes to power it is intolerant. Look what the peace loving christians did when Constantine gave them the keys to power, banned all learning and religions that didn't agree. Killed countless. This story has been repeated through time since; the Cathars, Inquisition, Nazis, Rawanda, just to name a few examples. And communists were people of faith too. So you can't pin that on Atheism which has no faith, by definition.
Oh, and by the way, if you say you know god exists, you're a liar, and faith in god is dishonest, as you are believing something without reason. No evidence = no basis to have faith. Or put another way, something so improbable as god, which flies in the face of all we know of the universe, requires the most amazing evidence, that can't be explained naturally to be a reasonable belief, else your being dishonest. ;-) (Sorry people, it's my favorite meme at the moment).
Other Comments by BAEOZ
83. Comment #59889 by BillySands on July 31, 2007 at 3:04 am
How dare anyone accuse the author of The Ancestor's Tale of giving up on science? I invite the Reverend Robertson to read it from cover to cover (he might learn something about evolution and other aspects of real life) and then try to estimate how many scientific papers that five year labour of love is equivalent to.
Yes, you should set him an essay on genomic evolution and see how long it takes him to do background reading etc. It's not like religion where you just write how you feel and what the voices in your head are telling you that day.
May I also suggest that the reads TGD properly
Other Comments by BillySands
84. Comment #59890 by AdrianB on July 31, 2007 at 3:09 am
Slightly off topic.Richard, if you are reading this I am pleased that you have mentioned The Ancestors Tale. It is my favourite book of yours. The God Delusion must have been a doddle to write in comparison. I would be grateful if you could answer something very quickly for me. I saw some video about The Ancestors Tale, in which there briefly featured some animation of the evolution process of certain species. I thought this animation was brilliant, since it showed very quickly how simple, and just plain right, the process of evolution looks. Animated, and speeded up, the process of evolution looks very similar to the development of a growing foetus, only over millions of years rather than a few weeks. If you are reading this could you tell me where I could see this animation?
Slightly on topic.
I bought a CD the other day, and out dropped a flyer inviting me to buy the latest T-Shirt of the band in question. It went straight into the bin. I guess I am similar to many atheists in this respect. I personally avoid brands and labels, especially those where you pay twice as much for something of inferior quality. For that reason I think these T-Shirts would be better without the reference to this site.
However, I do appreciate the need to make our numbers known. Savagemickey's story shows how religious discrimination will eat away at more than just our freedoms if we allow it. I saw a documentary recently about a Christian Yellow Pages in the US to enable Christians to only give there money to fellow Christians for services and goods, whilst having no problem in taking money off the infidel.
Other Comments by AdrianB
85. Comment #59891 by BillySands on July 31, 2007 at 3:10 am
Well said Baeoz. Robertson like the rest think his way is the only valid way. Did you know that he made an oath stating the Pope to be the antichrist?Nice new avatar SG
Other Comments by BillySands
86. Comment #59893 by Bremas on July 31, 2007 at 3:23 am
Ah shit, Wee Flea. Nuf said.Move the A to the back of the shirt and I might buy one. Small logo above left breast would be nice also.
Other Comments by Bremas
87. Comment #59894 by scottishgeologist on July 31, 2007 at 3:27 am
AdrianB, that Christian Yellow Pages thing doesnt surprise me - these prople have a ghetto mentality. I know a guy, a nice guy as it happens who is an elder in an evangie church - he has NO non-christian close friends. All his socialising is done round his church and other para church groups. He is also extremely wealthy, surprise surprise - typical of the "fish on the back of the private registration SUV" type.Absolutely no life outside his church. He lives in a ghetto, a middle class, educated, "fish on the SUV" posh suburb ghetto.
About as far removed from the sort of people that the Jesus of the bible associated with as its possible to get.... But hey, he's "saved" He "knows " the Lords blessing. He's alright Jack.
Aye, Billy, that avatar. I was looking for one and just happened to come across it on a site of free avatars.
I like yours as well. Twatt church. Brilliant.
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
88. Comment #59896 by BillySands on July 31, 2007 at 3:41 am
I want to help.
That was a really good post Philip. I have met people like your friend too who have been emotionally abused by the belief that god must be punishing them. I have met people who have been raped or abused as children who thought that god was punishing them for various reasons - how is that belief ever going to bring healing to these people?
I know people (one in David's church) who constanlty live in fear of going to hell if they enjoy or express themselves too much. I've also known drug addicts sexually abuse other christians because the church has said to them that their faith has renewed their heart and jesus has changed them. The church through faith allowed these people to pursue relationships despite their problems. This person should have been getting some proper relational therapy. As for his victim - she became depressive, had pannic attacks (although the church called them "demonic" attacks), contemplated suicide, turned to drink, cut herself repeatedly and cycled between anorexia and bulimia. The extra nasty twist comes from the fact that they both thought that god was bringing them together.
Killing this god nonsense (by non violent means such as this campaign before wee flea pipes up) is the best way to help.
Other Comments by BillySands
89. Comment #59897 by krogercomplete on July 31, 2007 at 3:47 am
Wee Flea,I had a thought, something to do with pots and kettles, but it escapes me now. More to come if I can remember the reference.
Other Comments by krogercomplete
90. Comment #59899 by steve99 on July 31, 2007 at 3:51 am
Well said Baeoz. Robertson like the rest think his way is the only valid way. Did you know that he made an oath stating the Pope to be the antichrist?
Ah, but he had his fingers crossed behind his back while he said it, so it didn't count.
Other Comments by steve99
91. Comment #59902 by BillySands on July 31, 2007 at 3:56 am
Ah, but he had his finger crossed behind his back while he said, it so it didn't count.
What? A minister Lie - I've never heard such outrageous papism and devil worshippry :-)
But it would be nice for David to explain this little problem to any new members
Other Comments by BillySands
92. Comment #59904 by Quetzalcoatl on July 31, 2007 at 4:01 am
Billy- I know you've mentioned the "Pope is the Antichrist" before, I'm just curious- on what basis do they think this? Why exactly is the Pope the antichrist to them, whereas he is just an idiot to the rest of us? Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
93. Comment #59906 by NMcC on July 31, 2007 at 4:06 am
RICHARDWhy on earth did you bother responding to that imbecile Robertson?
You've just given him exactly what he's been craving all this time - recognition from you.
Other Comments by NMcC
94. Comment #59907 by Christensen on July 31, 2007 at 4:12 am
A lot of posters seem to be equating atheism with science, when they know quite well that one does not entail the other.Other Comments by Christensen
95. Comment #59908 by scottishgeologist on July 31, 2007 at 4:21 am
QuetzAll Free Church ministers sign a formula which states:
"I do hereby declare, that I do sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith approven by former General Assemblies of this Church to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith"
The Westminster Confession of Faith states UNEQUIVOCALLY that the Pope is the antichrist. It also states 6 day creationism, but thats another debate.
This "pope as antichrist" is a considerable embarrasment for these "trying to be hip n trendy" ministers in the Free Church, of which Robertson is probably one of the leading lights.
Of course, they NEVER mention it if they can avoid it. Just like they dont preach about Hellfire, YEC, 6 day creationism and other messy subjects they dont really believe in.
But its still there, they still signed up for it, they just practice blatant hypocrisy. But thats no surprise is it?
Of course, what they SHOULD do is either campaign to have the ordination vows ammended, or else propose a "Declaratory Act" which would alter the church's position on certain items. Or leave and find another church.
Actually, there WAS a Declaratory Act passed in 1892 which led to a schism. It was rescinded several years later. This Decalaratory act relaxed some of the subscription to the WCF, but caused huge trouble at the time.
Anyway, this sort of stuff is like nailing jelly to the wall. Stick to free thinking!
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
96. Comment #59909 by Suffolk Blue on July 31, 2007 at 4:24 am
WeeFlea - every comment I have ever read from you demonstrates that you have no idea what it might mean not to have religious faith. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.I have better things to do with my time than argue with someone who is incapable of even understanding the opposing point of view.
Other Comments by Suffolk Blue
97. Comment #59912 by _J_ on July 31, 2007 at 4:40 am
Just want to say well done to those people who've posted their tales of 'coming out' here. With Dawkins' well-balanced article capping the whole thing off, this thread has already become one of the most uplifting and motivating places on the whole site.Hello again, David! Nice to see you back. You must be pleased with the reception - not only Dawkins, but you've even managed to pull epeeist away from his house-moving responsibilities (for which, thanks).
I continue to find your reasoning baffling, though. Like in your first two points, where you take the same bizarre attitude to honesty and deception that crops up in your arguments about Dawkins and the bible on your own site.
Dawkins will openly acknowledge uses of imperfect data so as not to mislead his reader, and he tries to deal head-on with anything that may be seen as a weakness in his case (alerting us to the need to do our own thinking and not just lap it all up like...well, gospel). Whenever he does so, you triumphantly seize upon the detail as though it is some crippling Achilles heel that you have spotted through your own Holmesean mastery of deduction, and that the wily atheist Moriarty Dawkins was trying to sneak past you...completely ignoring the point he was making and leaving your own attacks a step behind the arguments they are attacking. It's strange and embarrassing to watch.
By contrast, when you go to the bible for evidence, you seem completely satisfied that there's no trickery going on there because the bible tells you that it's all true. Door to door salesmen must earn a good living in your neck of the woods.
Anyway, nice to see you again. Hope your summer wasn't too much of a washout (look: no jokes about Noah!) Hope my final (final (final))) comments on your site might filter through moderation one day...
NMcC, 96 - understand your response there, but I was childishly delighted to see that response (just as I am about the forthcoming Enemies of Reason). I'm a terrible cheapskate, but I'd actually pay good money (to the non religious charity of Dawkins' choice) to see the Professor go head-to-head in debate with our friend David. (I'm not a betting man, either, but I'd take a gamble on the result - though I doubt the bookies would make it worth my while.)
Other Comments by _J_
98. Comment #59913 by AdrianB on July 31, 2007 at 4:41 am
I think it is right to point out that we can learn a lot from how the gay community has improved it's image and reduced prejudices.We have got a lot of catching up to do in this respect, so I would like to suggest that we skip the T-Shirts and move straight to the TV sitcom.
Just imagine the comic possibilities of a TV sitcom where an atheist is forced to live with a very religious person? The atheist having to turn the lights on and off, and put the toilet seat down, at the weekend etc.
Let's call it Will and Bruce, or something similar.
What a shame that Douglas Adams is not with us.
Other Comments by AdrianB
99. Comment #59914 by USA_Limey on July 31, 2007 at 4:47 am
Comment #59814 by Yorker wrote:"I had another more serious run in with religites in the USA but that's another story that I won't bore you with just now."
Oh come on, don't leave us hanging like that, I enjoyed reading the first story lets have the other!
:-)
__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!
~ Logan
Other Comments by USA_Limey
100. Comment #59915 by Henri Bergson on July 31, 2007 at 4:51 am
Pewkachoo,Just viewed Dave Allen on youtube - pretty good.
However, I'm not sure if comedy alone can really oust faith schools. The main problem seems to be the fact that if you get rid of muslim schools you should therefore also get rid of Catholic and CofE schools, the latter being so deep-rooted so to be near impossible to outroot.
I think the route to take is to keep using anti-discrimatory laws against them (they are discriminating in their intake, against other creeds) – which incidentally failed last year – and to push this notion that religious indoctrination is child abuse. But then, how to push that notion?
---
Another comment: it is interesting to read the comments about the American experience of 'coming out' as an atheist. However, it's already beginning to sound like a church get-together ("you must be so brave," "you must have the courage for your belief," "let's arrange 'coming out' discussion groups"). Disgusting! Form a political band, but do not degrade yourselves in this sentimentalist, victim-attitude, quasi-religious herd behaviour.
If you turn atheism into a creed (instead of a lack thereof), I and many others will have to call
ourselves something else (like, 'anti-Christs,' 'anti-theists,' 'secularists,' etc.).
I give my backing to the campaign in America - but please don't spoil it there. Be rational not sentimental. If you simply want to belong to a group, don't choose atheism; the church is for you.
This is about tearing down religious power, not about forming a safe group for the weak.
Philosophise with the hammer.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
51. Comment #59842 by Yorker on July 30, 2007 at 8:19 pm
51. Comment #59838 by savagemickeyI sympathise with your dilemma and even if there were enough atheists in your catchment area to make a living from, how would you entice them? Offer a discount to atheists maybe, not very wise since you really want everyone to come. Rewrite your menu giving subtle names to items that would mean nothing to religites but would be understood by atheists? I can't see a quick easy answer for you but there must be something that can be done.
Come on folks, why don't we have an ideas brainstorm, see if we can help Mickey with his problem. This is what we need to do, give support to each other.
Other Comments by Yorker