Sunday, April 22, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Atheists split on how to not believe

by Jay Lindsay, AP

Thanks to Richard Prins for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070421/COMMUNITY03/204210370/-1

BOSTON — Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who's leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.

Among the millions of Americans who don't believe God exists, there's a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called "New Atheists."

Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on verge of explosive growth, but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism.

The most pre-eminent New Atheists include best-selling authors Richard Dawkins, who has called the God of the Old Testament "a psychotic delinquent," and Sam Harris, who foresees global catastrophe unless faith is renounced. They say religious belief is so harmful it must be defeated and replaced by science and reason.

Epstein calls them "atheist fundamentalists." He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences.

Next month, as Harvard celebrates the 30th anniversary of its humanist chaplaincy, Epstein will use the occasion to provide a counterpoint to the New Atheists.

"Humanism is not about erasing religion," he said. "It's an embracing philosophy."

In general, humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice. If there's no God to help humanity, it holds, people better do the work.

The celebration of a "New Humanism" will emphasize inclusion and diversity within the movement and will include Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist E.O. Wilson, a humanist who has made well-chronicled efforts to team with evangelical Christians to fight global warming.

Part of the New Humanism, Wilson said, is "an invitation to a common search for morally based action in areas agreement can be reached in."

The tone of the New Atheists will only alienate important faith groups whose help is needed to solve the world's problems, Wilson said. "I would suggest possibly that while there is use in the critiques by Dawkins and Harris, that they've overdone it," he said.

Harris, author of "Letter to a Christian Nation," sees the disagreement as overblown. He thinks there's room for multiple arguments in the debate between scientific rationalism and religious dogmatism.

Harris also rejected the term "atheist fundamentalist," calling it "a silly play upon words." He noted that, when it comes to the ancient Greek gods, everyone is an atheist and no one is asked to justify that to pagans who want to believe in Zeus.

"Likewise with the God of Abraham," he said. "There is nothing 'fundamentalist' about finding the claims of religious demagogues implausible."

Some of the participants in Harvard's celebration of its humanist chaplaincy have no problem with the New Atheists' tone.

Harvard psychologist and author Steven Pinker said the forcefulness of their criticism is standard in scientific and political debate, and "far milder than what we accept in book and movie reviews."

Dawkins did not respond to requests for comment.

A 2006 Baylor University survey estimates about 15 million atheists in the United States.

Not all nonbelievers identify as humanists or atheists, with some calling themselves agnostics, freethinkers or skeptics. But humanists see the potential for unifying the groups under their banner, creating a large, powerful minority that can't be ignored or disdained by mainstream political and social thinkers.

But Epstein worries the attacks on religion by the New Atheists will keep converts away.

"The philosophy of the future is not going to be one that tries to erase its enemies," he said. "The future is going to be people coming together from what motivates them."

Posted: Sunday, April 22, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 97 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #33917 by CruciFiction on April 22, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Epstein, who obviously gets his rocks off by being called "chaplain", clearly suffers from his own kind of religious delusion and is no different from any of the real clergy in trying to use his self-righteous position for his own personal gain and fame.

He's a worthless fart who's going nowhere, and rightly should be utterly ignored by nonbelievers.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

2. Comment #33918 by Dower on April 22, 2007 at 5:13 pm

>>A 2006 Baylor University survey estimates about 15 million atheists in the United States.<<

Good to see this get into the story. Good PR for our side.

Other Comments by Dower

3. Comment #33922 by Spinoza on April 22, 2007 at 5:28 pm

This is why humanists bug the shit out of me and I've always felt it would be weird as hell to belong to an "atheist organization".

Other Comments by Spinoza

4. Comment #33923 by Henri Bergson on April 22, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Humanism = Secular Christianity

"If you renounce God, you thereby renounce Christian morality." � Nietzsche

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

5. Comment #33927 by John P on April 22, 2007 at 5:43 pm

I don't understand why people have to disagree about how to agree. It makes no sense. The so called "fundamentalists" believe (don't believe) in the same thing as the humanists at Harvard.

If we turn some off with our "militarism", it is probably people we would have no chance of turning on in the first place. On the flip side, we are probably going to gain more de-converts by being outspoken, than by bunking down in the Harvard Humanist Chapel and whispering our objections.

Other Comments by John P

6. Comment #33928 by Hip_Priest on April 22, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Spinoza, humanists aren't part of an 'athiest organization'. The description in this article "humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice." is pretty accurate I think. Many people would like to be part of an organization that stresses such important things as social justice but don't want to believe preposterous dogma, and humanism provides an alternative to religion.

Other Comments by Hip_Priest

7. Comment #33929 by Rtambree on April 22, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Humanist Chaplain sounds like an easy job. You're too religious for the atheists, and too atheist for the religious. So who's knocking on your door?

Other Comments by Rtambree

8. Comment #33931 by Sir John Falstaff on April 22, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Dr. Dawkins and Mr. Harris continually catch flack for being so "militant", as they call it. But the way I see the situation is that religion is like filth covering a pot, and if you wanna clean it off at all, you gotta start by scrubbing real hard.

The initial move is to start weakening the untouchable pillar that religion rests upon. And based on the huge response of the God Delusion - which, after all, did start a movement - Dr. Dawkin's "militant" attitude is obviously working.

Hell, the way I see it, people like Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins are making a sacrifice by so boldly challenging religion. It's a dangerous position to take, and I'm grateful that they do take it. And even gladder that their method has been working so well!

Where would we get with passive "challenges"? The same place we've always been... nowhere.

Other Comments by Sir John Falstaff

9. Comment #33932 by Kimpatsu on April 22, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Go to PZ Myer's blog, Pharyngula, for a rebuttal to these "soft atheists" that's really rather elegant.

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

10. Comment #33933 by gobbles on April 22, 2007 at 6:03 pm

How can we be defined as "militaristic"?
We only use words and strongly based arguments to get our message across, not violence.
Besides, Dawkins has said on many interviews that he believes people should belive whatever they want. We still belive in freedom of thought, and freedom of speech. But I think what we are realistically aiming for is for all people, especially people in power, to base their decisions in the believe in something called REALITY.

Other Comments by gobbles

11. Comment #33935 by John P on April 22, 2007 at 6:08 pm

"I might retort that such hostility as I or other theists voice towards religion is limited to words. I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological argument."
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion p. 281

Other Comments by John P

12. Comment #33940 by Duff on April 22, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Chaplain Epstein and those of his ilk can criticize Dawkins and Harris all they want, but if it had been left to them their "humanist" approach would be muddling along fifty years from now without any encroachments on the theist camp.
What this world needs is a thousand more people like Dawkins and Harris. Enough of this mamby pamby, nicey, nicey. I say, go for the jugular and let the battle begin before the theists kill us all.

Other Comments by Duff

13. Comment #33941 by Russell Blackford on April 22, 2007 at 6:32 pm

"Militant" is a bad word to use in the current circumstances where militant religionists are quite literally so, with their guns, bombs, and improvised weapons of mass destruction (so far in the form of hijacked aircraft). In some contexts, the word just means something like "radicalised" or "activist". Those would not be bad things to be. But I think some of what we're seeing doesn't even go that far; it is just people being "forthright" or "passionate" about their opposition to supernaturalist belief. Until we start crashing planes into cathedrals or something, it's all good IMHO, but it's misleading to talk about "militancy".

Btw, I'm not necessarily opposed to what Greg Epstein is doing from day to day - it may well do some good. I'm only annoyed when he drags out the idiocy about "atheistic fundamentalism", etc.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

14. Comment #33944 by TeddyKGB on April 22, 2007 at 6:47 pm

While this is an interesting dialogue, it'd be nice to see atheism discussed in other terms than how we interpret other people's beliefs.

I don't begrudge people's delusions - some need them just to get through the day, myself included. What I'm concerned about more than anything else is what kind of person religious beliefs (or lack of them) make you.

Granted, most of the time, we get Fred Phelps and Ted Haggard - but every once in a while we get a Martin Luther King or a Gandhi. You can believe those two were deluded or not, but be inspired and humbled by them just the same.

Other Comments by TeddyKGB

15. Comment #33945 by wednesdayguevara on April 22, 2007 at 6:47 pm

The link to the Pharyngula entry that Klimpatsu referred to (I think) is:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/we_aim_to_misbehave.php

Good stuff.

Other Comments by wednesdayguevara

16. Comment #33949 by John Phillips on April 22, 2007 at 8:02 pm

All I see is another telling us to be quiet so as not to upset the apple cart. We have all seen how effective that approach has been, NOT. I am getting really tired of this hypocrisy, where the believers can refer to us in the most derogatory fashion possible and yet we mustn't even raise our voices above a whisper before being labelled militant or fundamentalist, even by those who should welcome the call to the rational.

Other Comments by John Phillips

17. Comment #33952 by Fouad Boussetta on April 22, 2007 at 8:31 pm

Chaplain Epstein is a cretin.
Dawkins and Harris just write exactly what they think, without bending over backwards, the same way their opponents have themselves been doing forever.
Are religious people shy about proselytizing?
Why should non-believers just shut up?
Why the double standard?

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

18. Comment #33955 by Lee Harrison on April 22, 2007 at 8:54 pm

I would definitely second (third?) the suggestion to check out Pharyngula on this topic - there are some excellent arguments up right now.

Also, I recently read/heard (don't remember where I'm afraid) a wonderful point relevant to this overblown debate - why is it that a Christian has to pick up a gun and kill someone to be called 'militant' whereas an atheist need only write a book or refuse to leave idiocy unchallenged in conversation?

Other Comments by Lee Harrison

19. Comment #33956 by CruciFiction on April 22, 2007 at 9:04 pm

I think the common practice of religionists in labeling passionate and outspoken nonbelievers as "militant atheists" or "fundamentalist atheists" is just the same as when white bigots used to use the term "uppity niggers" during the days of segregation -- it was a powerful way of keeping an oppressed group down by insinuating that they are out of line for defending themselves and being proud.

But as for atheists to belch such names upon other atheists, well, there was also the term, "Uncle Toms", that just may well apply to them.

I absolutely refuse to be subservient to religion. Nor will I be silent, shy, or timid, when it comes to opposing religionists' dangerous and irrational dogmas being pushed on society and government. We've tried that for too long and is directly responsible for the huge mess in which we find ourselves today.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

20. Comment #33957 by RichardPrins on April 22, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Thanks to Mel Z for pointing out the article to me.

Other Comments by RichardPrins

21. Comment #33961 by celticcrossfire on April 22, 2007 at 9:50 pm

Thanks for the link to PZ's article. It's exactly what I had been contemplating writing for a while, but with the added emphasis on historical examples. People say we're "militant" because we're attacking some of the basic tenets of society - and life. Any such movement, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc will get the majority calling the minority "militant".

Other Comments by celticcrossfire

22. Comment #33962 by nerdfiles on April 22, 2007 at 9:57 pm

This is another prime example of tabloid-esque, even amateur, journalism. They fail to truly understand the firmly stated nuance of Dawkins' and Harris' literature--failure to give justice to reason with earnest understanding. Maybe it's deliberate, maybe it isn't. In either case, it'll stop sooner or later once people become more mild to taking criticism, even on religious issues. They will read atheist literature for exactly what it is and not as some ploy or propaganda to destroy "human morality [based on whose exact religious standpoint]?"

The willingness to ignore the fundamental conflicts between religions is uncanny.

"enemies, militaristic, fundamentalism..."

What is with all this poetic language? Dawkins is fundamentally humanist. The theory of evolution is fundamentally humanist--it begs you to look at yourselves as a species for answers and explanation, not to look elsewhere, wherever that elsewhere may be.

"In general, humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice. If there's no God to help humanity, it holds, people better do the work."

All religions are fundamentally rooted in supernaturalism. I respect that the moderation of people within their religions cause them to be "less religious" in the sense that their societal condition teaches them not to be so damn religious and thus more socially acceptable, but I'll be damned if I will accept that while your religious text says cut off someones hand for so-and-so reason and you grant them due process that this has anything to do with "god" or the religious text itself.

Humanism, like someone mentioned earlier, is batty, ignorance feeble secular religion. Humanism isn't something we form a group out of. Humanism, like evolution, just happens.

It's amazing how easy to grasp this concept is, yet it seems to elude Harvard professors, among other well educated people.

Other Comments by nerdfiles

23. Comment #33966 by Shuggy on April 22, 2007 at 10:58 pm

- unlike theists, who all believe exactly the same thing. As the song says so truthfully, "We are not divided, all one body we." {sarcasm off}

I wouldn't be so hard on humanists. The ones I know are full-blown atheists, who just use "Humanism" as a basket for all their humanitarian, social justice, altruistic concerns that the rest of us leave lying all over the place.

Other Comments by Shuggy

24. Comment #33967 by vertigo25 on April 22, 2007 at 11:15 pm

First:

"But Epstein worries the attacks on religion by the New Atheists will keep converts away."

Um... yeah... because "attacking" other's belief systems has been such an unpopular approach for theists (especially Evangelicals) that their number just continue to dwindle... [/sarcasm]

Second:

To the majority of the people criticizing Humanism based on obvious ignorance and the heeby-jeebies that Epstien is giving you: Please go do some research into Humanism, because you have so many things wrong it's not even funny.

I am 100% positive that Richard Dawkins has called himself a Humanist, along with a remarkably impressive list of atheists, agnostics, and free-thinkers which includes Carl Sagan, Annie Druyan, Einstein, Kurt Vonnegut, Daniel Dennet...

I don't really care if you feel that Humanism is a good philosophy with worthwhile goals or not. I just hate it when people criticize out of ignorant first impressions.

FWIW, I've never heard of Epstein before, but I'd bet my last dollar that the title "Chaplain" came from his position at Harvard and is not something that he "chose" to title himself.

Other Comments by vertigo25

25. Comment #33969 by PsyPro on April 22, 2007 at 11:29 pm

``Atheists split on how to not believe''

Let's ignore the split infinitive, and get to the issue: I, as an atheist, don't believe, which is the point of atheism: it is a declaration of non-belief; but that is all it is. I do not belong to a club of ``fellow atheists'', or fellow-believers, as a declaration of non-belief is not one of alternative belief. I have no idea what other atheists believe about anything, nor do I care. Indeed, I usually have nothing to do with them. I objected at the skeptics conference in Seattle a few years ago (and left, sadly disappointed), head-lined by the late Carl Sagan, that, despite his professed claims to a commonality among us (apparently, we were all joined in some great enterprise), to be a skeptic is to be just that: one does not thereby join a club of like-minded belief. I am a skeptic and an atheist, but for anyone to take this as a declaration of common belief or purpose, is a mistake. We may indeed have beliefs and purposes in common, but to assume so a priori is just an error.

Other Comments by PsyPro

26. Comment #33976 by Pieter on April 23, 2007 at 12:06 am

the problem with humanism is that humans are a pretty awful species when you think about it. -Pieter

Other Comments by Pieter

27. Comment #33977 by relevo on April 23, 2007 at 12:11 am

The fact is that while the religious organize to influence politics, secularists, including humanists are removed from rights they'd otherwise have. Historically, dogmatic religions have been institutions of control setup to deny equal rights to the outgroup. This is why in a certain sense I agree with Epstein. We need to team up with anyone, including the willing religious, who defend secular civil liberties in the face of totalitarian extremists who see such liberties as a threat to their dogmas of control. What I don't agree with, is his labeling of people like Harris, and Dawkins as "fundamentalists". Applied to them, the idea makes no sense, because what Harris, and Dawkins advocate are non-abusive honest civil liberties. There is nothing viciously restrictive being pushed here. What is being supported is a defense against what is otherwise full blown theocratic fascism. Dawkins may be called prickly at times, but such a perception is to be expected from people who otherwise are accustomed to being revered for absurd ideas for which no person in his/her right mind would expect to be humored, let alone revered through public policy. Neverthless, if Epstein succeeds in turning more people into secular humanists, then he's doing a good thing, and for that I give him acclaim.

Other Comments by relevo

28. Comment #33981 by AdrianB on April 23, 2007 at 12:27 am

I forgot where the quote comes from, but if organising atheists into groups is like "herding cats" then there is nothing surprising about this headline.

Other Comments by AdrianB

29. Comment #33984 by Corylus on April 23, 2007 at 12:56 am

Have to agree with others here that PZ's response to 'soft' atheists is a good read.

BTW: The 'aim to misbehave' title is a quote from the film 'Serenity' which is alot of fun and well worth watching. As is the original 'Firefly' series... sorry... geek moment :)

Other Comments by Corylus

30. Comment #33985 by JDAM on April 23, 2007 at 1:02 am

You know, if someone has breakfast every day with fairies and leprechans it makes not a whit of difference to any of the rest of us. But when this person creates an organization that ultimately becomes powerful enough to have ordinances passed requiring everyone to walk backwards on the third Thursday of every month because not to do so blasphemes the Great High Leprechan, we have a problem!

That is exactly what organizing non-believers will end up to be. Membership in a group that dictates the proper way to not believe. They always use the same arguments. "Join us and we'll all get together to form a common methodology for converting believers into non-believers so we don't offend anyone". Next, we'll have baskets passed around to fund the effort. Ultimately someone will get really pissed off and begin a "Reformed" group of non-believers.

I don't think "Reverend" Epstein knows what he is letting himself in for!

Other Comments by JDAM

31. Comment #33988 by relevo on April 23, 2007 at 1:42 am

Membership in a group that dictates the proper way to not believe. They always use the same arguments. "Join us and we'll all get together to form a common methodology for converting believers into non-believers so we don't offend anyone". Next, we'll have baskets passed around to fund the effort. Ultimately someone will get really pissed off and begin a "Reformed" group of non-believers.

There may be a point to this, however, so long as you have organized government collecting the tax collection plate, then citizens will continue to enforce rule of law with military backing enforcing the group mores. The ideology itself is only a byproduct of a group enforcing its ethos on weaker groups around. If organized diplomacy is a means to ensuring a lifestyle not depending on rule of bullying forceful cabals, then I'm for it, and in order to ensure rational liberties are set in law, one must organize enough to attain political clout, which does require funding. Funding is required for pretty much anything in monetary society, including a secular political media cause, including a media cause intent on dissuading all forms of dogmatic violent extremism, the very kind now advocated by irrational religious ideas instigating religious violence. I'm not for setting the precedent that all must follow Epstein's methods to press a cause, but I am for allowing, even encouraging that anyone, including Epstein organize however one can to press on, and defend voluntary civil philosophical ideas not advocating anything violently harmful.

Other Comments by relevo

32. Comment #33989 by fonex_86 on April 23, 2007 at 1:57 am

Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who's leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.

Religions are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just demonizing rational nonbelief but for trying to eradicate it. And who's dismissing these accusations? Ignorant fools like Greg Epstein.

Hey Epstein, wanna switch places for a while? I'd like to see what you think of religion after a week of living in my shoes, you f*ckwit.

Damn I hate ignorant pricks..

Other Comments by fonex_86

33. Comment #34001 by L.Minnik on April 23, 2007 at 2:56 am

At first I thought that yes, maybe I should join some 'atheist organization' just to make the cause stronger, but then again, if that would require me to be more polite when addressing religion, it does not make any sense to me.

I really appreciate atheists who voice their opinions openly. It is a pleasure to hear.
Thanks to this website I found many new ways to discuss religion.

from the article:
"Part of the New Humanism, Wilson said, is "an invitation to a common search for morally based action in areas agreement can be reached in."

I join many actions and causes that I find important and I don't need to agree about it whith anyone. For example I am involved in a group that tries to help abused children, and I don't have anything against theists engaging in it. So it is all-inclusive.
I don't see any need for an atheist organization that is all-inclusive.
And I don't see any need for all atheists to agree on social causes.

However, it could be nice if atheists did have an influence where on those spheres of life where faith is concerned.

Other Comments by L.Minnik

34. Comment #34011 by AdrianB on April 23, 2007 at 3:19 am

As long as government can stay out of faith, and faith can stay out of goverment, I'm happy. People are free to believe what they want to believe.

The idea of some "atheist organisation" seems a bit crazy to me, it would encourage the faith-heads to call atheism just another religion. (It always amuses me that the faith-heads think it is smart logic to dismiss atheism by calling it a religion)

In the meantime, while ever religion insists on getting involved in government, and getting tax free status at the same time, I will continue to be vocal about my atheism.

Other Comments by AdrianB

35. Comment #34015 by PaulJ on April 23, 2007 at 3:40 am

As I see it, the main thrust of The God Delusion is that religion -- any and all religion -- does not deserve the hushed respect that has erstwhile been bestowed upon it. That's why the growing lack of such respect gets labelled 'militant'.

Going soft on religion will just be backtracking to the prevailing problem. We shouldn't do it -- we should continue pointing out the manifest absurdity of faith without evidence.

Other Comments by PaulJ

36. Comment #34017 by pissinintothewind on April 23, 2007 at 3:56 am

Methinks Chaplain Epstein sups with the Devil.

Other Comments by pissinintothewind

37. Comment #34023 by pauliej on April 23, 2007 at 4:12 am

When bishops and priests stop trying to teach our children that belief without evidence is a virtue; when they stop complaining about the secularisation of society as though there's something wrong with all of us; when they stop pretending that they have some moral insight which the rest of us lack; when they stop trying to corrupt scientfic understanding with ill-informed dogma, stop trying to seek legal exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, stop seeking to run schools which discriminate in their selection on the basis of faith (or at least on the parents' pretence of faith) ... then perhaps, just perhaps, we should tone down our criticisms of them; criticisms which already involve no violence, no demonstrations, no intimidation ... just robust discussion. But even if we go quieter about the mainstream religious views, we'll still have the extremists to deal with!

Having said that, as a Humanist I do also think it is important to emphasise the positive nature of Humanism; to light up imaginations, make the awesomeness of the universe and of humanity, the power of rational thought, the nature of human ethics, readily accessible to as many people as possible. And I see nothing wrong with Humanist groups, fellowships or even chaplains, to provide social and emotional support in the community for those who need it, as well as intellectual stimulation and a focus for making our presence felt in society.

Other Comments by pauliej

38. Comment #34029 by DNAtheist on April 23, 2007 at 4:45 am

Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on verge of explosive growth, but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism.

Epstein is out of touch with reality. Dawkins and Harris have done more than anyone to create the "explosive growth" in the non-theistic community by encouraging us to come out of the closet and take an active stand against superstition.

Other Comments by DNAtheist

39. Comment #34061 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 5:59 am

DNAtheist - Comment 34029 is absolutely bang on target.

Other Comments by Lee Harrison

40. Comment #34068 by Zaphod on April 23, 2007 at 6:08 am

Writing a book, talking on TV and having speaking engagements makes you fundamentalist or militant nowadays?

Other Comments by Zaphod

41. Comment #34076 by poundemonium on April 23, 2007 at 6:23 am

Dawkins did not respond to requests for comment.

Can you blame him? It must get awfully tiresome to trudge the same old, muddy path over and over again because of asinine assumptions made by theists and their ilk.

It never ceases to amaze me just how patient Dawkins is when confronted with such specious claims. Frankly, I blow my fuse often enough for much less than that!

Other Comments by poundemonium

42. Comment #34084 by Jack Rawlinson on April 23, 2007 at 7:00 am

These "soft atheists" are almost as annoying as the religious. They remind me of hand-wringing "soft liberals" (and I say that as a person with liberal politics): so damned concerned not to rock anybody's boat or come out hard against things which are bad that they end up helping those things. They give tacit support to religion.

They're also happy to play along with the religious "rubber/glue" tactic of attempting to unfairly smear atheists with epithets such as "fundamentalist", "intolerant", "bigot" etc. They use loaded words to describe what we're about, such as saying that we want to "eradicate" religion. Sure, I'd like to see religion disappear entirely, but through a process of argument, reason and education. "Eradicate" carries negative connotations of force. We expect that sort of shameless distortion from those whose beliefs we criticise but it's especially irksome when it comes from people who claim to be atheists.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

43. Comment #34104 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 23, 2007 at 8:31 am

I strongly disagree with these "moderate" atheists. I think that true atheists need to be even MORE dogmatic and arrogant than ever before. If atheists want to win the hearts and minds of the public whom they so fervently desire to realize the truths of the godless world we live in, then they're going to have to step it up. Mere ridicule and snide remarks built on hollow strawmen just isn't working people. Burn effigies, mock God in the streets, and call anyone who believes in any form of a deity an incompetent ninny to their face. Only then can the people see how stupid they truly are, and only then will they change their ways. We all know that insults always elicit positive responses from people; it's basic psychology!

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

44. Comment #34107 by Graeme on April 23, 2007 at 8:40 am

hey bizarro
wouldnt you be better employed out looking for a dinosaur or something?

Other Comments by Graeme

45. Comment #34109 by JamPal on April 23, 2007 at 8:51 am

To suggest that Athiests disagree on how not to believe is something of a straw-man argument surely.

The difference is not if you believe in God or not, but if you beleive that organised religion is a bad thing.

Being anti organised religion is not an exclusively Athiest stand point. This man has not understood the division.

Other Comments by JamPal

46. Comment #34111 by Ole on April 23, 2007 at 8:57 am

"Humanism is not about erasing religion," he said. "It's an embracing philosophy."

Hm... since he likes to play with words, maybe he should change the name "humanism"?

Why no combine God a Human - Gomanism?

That would be "embracing" ;-)

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

47. Comment #34113 by MrEmpirical on April 23, 2007 at 9:01 am

This is the reason why I believe that atheists should unite (to some reasonable degree) against religion:

Religions are powerful. Religious lobbies are powerful. Religion influences politics, policy, and society. Important political decisions (e.g. regarding stem-cell research) are made on the basis of religious convictions. Any rational person can see that this is a troubling state of affairs. Any decision (even a 'good' decision) that is not made on the basis of evidence should be highly disturbing. The thought of our leaders making decisions on the basis of unsubstantiated beliefs should worry us all.

So, given this troubling state of affairs, what is to be done? How can rational people stand up against the powerful religious lobbies? Like it or not, rationalists and atheists need to band together so that their collective voice may be heard. A humanist, rationalist, or atheist lobby could be a powerful force in society, and it could counteract the influence of religious lobbies. In America, for example, atheists outnumber Jews. The American Jewish lobby is very powerful, so it follows that an atheist lobby could be even more powerful, provided it could draw upon a significant proportion of the atheists in America.

If not on the basis of principle, atheists should unite for practical reasons, namely to combat the undeserved influence of religion and dogma in society. As noted in a previous comment, significant social changes (e.g. racial equality, feminism, gay pride) are often made by passionate people who stand up and rally support for their causes. Unfortunately, religious people are aware of this fact, and they stand up and rally support for their unproven dogmas. Atheists need to stand up and rally support for positions that can be substantiated with evidence and reason.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

48. Comment #34117 by Coel on April 23, 2007 at 9:39 am

To weefree,

The fact that words might have a damaging effect is not at all a contradiction of Dawkins's statement that his antipathy to religion will be limited to words, and not extend to violence. Where is the supposed contradiction?

Oh, and did you ever come up with any evidence that the VT killer was an atheist, or that he had a "hatred of religious people"?

Other Comments by Coel

49. Comment #34118 by squinky on April 23, 2007 at 9:44 am

"Militant" or "Fundamentalist" atheism is such utter nonsense because we are simply taking a logical and well-reasoned stand. A "militant" non-theist is hardly comparable to a "militant" theist because we have data--libraries of it--and they have 1 book with libraries of Cliff's notes about it.

Here is what Epstein is a proud member of:
"Unconvincing humanism"
"Conciliatory humanism"
"Wishy-washy humanism"
"Group-hug humanism"
"Reach-around atheism"

Other Comments by squinky

50. Comment #34120 by konquererz on April 23, 2007 at 9:49 am

I think the "humanists" in the article have forgotten their roots. When I was growing up, my parents (fundys) were all about standing up to the humanists and the new humanist culture. Over time, humanist ceased being a dirty word and became some what accepted. Now atheist is the dirty word, and even those who call themselves humanist now want to pile on because they feel mainstream.

Well, you can't have it both ways, either you believe or you don't. There is nothing else that binds atheists, freethinkers, humanists, skeptics, and the like together except their lack of belief. To forget that, to believe in the unification of atheists and humanists is not only wrong its well, religious. We as a collective are unique in that we don't follow a crowd, don't belong to the "in" crowd, because we think for ourselves and don't need a group to tell us how to think. We don't need unity because there is nothing to be unified about.

There is only a "split between atheist" on one side of the board. I don't see a split, because I don't see a group. At best, atheists form a loose collective based on their lack of belief, and possibly the understanding that religion is bad. Humans working together to help humanity is not a religion or special group, its the way things should be. Those who specify themselves as humanists almost have it right. They just need to let go of the idea of a unified cult of atheists. Its perverse and silly.

Other Comments by konquererz

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last