251. The Out Campaign

Comment #60735 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 7:03 pm

BAEOZ,

Are you female? You say the viking and Spartan code was indoctrination. Have you ever considered that your code (morality) is indoctrination?

What you think is natural is in fact a Judeo-Christian legacy.

252. The Out Campaign

Comment #60730 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 6:50 pm

BAEOZ,

The Spartans continually killed defective babies, and the Vikings only went to heaven ('Valhalla') if they died in battle.

Morality is not biologically hardwired but socially fluctuating.

253. The Out Campaign

Comment #60726 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 6:40 pm

BAEOZ,

Don't apologise - be strong... (grrr...)

'inate adaptive responses' are facts, not moral tenets. Aggression is also an adaptive response - is it therefore moral?

Lose your social conditioning.

254. The Out Campaign

Comment #60725 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 6:37 pm

Goldy,

Your point being? I, and those who have considered the fact, understand that moral propositions are not factual propositions. They are commands (albeit subconscious).

255. The Out Campaign

Comment #60719 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 6:27 pm

BAEOZ,

You missed the point: By saying "killing is wrong" you produce a statement that cannot be proven right or wrong, and so is meaningless. All moral propositions are social.

256. The Out Campaign

Comment #60713 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Try this one:

One way in which I disagree with Dawkins & Hitchens, although I am an atheist, is the way in which they think that prescriptive morality can be derived from facts alone. You cannot derive an ought from an is, simple logic. Morality is an illusion (like religion).

Consider the logical positivist, A J Ayer on the matter:

---
'[By saying] "stealing money is wrong," I produce a sentence which has no factual meaning – that is, expresses no proposition which can be either true or false. It is as if I had written "stealing money!!" … Another man may disagree with me about the wrongness of stealing … but he cannot, strictly speaking, contradict me. For in saying that a certain type of action is right or wrong, I am not making any factual statement … So that there is plainly no sense in asking which of us is in the right. For neither of us is asserting a genuine proposition."
---

If you believe in morality you are just as deluded as the religious.

This, of course, is not a politically convenient truth.

257. The Out Campaign

Comment #60699 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Benway, do you want some more? Just ask and I shall display the awe that you desire.

258. The Out Campaign

Comment #60694 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Steve,

Why do you think there exists a stereotype that gay men cannot throw a ball well, and are generally bad at sports like women? Why do you think there exists a stereotype that homosexual men are effeminate?

Do the gay people you know help their siblings mate? What kind of absurd notion is that? Was that a rhetorical question?

There are many theories about homosexuality on this thread alone. I once heard a theory that homosexual men inherit a 'horny' gene-complex from women.

Interesting subject I don't think anyone is sure about, despite numerous studies.

By the way, to all you plebian sciencebots: data studies on a hypothesis doesn't mean the hypothesis is true, even if data matches it. Consider Newton's laws or Aristotle's belief that a stone goes to the ground as it naturally belongs there (data would 'prove' him right).

There seem to be two types of 'proof': a posteriori empirical (weak), a priori rational (strong).

259. The Out Campaign

Comment #60687 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 5:23 pm

You fools – your extreme defensiveness only fuels the vicar's fire. It's blatantly obvious his intellect is limited. Leave him.

This is demonstrated by the fact that he did not respond to my post about Kant – he cannot beat me.

260. The Out Campaign

Comment #60509 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 5:26 am

-J-

Very quickly, this is a summary of the classic 'ontological argument' for God by St Anselm of Canterbury:

1. God is a being greater than which none can be imagined.
2. Either it exists in imagination & reality, or only in imagination.
3. A being that exists in both is greater than one that only exists in
imagination.
4. Therefore the greatest imaginable being exists in both,
and therefore it exists in reality.

And by Descartes (summary, mind):
1. The mere idea of God is of God as perfect and therefore lacking nothing.
2. A being that does not have existence lacks something.
3. Therefore God exists.

Bullshit of course, but why? Kant's response (unfortunately muddled by Dawkins and misunderstood by Hitchens):

---
"...the illusion which is caused by the confusion of a logical with
a real predicate (that is, with a predicate which determines a
thing) is almost beyond correction. Anything we please can
be made to serve as a logical predicate; the subject can even be
predicated of itself; for logic abstracts from all content. But a
determining predicate is a predicate which is added to the
concept of the subject and enlarges it. Consequently, it must not
be already contained in the concept.
'Being' is obviously not a real predicate; that is, it is not a
concept of something which could be added to the concept of
a thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain
determinations, as existing in themselves. Logically, it is merely the
copula of a judgment."

Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, B624+
----

I.e. existence is not a predicate but a condition of predicates. (Hitchens writes that Kant wrote that "God is not a predicate" (??)).

It's a minor point today, but at least get it right if you're going to mention it!

261. The Out Campaign

Comment #60501 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 5:04 am

-J-

I don't usually speak with self-confessed gay fascists, but I'll get back to you later after some lessons I am to give in a second.

(not going to let that one go!)

262. The Out Campaign

Comment #60488 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 4:20 am

I was almost about to take the flea seriously, but then he made a fundamental mistake regarding Dawkins' and Hitchen's response to the ontological argument (which were flawed as neither properly understood Kant's criticism).

So you're all wrong!

Long live Kant.

263. The Out Campaign

Comment #60396 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 6:51 pm

–J–

So now I realise your defensiveness. I thought Steve's theory sucked (as it were), mine was bold, but yours is something else.

Complete nonsense of course, and somewhat funny if you're being sarcastic. But at least it's not PC - well done.




–J– wrote:
"Gay people are better than straight people. That's why they're frequently so goddamn buff and why so many creative people and innovative thinkers have been gay. Gay is good. Perhaps it's got something to do with the organism's resources not being spent on the costly pursuit of reproductive sex and rearing young and all that bullshit. Steve's theory is right up to a point: a certain frequency of occurrence of homosexuality tends to be positively useful for propagating genes, for reasons that people who do the maths on genetic evolution may be able to work out. But it's evolutionarily unstable for too great a proportion of the population to be homosexual, for fairly obvious reasons. However, in our days of advancing reproductive science, this barrier may soon be lifted. We'll be able to knock up babies by artificially introducing a lesbian's egg to a gay man's sperm. The superior race of happy homosexuals will gradually form a larger and larger proportion of the global population. People will stop fighting over mates, the misogyny that fuels some of the worst gobshite of religion will evaporate and a lot of Elton John records will be sold. The future's bright - the future's pink."

264. The Out Campaign

Comment #60392 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Goldy,

If homosexuality is just a shift of genes, a probability; then so is beauty.

However, there's another level to this: beauty indicates good physiology, thus our valuing it in humans. Does homosexuality indicate bad physiology? I.e. traits are often symptoms. In which case, my hypothesis is not refuted.

Regarding your council estate excursions: your nightmares prove that you would rather mate with better-looking people (no shit Sherlock!)

I recommend you never go to Woolwich.

265. The Out Campaign

Comment #60388 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Bring on the weeping liberals! (is that an 'ad hom' as everyone keeps writing ad nauseam?)

–J–,

"Nature's way" is obviously a metaphor. Just as one could say that "beauty is nature's way of indicating healthy physiology." I don't know the details, nor does anyone – but that is no reason not to pursue an investigation.

If human ugliness represents bad physiology and thus leads to general non-reproduction, is it not feasible that homosexuality represents bad physiology and thus entails general non-reproduction?

Please don't give me PC responses. I am genuinely interested in this as I think no-one has ever answered the 'gay question'.

P.S. I used the word 'feeble' to mean inducing weak muscularity, weak immune system, weak motor-responses and co-ordination, etc.

266. The Out Campaign

Comment #60380 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Goldy,

This is a good point: Why hasn't homosexuality died out if it is genetic? Well, you could begin by considering that handicappedness (if that's a word!) has neither died out but is obviously often a genetic predisposition and indicator of 'feeble' (faulty) genes.

It's just a hypothesis, but one which has been surpressed due to political correctness. Offer me a better hypothesis and I will change my mind.

Be fair: be against a position for good reasons, not for current political ideology.

Of course religion's judgement of homosexuality is even more absurd than Steve's.

267. The Out Campaign

Comment #60374 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 5:32 pm

BAEOZ,

Accepted, human are apes.

I admit my slip-ups.

But it doesn't change my point.

268. The Out Campaign

Comment #60371 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Steve,

You're in denial.

It was unfortunate of you to try to back up your feeble argument with the behaviour of Bonobo chimps. It is commonly known that Bonobo chimps have a completely unique sexual behaviour, so are in no way a representation of nature in general. For example, they are the only known apes (humans aside!) to engage in oral sex. In this species, the female is generally dominant - again an oddity.

My un-PC theory still stands as more reasonable.

269. The Out Campaign

Comment #60366 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 5:16 pm

BAEOZ,

Bad grammar is always an indication of a bad argument. I suppose you think Hollywood gay alpha males, as it were, are a good representation of reality.

270. The Out Campaign

Comment #60358 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Steve99,

The flea has a point; one which I once remarked upon: you play the 'gay card' constantly. In the words of Jack Nicholson, "think straight and get serious"!

Your 'evolutionary' explanation of homosexuality is laughable because it is so far-fetched and speculatory. I have two things to say about this.


- Michel Foucault may be right in that 'homosexuality' is a Victorian invention - before there were just homosexual acts, not homosexual people. I think, however, that recent science has proved him wrong.

- Secondly, the obvious evolutionary reason for homosexuality is that it is nature's way of stopping the reproduction of feeble genes. I can't prove that, but it seems more likely than your PC version (which can neither be proved). Both are hypotheses at this stage.

271. The Out Campaign

Comment #60351 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Flea vicar,

Thank you. I've received that vitriol already in previous posts, though I envy that which you've received.

Now give me some solid theology that I will destroy. Something debatable, not just flippant footnotes (too easy).

For example, do you think Dawkins (& Hitchens) fairly judged the classic ontological arguments (Anselm & Descartes)? Do you think Kant did? Do you follow?

272. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60347 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Yorker & IQHQ,

I'm afraid an arm wrestle is the only solution to your spat now. It's like a pointless argument between a teenage Oscar Wilde and a pissed William Wallace.

273. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60210 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 10:13 am

Benway,

Are you denying that most muslims are Arab or Persian? If we get rid of the religion, why call them 'muslim people'? That will just further their segregation and inhibit integration. The point is to lose their 'muslim' identity, just as one seeks to lose a caucasian's 'Christian' identity.

Ali's distinction was just intended to mean that hating Islam does not mean hating muslims personally. Just like you can hate the North Korean regime without hating North Koreans.

Ali's distinction was not to do with respecting 'community solidarity' as you mean. This solidarity is the problem! You twist words my good doctor.

I find you are an appeaser Benway. People like you are part & parcel of the muslim problem in the west.

274. Philip Kitcher - Living with Darwin

Comment #60170 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 8:16 am

pewkatchoo,

I agree that this guy should not be called eminent (though certainly certain other philosophers should: about one a century!).

Kitcher is just stating the same old clichés - what is he saying that people have not thought innumerable times before? Nicht. I think he should think about journalism rather than philosophy.

275. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60151 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 6:29 am

Hitchens is a great writer, and brave to transgress the clichéd ideals of the so-called liberals and muslims (who form a brotherhood here in the UK).

This article reminds me of Churchill's polemic against Islam (http://winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=137). ("No stronger retrograde force exists in the world".) – Incidentally written BEFORE the Communist advance in Afghanistan and BEFORE the official establishment of Israel in the 1940s. So much for the historical-context appeasement by the 'liberals' here.

I don't think we need distinguish 'muslim people' from 'practicing muslim' as we already have that proper distinction: muslim and Arab/Persian. That is why anti-islamism is not racism.

I liked Hitchens' last book, 'god is not Great', but consider it a little unstructured with a few flaws (for example, Kant did not disprove the ontological argument for God by writing that 'God is not a predicate'; rather Kant wrote, successfully, that 'existence is not a predicate' – at the time a fatal blow to a common 'proof' for God's existence.)

But I'm nit-picking. Keep it up Hitchens (but don't pray for it!).

276. The Out Campaign

Comment #60113 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 3:22 am

Maynard,

What are you trying to lure me into? "The reich shall rise again"? Something like that? No.

277. The Out Campaign

Comment #60103 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 2:36 am

gr8hands,

It 'bores' you as you are mistaken. You quote the section that proves what I wrote (that independence is for the few, not to be prescribed for all), and you even back that up with another quotation. There are many more.

My point about him not being an 'individualist' in the common sense is that he does not pre/describe individualism for all (see §257, say). Let's not argue about semantic issues here.

278. The Out Campaign

Comment #60063 by Henri Bergson on July 31, 2007 at 6:10 pm

gr8hands,

Do not attempt to fight me on Nietzsche, you will not win. You mentioned 'Beyond Good & Evil' – read §41. As I wrote, N argued that individualism was for the few, not for all. Thus he is not an 'individualist' in the common sense. Hierarchy, command and obedience is essential in his thought.

A clergyman 'bucking the system' is not for that reason an individual! Tell him to buck the religion if he wants true freedom (his church calls itself the 'free church').

279. The Out Campaign

Comment #60059 by Henri Bergson on July 31, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Maynard,

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

Probably because you are a prime acolyte, as shown by your avatar...

You're not logical: I didn't deem commentators to be acolytes because of their responses to the flea, I deemed them to be so because of their general Dawkins worship before I'd even heard of that pathetic little flea. Not everyone, obviously.

Secondly, your wording is muddled. I presume you mean that I think dependence is a weakness (not independence as you wrote).

Please clarify your last question. Think about wording rather than meadows fresh.

----

But please don't misunderstand me: I am in favour of this political atheist movement in America.

280. The Out Campaign

Comment #60040 by Henri Bergson on July 31, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Benway,

Thank you. You have not studied Nietzsche obviously. I have studied Nietzsche but I am not a Nietzschean.

Ricey,

What? A Christian presbyterian minister is an individualist? Which third world country do you import your dictionary from?

By the way, despite what many of you take for granted, Nietzsche was not an 'individualist'. He wrote that individualism was for the few; for most, obedience served a higher purpose.

I agree though that unless we evolve as a species, religion will stay with us. We can only try to subdue its power for now.

281. The Out Campaign

Comment #60028 by Henri Bergson on July 31, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Oh dear,

It seems as if a pathetic village vicar (weaflea) has ruffled your feathers.

I agree with him that many of you are Dawkin ACOLYTES.

Of course the flea's beliefs are absurd, but you help his cause by your herd-like behaviour. Become your own gods – following is the religious impulse.

Destroy religion, but do it in your own ways.

282. The Out Campaign

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.

283. The Out Campaign

Comment #59782 by Henri Bergson on July 30, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Well said.

I'm glad you are sympathetic to the fact, Richard, that this movement smells like "quasi-religious conformity". Also that it is confined to the US and would be less effective in Europe.

But, if this is the only effective method by which to oppose religious political power in the US, so be it. Swallowing pride may be necessary there (note to my dissenters: it is swallowing pride).

On a more practical point, what would you suggest that Europe does to aid the US movement, as wearing 'A' t-shirts would be useless here, if not counter-productive?

Personally I think the first step is outlawing all faith schools (extreme child manipulation). But how?

284. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59755 by Henri Bergson on July 30, 2007 at 2:49 pm

d4m & Spartan,

If you think those stats are purely representative, you then believe that a substantial proportion of Britons actually follow the Jedi Knight religion.

The important stat is church attendance, not self-labeling.

Obviously most respondents wrote the religion that they were baptised as (without realising the consequences), so your objection is irrelevant (as you actually concede Spartan).

If you think the religious difference between the US & UK is simply a matter of 20-odd percent, you're living in a fantasy world (may the Force be with you).
---

So, back to where we started: Islam is the growing threat in Europe, Christianity is the receding threat (though smoulders should always be extinguished).

285. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59710 by Henri Bergson on July 30, 2007 at 10:58 am

Spartan88 (Sparta!),

Those statistics simply refer to people referring to whether or not they were baptised as babies (exc. muslims obviously).

Look at the statistics for church attendance for the under 70s!

286. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59692 by Henri Bergson on July 30, 2007 at 8:28 am

It seems, having participated in this thread, that 'coming out' as an atheist is a 'big thing' ––– in the USA. In northern Europe atheism is default.

I'm surprised by the cowardice in the US. Perhaps the reason religion has taken such a stronghold in your nation is the cowardice of atheists. In such a case, you should recover your losses by being vocal (but not sheep).

In Europe Christianity is a dying old woman, but the new threat is Islam. Atheist t-shirts and 'atheist' campaigns will simply feed their defensiveness and promote their separate identity (negative psychology). Laws must be made against Islam that do not set up a separate camp.

287. Come Out!

Comment #59662 by Henri Bergson on July 30, 2007 at 4:34 am

Instead of wearing a t-shirt, what about researching new banking initiatives for muslims. Surely the following (from the BBC) sounds somewhat unfair to non-muslims using UK banks:

"Murabaha is a form of credit which enables customers to make a purchase without having to take out an interest bearing loan. The bank buys an item and then sells it on to the customer on a deferred basis."

I'm not an economist or banker, so maybe someone could enlighten me as to whether or not this is not sheer prejudice (i.e no interest on credit for muslims).

288. Come Out!

Comment #59566 by Henri Bergson on July 29, 2007 at 4:45 pm

ungodlytheist,

Thank you for showing that my points still stand after being criticised.

Four questions: How old are you? What drugs do you take? What type of grass do you prefer (and I mean grass on the meadows)? And, Do you think your following response makes any sense?:

"Response:
Theists say atheism is a religion. By using the word 'atheism' to mean 'a lack of belief' you're playing into their hands."

289. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59522 by Henri Bergson on July 29, 2007 at 10:50 am

Steve99,

But that's what you've alluded to throughout your posts. Secondly, the 'Out Campaign' is blatantly identifying atheism with homosexuality.

No-one calls homosexuality a religion; theists do call atheism a religion (RAA), so (I say) do not encourage them by creating an atheist symbolism.

Homosexuality and atheism should not be considered equatable minorities.

290. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59516 by Henri Bergson on July 29, 2007 at 10:09 am

Steve99,

Don't play the 'gay card'. I think identifying atheists with homosexuals would be of great offence to most homosexuals. Not you, as you are both. Many homosexuals are Catholics as they can do anything they like so long as they confess!

Atheism is not some kind of physiological condition, as is homosexuality (though note Foucault's concerns). You can choose to be religious, you cannot choose to be heterosexual.

As a white heterosexual with total opportunity, saying that I am an oppressed minority (as an atheist) is an insult to truly oppressed groups.

291. Come Out!

Comment #59513 by Henri Bergson on July 29, 2007 at 9:53 am

Jeepyjay,

I wouldn't say 'Anarchist' is a good 'A'! It's a self-contradictory idealism.

As mentioned, being called the 'Out Campaign', it is highly likely the general public, and theists, will actually read 'A' for 'Arsehole'.

Consequences, people, consequences...

292. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59509 by Henri Bergson on July 29, 2007 at 9:38 am

Yorker & IQHQ,

Nobody cares less about your respective IQs - give the playground squabble a break.

Denoir,

Jag förstår dig, jag är ochså halv-Svensk! I do understand that America needs a movement against theocracy; however, I still maintain that turning atheism into a sect by creating a logo and 'Out Campaign' is a bad method which will prove self-defeating.

293. Come Out!

Comment #59465 by Henri Bergson on July 29, 2007 at 6:40 am

I think I am one of the ones labeled a 'nay-sayer' by PZMyers (see my rebuttal of his arguments in the previous article).





Indeed I am a nay-sayer with regard to this. The following points still stand:

- Theists say atheism is a religion. By making a symbol for atheism you're playing into their hands.
- The symbol is a common Zapfino font (dull, over-used, already trade-marked).
- Wearing something that tells people what you do not believe in is defensive - showing a lack of confidence.
- It's simply unstylish, sad.
- 'A' will be quickly re-labelled 'Asshole' (as PGFM points out). Combined with it being called 'The Out Campaign', you will obviously give the general public the wrong idea.
- By making atheism a more coherent group, you may actually proliferate religion: instead of questioning their own beliefs, theists may question atheists' 'beliefs' (now that it is a symbolised system).
- Moreover, by creating an atheist 'sect', you may make people turn to religion as they simply see it as a matter of sides rather than a matter of reason.
- You're turning Dawkins – peace be upon Him – into some kind of political prophet.
- Imagine a load of political atheist activists in a group all wearing this t-shirt, next to the uniformed Scientologists. Don't degrade yourselves; just like evolutionists shouldn't degrade themselves by engaging in public conversation with creationists. Degrading.
- Uniformity and symbolism are the worst aspects of religion and nationalism.

You're creating a visible target rather than disarming the enemy. This approach will fail.

294. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59375 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Alas, my minions, I must sleep (my weakness).

Great discussion, kept me up all night. Hope to be devil's advocate again tomorrow. Although I meant what I wrote.

For anyone who may try to rebut my arguments whilst I slumber: I'm right, you're wrong.

295. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59369 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Beth,

So you think that following the herd is actually a sign of strength then? Where's YOUR evidence? It's just a matter of semantics (how do you define 'weakness of mind'?).

I define strength as being dependent on oneself; weakness as being dependent on others (e.g. children, the elderly, the religious).

The fact that you suggest that I'm actually religious says a lot about you. Your limited thought cannot accept that an atheist can be anything but some sandal-wearing, yoghurt-eating liberal. It displays your social conditioning, your lack of free thought.

And all you bleeding-heart, cowardly atheists who do not dare 'come out' because you may get 'criticism' and 'nasty looks' – you are the ones who should join a church: "the meek shall inherit the earth"! It's made for you! But don't think the solution to your cowardice to be some petty t-shirt.

I am the true atheist here. Western Liberalism is an inherited form of Christianity (read some history!).

296. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59351 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 9:06 pm

pzmyers,

So you think that if you don't wear a blatant atheist t-shirt proclaiming the fact, you must be hiding the fact? Total rubbish! Conversation is usually more effective than one's t-shirt.

I'm not a Marxist, for example. I'm not hiding this fact because I don't wear a giant golden dollar sign on my shirt...

Regarding the Yankees & Red Cross: no-one has ever accused them of being religions. So your analogy is false.

All I'm saying is - don't make atheism a sect-in-itself, it will backfire terribly.

Why not try to get rid of religion by contradicting it, rather than setting up an opposing 'thing' ('atheism').

297. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59337 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 8:34 pm

I hear the bleating of sheep everywhere here (but it's expected on a Richard Dawkins – peace be upon Him – website).

Some points (again):

- Theists say atheism is a religion. By making a symbol for atheism you're playing into their hands.
- The symbol is a Zapfino font (dull, used before).
- Wearing something that tells people what you do not believe in is defensive - showing a lack of confidence.
- It's simply unstylish, sad.
- By making atheism a more coherent group, you may actually proliferate religion: instead of questioning their own beliefs, theists may question atheists' 'beliefs' (now that it is a symbolised system).
- Moreover, by creating an atheist 'sect', you may make people turn to religion as they simply see it as a matter of sides rather than a matter of reason.

298. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59326 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 7:54 pm

If one doesn't think it a fact, it wouldn't be one's opinion.

I don't think side-tracking into the ocean of psychological, sociological, philosophical, historical, etc., studies would please readers. I try to keep posts as short as possible.

299. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59318 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 7:29 pm

pzmyers,

Of course I'm a social animal and thus member of groups. However, I don't go around with a Union Jack plastered on my chest, a "young adults rule" t-shirt, a "non-socialist" cap, etc.

I would only wear any of these were I to need to show people that my person is part of a bigger, stronger group (so the person is, therefore, relatively weak).

Thus explains racist & nationalist clothing, football shirts, teenage band t-shirts, etc, etc.

I personally am very social, but have no need to thrust the fact that I have no superstitious beliefs onto bystanders. It shows a lack of confidence and, relatedly, a lack of style.

300. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59308 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 6:55 pm

pzmyers,

Identifying with atheists is pointless in Europe as we're not run by theocrats and most of us are secular anyway. Identifying with a group is a common human sign of weakness. It is one of the major reasons for the formation of religions (especially Christianity).

That is why you degrade yourself if you group together in this way: you are mirroring the religious impulse. You may as well wear a cross.