NPR story on a schism among atheists on how to address religion

[crazyfingers]

http://www.wbur.org/news/npr/113889251

How far to go in mocking religion. Various opinions from various secular/atheist groups and individuals.

"It's really a national debate among people with a secular orientation about how far do we want to go in promoting a secular society through emphasizing the 'new atheism,' " Jordan says. "And some are very much for it, and some are opposed to it on the grounds that they feel this is largely a religious country, and if it's pushed the wrong way, this is going to insult many of the religious people who should be shown respect even if we don't agree with them on all issues."

[DMB]

I see that the article refers to "the atheist movement". WTF is that?

[DMB]

It's the old, old story of being required to show respect for nonsensical beliefs. But you don't see atheists marching around threatening to behead Muslims, do you? And how many religious believers show the least respect for atheists or atheism? As far as I can see, all the "new atheists" are doing is coming out of the closet. Why should they cower away and hide their point of view?

[crazyfingers]

It's the old, old story of being required to show respect for nonsensical beliefs. But you don't see atheists marching around threatening to behead Muslims, do you? And how many religious believers show the least respect for atheists or atheism? As far as I can see, all the "new atheists" are doing is coming out of the closet. Why should they cower away and hide their point of view?

I'm not arguing for or against.

[Worldtraveller]

I've always been of the mind that atheists should simply respond in kind. Those theists who are open minded and tolerant get the same in return. Those (the majority who get press coverage) who are intolerant, ignorant, bigotted...well, they get both barrels with a full loadout. :D

[David B]

It looks as if the author of the piece has been quote mining to feed what she wanted to believe.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

That's not the message I gave when she interviewed me, but maybe she got it from the others. Or maybe it's what she wanted to hear.

I told her a number of things. I said that atheism doesn't have a central dogma or doctrine, so of course we have a variety of different views under the catch-all category of atheism; and that is a strength of our ideas, that we can freely argue among ourselves. I also explained that we need a variety of approaches to appeal to a wide range of people, and that my personal belief was that we should encourage a thousand flowers of godlessness to bloom, all different.

David

[BioBeing]

Hagerty apparently has an agenda.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200505050004

When you or I as Christ-followers go to work each day, we have to perform our jobs in a fundamentally different way from other people because our employer is Christ, and everything we do has to be run through the filter of this question: How does Jesus Christ view my performance? It raises the bar higher than the most demanding editor or supervisor could possibly do.

[...]

What's important is that [one's colleagues] begin to think differently about Christianity. And I actually think that's what we're supposed to do as Christians. We're supposed to draw people, through the power of attraction, to Jesus Christ just as He drew people to Himself.

[...]

Early in my career at National Public Radio, I decided that being true to my God had to be the nonnegotiable. If it meant losing my job, so be it. ... In the long run I had to think, is a story or even is a career ... more valuable than my relationship with God and eternal treasure in heaven? And I think the answer is no, and the decisions we make count for eternity.

[Worldtraveller]

How does Jesus Christ view my performance? It raises the bar higher than the most demanding editor or supervisor could possibly do.
Except that whole fact checking thing about the cracker...

Good thing she's working for jeebus, cuz it's apparently ok to lie for him. Dumbass.

[BioBeing]

How does Jesus Christ view my performance? It raises the bar higher than the most demanding editor or supervisor could possibly do.
Except that whole fact checking thing about the cracker...

Good thing she's working for jeebus, cuz it's apparently ok to lie for him. Dumbass.

She says herself it is OK:

I decided that being true to my God had to be the nonnegotiable. If it meant losing my job, so be it. ... In the long run I had to think, is a story or even is a career ... more valuable than my relationship with God and eternal treasure in heaven? And I think the answer is no, and the decisions we make count for eternity.

[Iblis waswas]

Interesting. I joined this Cafe on Sunday (I think) after being at an Open Brethren (branch of evangelical protestantism) meeing and being told about "Militant" atheism. I hadn't heard the phrase before.

If a religous person is open to conversation and willing to listen to my view and I to theirs, then I am a courteous and respectful atheist who will not deride anything of their faith. Rather I'll try and understand their need to believe.

However, if someone trys to shove religion down my throat then I class myself an extremely hardline atheist fundamentalist - namely that I will be rather vocal in my disagreement with them and not worry about upsetting them.

As for a Blasphmy Day, surely the only purpose of such an event is to further increase the disdain that many Christians already hold atheists in? It doesn't sound as friendly as the FSM's pirate for a day thingy, but perhaps this was the point of these "new atheists".

From personal experience though Muslims hate atheists more than Christians do.

[Notta]

Hagerty apparently has an agenda.

When you or I as Christ-followers go to work each day, we have to perform our jobs in a fundamentally different way from other people because our employer is Christ, and everything we do has to be run through the filter of this question: How does Jesus Christ view my performance? It raises the bar higher than the most demanding editor or supervisor could possibly do.Hmm..

Employee: Jesus, I'd like to talk with you.

Jesus: Yes?

Employee: It's about my last performance evaluation. You checked "needs improvement" in "works miracles."

Jesus: I know. Your last miracle wasn't very miraculous.

Employee: Miraculous?!? It wasn't a miracle at all. I just brought you some coffee, liked you asked me to.

Jesus: Well, I did ask you to take the water off the conference room table and turn it into wine, but you said you were out of wine, and would coffee be okay? I find your lack of faith in being able to produce wine disturbing.

Employee: We've NEVER had wine here. It's against company policy. Every day it's the same thing with you: "Hey, idiot, where's my wine? Why do you keep giving me water? Isn't there anything else to drink in this dump?"

Jesus: Precisely. One day, my son, you'll learn to turn water into wine. And on that day, you'll get a "meets expectations" on your performance evaluation. Now take this damned water bottle away and bring me some freakin' wine!!

[crazyfingers]

As of now, there are 525 comments posted on the story over at NPR.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113889251&ft=1&f=113889251

Having read the first 300ish earlier today, I'd stay that about half are from nontheists arguing the points among themselves. Among the other half, the weight of comments are strongly critical of the story.

[crazyfingers]

http://nprcheck.blogspot.com/2009/10/barbara-bradley-hagerty-god-help-us.html

Very interesting bit here on Hagerty.

[Celsus]

SHOCK: NONBELIEVERS LACK COMMON BELIEFS

Or

SHOCK: PEOPLE WHO DON'T BUY YOUR BULLSHIT DISAGREE ON OTHER THINGS

More news at 11.

I should get a fulltime job as a headline writer

[Ray Moscow]

On a related topic: what's so "new" about the "New Atheism", anyway? As far as I can see, all that's "new" is being a bit more outspoken about there being no evidence to support religious claims and about the harm done by various religious beliefs and practices.

Yes, the Oklahoma City bombing and then 9/11 did focus people a bit more to say, "This is bullshit, and dangerous bullshit at that", but otherwise it's the same old common sense being spoken, just a bit louder.

[Ray Moscow]

Hagerty apparently has an agenda.

When you or I as Christ-followers go to work each day, we have to perform our jobs in a fundamentally different way from other people because our employer is Christ, and everything we do has to be run through the filter of this question: How does Jesus Christ view my performance? It raises the bar higher than the most demanding editor or supervisor could possibly do.Hmm..

Employee: Jesus, I'd like to talk with you.

Jesus: Yes?

Employee: It's about my last performance evaluation. You checked "needs improvement" in "works miracles."

Jesus: I know. Your last miracle wasn't very miraculous.

Employee: Miraculous?!? It wasn't a miracle at all. I just brought you some coffee, liked you asked me to.

Jesus: Well, I did ask you to take the water off the conference room table and turn it into wine, but you said you were out of wine, and would coffee be okay? I find your lack of faith in being able to produce wine disturbing.

Employee: We've NEVER had wine here. It's against company policy. Every day it's the same thing with you: "Hey, idiot, where's my wine? Why do you keep giving me water? Isn't there anything else to drink in this dump?"

Jesus: Precisely. One day, my son, you'll learn to turn water into wine. And on that day, you'll get a "meets expectations" on your performance evaluation. Now take this damned water bottle away and bring me some freakin' wine!!

To get an "exceeds expecations", one needs to turn water into heroin or at least pure ethanol.

[Eudaimonist]

It's the old, old story of being required to show respect for nonsensical beliefs.

I don't think we need to show respect for nonsensical beliefs, but we do need to show some civility and sensitivity for the people who hold those beliefs. Yes, the "new atheists" are setting the atheist movement(s) back by making atheists appear insensitive and hateful.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[David B]

It's the old, old story of being required to show respect for nonsensical beliefs.

I don't think we need to show respect for nonsensical beliefs, but we do need to show some civility and sensitivity for the people who hold those beliefs. Yes, the "new atheists" are setting the atheist movement(s) back by making atheists appear insensitive and hateful.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The outspokenness of the Hitchens's and Myer's of this world, to my mind, falls into insignificance when contrasted with the offensiveness of those who tell us not only that we are going to burn forever, but also that we deserve to,

David

[BioBeing]

It's the old, old story of being required to show respect for nonsensical beliefs.

I don't think we need to show respect for nonsensical beliefs, but we do need to show some civility and sensitivity for the people who hold those beliefs.
Trouble is, that is damn nigh impossible. If you criticize a Christian's beliefs, 9 times out of 10 they take it as a personal affront. Doesn't matter how sweet you are. So that leaves us with pussy footing around and saying nothing (old atheists) or saying something (anything) and offending them. Personally, I think they have had their chance, and have mucked up the world royally with it. I'm done pussyfooting around.

[DMB]

If you follow Dawkins's videos, he is always polite to the believers. He just isn't polite about the beliefs.

[BioBeing]

Right - we see him as being polite. Yet, how many times have you read or heard from a Christian how horrid he is? They are always calling him impolite and mean.

[DMB]

Right - we see him as being polite. Yet, how many times have you read or heard from a Christian how horrid he is? They are always calling him impolite and mean.

That's because they interpret attacks on their beliefs as rudeness, or if they're Muslims, defamation of religion.

[crazyfingers]

Right - we see him as being polite. Yet, how many times have you read or heard from a Christian how horrid he is? They are always calling him impolite and mean.

That's because they interpret attacks on their beliefs as rudeness, or if they're Muslims, defamation of religion.

I suppose that's a problem. Their problem really. While I don't talk about religion much in my real life, it almost never comes up, and i don't generally seek out those conversations, I don't have a problem saying what I think when asked on confronted with it.

[Worldtraveller]

It's the old, old story of being required to show respect for nonsensical beliefs.

I don't think we need to show respect for nonsensical beliefs, but we do need to show some civility and sensitivity for the people who hold those beliefs. Yes, the "new atheists" are setting the atheist movement(s) back by making atheists appear insensitive and hateful.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The outspokenness of the Hitchens's and Myer's of this world, to my mind, falls into insignificance when contrasted with the offensiveness of those who tell us not only that we are going to burn forever, but also that we deserve to,

David
Exactly. While it sounds good on paper, in practice, it has to be a two way street.

The theists get back exactly what they serve. Hey, we're just demonstrating the 'golden rule' for them. :evil:

[Alethias]

If the point is winning a fight and showing the christians that we can shove atheism down their throats just like they can shove christianity down our throats, harsh unremitting techniques are fine i guess.

I think Dan Barker is more effective at de-converting believers than P.Z.Myers, though. He chooses his approach based on his intent; see http://ffrf.org/fttoday/back/evangel.html . I much prefer that to being constantly combative. And I don't think anyone can accuse him of accomodating christians.

[David B]

If the point is winning a fight and showing the christians that we can shove atheism down their throats just like they can shove christianity down our throats, harsh unremitting techniques are fine i guess.

I think Dan Barker is more effective at de-converting believers than P.Z.Myers, though. He chooses his approach based on his intent; see http://ffrf.org/fttoday/back/evangel.html . I much prefer that to being constantly combative. And I don't think anyone can accuse him of accomodating christians.

I don't think a one size fits all approach is the best answer.

I see room for Barker, Dawkins, the Dennett (these last two pretty much always polite, despite the lying screams to the contrary, Mr Deity, Hitchens. Jesus and Mo, Robert Crumb, Myers and innumerable others.

David

[Jobar]

She's talking about the argument over Accomodationism (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=2502), which has been discussed here before, for our newer members.

[Ray Moscow]

If the point is winning a fight and showing the christians that we can shove atheism down their throats just like they can shove christianity down our throats, harsh unremitting techniques are fine i guess.

I think Dan Barker is more effective at de-converting believers than P.Z.Myers, though. He chooses his approach based on his intent; see http://ffrf.org/fttoday/back/evangel.html . I much prefer that to being constantly combative. And I don't think anyone can accuse him of accomodating christians.

Yeah, Barker has some good ideas.

There is a time to call "bullshit" on influential and unsubstantiated ideas, though. Yes, it makes many religious people furious, but it also makes a few of them think critically. And it gets them out of my face with their crap, which is usually what I want first of all.

[DMB]

I doubt that PZ is trying to deconvert believers. I think he is more into support for unbelievers.

[Joykins]

Is this a race for the lowest common denominator?

[David B]

Is this a race for the lowest common denominator?

Nah! That would be a no contest.

How could one get lower than claiming that atheists are not only going to hell for eternity, but also deserve to go to hell?

Or, for that matte, to claim that secularists are not fully human?

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3846,Atheists-not-fully-human-says-Cardinal-Cormac-Murphy-OConnor,BBC-Radio,page2

David

[Joykins]

Is this a race for the lowest common denominator?

Nah! That would be a no contest.

How could one get lower than claiming that atheists are not only going to hell for eternity, but also deserve to go to hell?

Or, for that matte, to claim that secularists are not fully human?

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3846,Atheists-not-fully-human-says-Cardinal-Cormac-Murphy-OConnor,BBC-Radio,page2



So I guess the way to win is to take the moral high ground then?

I am not always the most diplomatic of human beings but I usually can see a way to maintain my position without accommodating (I seem to post mostly on secular boards these days--and I don't ever remember actually intending to do this starting out!) and without insulting people. :dunno:

[David B]

Is this a race for the lowest common denominator?

Nah! That would be a no contest.

How could one get lower than claiming that atheists are not only going to hell for eternity, but also deserve to go to hell?

Or, for that matte, to claim that secularists are not fully human?

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3846,Atheists-not-fully-human-says-Cardinal-Cormac-Murphy-OConnor,BBC-Radio,page2



So I guess the way to win is to take the moral high ground then?

I am not always the most diplomatic of human beings but I usually can see a way to maintain my position without accommodating (I seem to post mostly on secular boards these days--and I don't ever remember actually intending to do this starting out!) and without insulting people. :dunno:

Yes, Joykins, you are a welcome member here. I wasn't getting at you at all.

But I think my point stands, that even those atheists who are most rude about christians are not nearly as rude as the most rude christians are about atheists.

David

[Joykins]

Is this a race for the lowest common denominator?

Nah! That would be a no contest.

How could one get lower than claiming that atheists are not only going to hell for eternity, but also deserve to go to hell?

Or, for that matte, to claim that secularists are not fully human?

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3846,Atheists-not-fully-human-says-Cardinal-Cormac-Murphy-OConnor,BBC-Radio,page2



So I guess the way to win is to take the moral high ground then?

I am not always the most diplomatic of human beings but I usually can see a way to maintain my position without accommodating (I seem to post mostly on secular boards these days--and I don't ever remember actually intending to do this starting out!) and without insulting people. :dunno:

Yes, Joykins, you are a welcome member here. I wasn't getting at you at all.

But I think my point stands, that even those atheists who are most rude about christians are not nearly as rude as the most rude christians are about atheists.


They both seem to be going for stuff that gets under the skin the most, though.

[Worldtraveller]

Is this a race for the lowest common denominator?

Nah! That would be a no contest.

How could one get lower than claiming that atheists are not only going to hell for eternity, but also deserve to go to hell?

Or, for that matte, to claim that secularists are not fully human?

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3846,Atheists-not-fully-human-says-Cardinal-Cormac-Murphy-OConnor,BBC-Radio,page2



So I guess the way to win is to take the moral high ground then?

I am not always the most diplomatic of human beings but I usually can see a way to maintain my position without accommodating (I seem to post mostly on secular boards these days--and I don't ever remember actually intending to do this starting out!) and without insulting people. :dunno:

Yes, Joykins, you are a welcome member here. I wasn't getting at you at all.

But I think my point stands, that even those atheists who are most rude about christians are not nearly as rude as the most rude christians are about atheists.

David
Yes, but it does make one want to ask what her views are on those of us who blaspheme regularly, or don't believe. :p

[Joykins]

I would certainly think it rude of you if you were blaspheming in front of me trying to offend me, and if you were offensive enough I would put you in my ignore list because life's too short to deal with that sort of thing in one's spare time when one comes to a messageboard for relaxation and friendly debate.

The rest I kind of see as between you and the God you don't believe in. I personally tend to value kind and loving actions above belief / lack of belief . But I'm not a strong believer in the afterlife, which makes me a sort of unusual Christian.

[BioBeing]

They both seem to be going for stuff that gets under the skin the most, though.

Yes, there are atheists who do that. But, AFAICT, even the atheists who go out of their way to be polite (most of us by far) can be seen by some Christians as being obnoxious for the mere act of speaking out against their religion.

[BioBeing]

I would certainly think it rude of you if you were blaspheming in front of me trying to offend me, and if you were offensive enough I would put you in my ignore list because life's too short to deal with that sort of thing in one's spare time when one comes to a messageboard for relaxation and friendly debate.

The rest I kind of see as between you and the God you don't believe in. I personally tend to value kind and loving actions above belief / lack of belief . But I'm not a strong believer in the afterlife, which makes me a sort of unusual Christian.

btw - what do you consider blasphemy? Surely the very act of being an atheist - saying I do not believe in your God - is an act of blasphemy to some?

[Joykins]

I would certainly think it rude of you if you were blaspheming in front of me trying to offend me, and if you were offensive enough I would put you in my ignore list because life's too short to deal with that sort of thing in one's spare time when one comes to a messageboard for relaxation and friendly debate.

The rest I kind of see as between you and the God you don't believe in. I personally tend to value kind and loving actions above belief / lack of belief . But I'm not a strong believer in the afterlife, which makes me a sort of unusual Christian.

btw - what do you consider blasphemy? Surely the very act of being an atheist - saying I do not believe in your God - is an act of blasphemy to some?

In my headspace, blasphemy is a statement that is intended to mock, defile, or denigrate sacred figures or symbols. Wikipedia says verbal sacrilege which seems about right.

Not believing isn't blasphemy, at least to me, nor calling God "fictional". But out-and-out mockery and insult would qualify as to the definition of the thing. I don't know how much of the concept of blasphemy rests on group-consensus as to the reality of the sacred, though.

[Joykins]

They both seem to be going for stuff that gets under the skin the most, though.

Yes, there are atheists who do that. But, AFAICT, even the atheists who go out of their way to be polite (most of us by far) can be seen by some Christians as being obnoxious for the mere act of speaking out against their religion.

Well, if you did it in a church it would definitely be obnoxious. So much depends on context. In the same way, am probably more polite on the non-debate forums here than I would be at a Christian board because on some level I perceive this messageboard as a space sort of designated in part to let atheists vent common frustrations, not for Christians to vent their frustrations at atheists. If that makes sense.

[Jobar]

If a society has no concept of the sacred, I don't see how blasphemy could exist at all. Nothing sacred- nothing profane.

[Joykins]

If a society has no concept of the sacred, I don't see how blasphemy could exist at all. Nothing sacred- nothing profane.

Is there any non-sub culture with no such concept, though?

[Jobar]

I'm not aware of any. Though it might be that we've the beginnings of such a culture here, on skeptical internet message boards.

[Joykins]

I'm not aware of any. Though it might be that we've the beginnings of such a culture here, on skeptical internet message boards.

I think it would still be a subculture though. But I am not a sociologist. FWIW I consider the evangelical subculture I grew up in to be very much a SUBculture also.

[Jobar]

Which leads me to post a link to This is your brain on religion (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=3561) in the Science forum. It appears that a recent fMRI study "suggests that religious thinking is more associated with brain regions that govern emotion, self-representation, and cognitive conflict, while thinking about ordinary facts is more reliant upon memory retrieval networks."

While it can't be said that unbelievers don't put sometimes-inappropriate emotional loadings on their ideas, it would appear from this that we're less likely to do so than are believers, or at least some of them. We try in general to avoid having emotional commitments to our paradigms and philosophies, and not entangle what we *think* with what we *are*. To the extent this is true- and I freely admit it isn't as great an extent as I would prefer- we unbelievers are more capable of subtle and flexible thought, and are not limited by dogmatic pronouncements which are considered holy, sacred, untouchable. We have fewer roadblocks in our minds.

[Joykins]

thanks for the link; that's an interesting article by Harris et al. (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007272) What do you think of this part of it?

Finally, among our religious stimuli, the subset of statements that ran counter to Christian doctrine yielded greater signal for both groups in several brain regions, including the ventral striatum, paracingulate cortex, middle frontal gyrus, the frontal poles, and inferior parietal cortex (see Fig 3, Table 5). These regions showed greater signal both when Christians rejected stimuli contrary to their doctrine (e.g. “The Biblical god is a myth”) and when nonbelievers affirmed the truth of those same statements. In other words, these brain areas responded preferentially to “blasphemous” statements in both subject groups. This contrast is the result of a double subtraction on religious trials: (Nonbeliever True−Nonbeliever False)−(Christian True−Christian False) = NT−NF−CT+CF = NT+CF−NF−CT = (NT+CF)−(NF + CT). The opposite contrast: (NF−NT)−(CF−CT) produced a null result.

Unless I'm misunderstanding it (which is totally possible) we may not be that different after all.

[DMB]

The trouble with the concept of blasphemy is that one man's blasphemy is another man's assertion of religious doctrine. If we take Christian and Muslim assertions about the position of Jesus, we can see a good example of this. Each can be viewed as blasphemous by the other.

[wordy]

It looks as if the author of the piece has been quote mining to feed what she wanted to believe.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

That's not the message I gave when she interviewed me, but maybe she got it from the others. Or maybe it's what she wanted to hear.

I told her a number of things. I said that atheism doesn't have a central dogma or doctrine, so of course we have a variety of different views under the catch-all category of atheism; and that is a strength of our ideas, that we can freely argue among ourselves. I also explained that we need a variety of approaches to appeal to a wide range of people, and that my personal belief was that we should encourage a thousand flowers of godlessness to bloom, all different.

David

PZ is a strong person, he has a stable emotion and psychology and can stand the diversity.

I've as an atheist has searched since 1983 for at least one other atheist that I could be like minded with.

And I am not so sure that all are as tolerant as he say. the philosophical atheists insists that there are only one correct way to describe atheists.

"atheist means a person that lack belief in gods" or similar words.

What did happen to the atheist who are into Ayn Rand Objectivism? I guess they want their own desciption?

And the Marxist atheist have their version I guess. And the How can Buddhists be seen as atheists if one lack belief in gods. Many of them do believe that gods exists but that one should not become attached to them.

So how is that a diversity if only one description is allowed.

And in countries where atheists are so many that Christians feel marginalized like in Sweden. Christians here felt for a long time so hunted or haunted by us atheists so they recently got adopted by some intellectual atheists to be their pet subjects of affirmative political correctness or something.

These intellectual Atheists in Sweden get angry on the New Atheists for bashing our Fundy Christians. So it is upsidedown here. The Christians that are so few that they see themselves targeted by Christophobic majority.

So Christians are the small kid here and the Bullying Atheist is too mean and the moderate atheists tell us to chill out and lay back and don't worry about Christians.

So it is not a strength at all to be this diverse in atheism.

[Bane]

I'm the kind of atheist who is willing to accept the possibility of being wrong about things. However, I'm also not a fan of Ayn Rand's ideology--it's a bit too extreme! Then again, I am quite far to the left in my views.....

[DMB]

The point is that there is so much casual rudeness from believers towards atheists that it is hard to see why atheists should be respectful in return. Here is an example in today's Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/frank_skinner/article6886168.ece

I really feel there is a God. I know atheism is extremely fashionable nowadays but I just can’t kick this believing thing. I must say that I have a lot of time for atheists. I respect anyone who gives this most momentous question a good deal of thought, whatever conclusion they finally arrive at.

I’m less keen on the glut of bandwagon atheists who’ve just unquestioningly joined in because they think the atheist label makes them sound clever and grown-up. I suspect that they see themselves in an elite senior common room with Bertrand Russell and Charles Darwin while people like me are in Julie’s Pantry with Cliff Richard.

It’s bad enough that many believers never question their own convictions but at least their dumb acceptance comes with an element of “safest option” insurance. I’d have thought, in the bandwagon atheist’s case, that it’s worth having a proper think — maybe even spending an hour on Wikipedia — before turning your back on what might just be a life illuminated by faith. It seems rash to screw up eternity on the strength of something that you read on the side of a bus.

So believing is justified if you "really feel there is a God". Sorry, Mr Skinner, I really feel that there isn't a God.

He is suggesting that people are atheists because it's "fashionable" or because they read something on a bus. This is incredibly crass. Buses have been going around for donkeys' years with Christian slogans, and in fact Christian slogans are spouted on all sides and certainly have been for my entire lifetime. And how many atheists does he know who haven't had a proper think before deciding they are unbelievers? IMO he is just blowing hot air out of his anus.

[Worldtraveller]

The point is that there is so much casual rudeness from believers towards atheists that it is hard to see why atheists should be respectful in return.
No kidding, one of my facebook 'friends' knows I'm an athiest, and when I comment about some stupid (and factually incorrect) policital or religious comment she makes, any reply is always prefaced with something like 'he's an avowed atheist, so take what he says with a grain of salt'....fuck that. We atheists are less than human in many of their eyes.

[Joykins]

The trouble with the concept of blasphemy is that one man's blasphemy is another man's assertion of religious doctrine. If we take Christian and Muslim assertions about the position of Jesus, we can see a good example of this. Each can be viewed as blasphemous by the other.

That's pretty much what I thought Harris (et al) was getting at in the quote.

[wordy]

But that is a bit like how I feel in relation to the Philosophical Atheists too.

So one atheist can feel as humiliated as a theist can when one talk to the hard hitting logic of philosophical atheists.

No wonder we are hated. Could one maybe ask for moratorium on the philosophical atheists. They have been at it now from say 1970 or even earlier.

Us average atheists without high school and with almost no formal education has not been asked if we wants to be represented by the cold logic of academic philosophy.

Are we really atheists because we lack belief in gods. I guess some atheist was like me was for thirty years. As a protest to the cultural religious tradition that told us myths as if they where true.

The same reason we where against Marxists/Leninistic/Maoistic/Castro myths and also against the myths of Liberal the invisible hand of the market. Both promising more than they had evidence for.

To me as an average atheist it is the lack of evidence for gods that is the important part.

The lack of belief sounds academic to me. I don't lack belief at all. I am one hundred per cent sure of that the belief in gods is a something that goes on within the believer and the projection of God to be Creator and so on is a rhetoric requirement to be the biggest and most grand they can come up with to brag and out compete the other more local gods that only reign over a region. In reality the most likely evidence point to that the gods they believe in is in the heads of the believers and thus are cultural way of expression and not supernatural beings. So I don't lack belief in gods at all. I fully trust they are in the head of the believers.

So if I as an average atheist try to talk to a philosophical atheist about this very important fact then they just repeat that there is only one good way to talk about atheists and that is to say that atheists lack the belief in gods, even the gods that are within the believer because that is no god, to be a god it must be something outside of the believer. Why is that? If the most likely explanation is that gods are way to relate to being human and all this is done within the head of the believer then the gods are to be found there and not outside of us.

So I fully can understand why theists react if they only meet philosophical atheists.

They are incredibly tiring to talk to. Like talking to a wall or something.

[trendkill]

The point is that there is so much casual rudeness from believers towards atheists that it is hard to see why atheists should be respectful in return. Here is an example in today's Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/frank_skinner/article6886168.ece

I really feel there is a God. I know atheism is extremely fashionable nowadays but I just can’t kick this believing thing. I must say that I have a lot of time for atheists. I respect anyone who gives this most momentous question a good deal of thought, whatever conclusion they finally arrive at.

I’m less keen on the glut of bandwagon atheists who’ve just unquestioningly joined in because they think the atheist label makes them sound clever and grown-up. I suspect that they see themselves in an elite senior common room with Bertrand Russell and Charles Darwin while people like me are in Julie’s Pantry with Cliff Richard.

It’s bad enough that many believers never question their own convictions but at least their dumb acceptance comes with an element of “safest option” insurance. I’d have thought, in the bandwagon atheist’s case, that it’s worth having a proper think — maybe even spending an hour on Wikipedia — before turning your back on what might just be a life illuminated by faith. It seems rash to screw up eternity on the strength of something that you read on the side of a bus.

So believing is justified if you "really feel there is a God". Sorry, Mr Skinner, I really feel that there isn't a God.

He is suggesting that people are atheists because it's "fashionable" or because they read something on a bus. I think you missed the part at the beginning where he says he has "a lot of time for atheists" as well as "respect" for anyone who gives the question of God's existence some thought. (Obviously the Pascal's Wager stuff is stupid, but that's another subject.)

[DMB]

I think it's pretty disrespectful to suggest that anyone would identify as an atheist because of fashion or what they see on the side of a bus. In my experience the unthinking are likely to shun the dangerous word "atheist" and simply say that they are "not (very) religious".

[Joykins]

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
is probably true of many atheists and Christians.

[Alethias]

I'm never outwardly, intentionally blasphemous when i'm in a church. It's not out of any desire to give their religion any special treatment; it's simply out of a desire to give them equivalent respect to what I would demand were the tables turned and they were in my space.

If someone comes on my property and criticizes my lack of religion, I first tell them their rudeness is not welcome; if they persist, I tell them to leave immediately and never come back.

There is no call to pointlessly antagonize people on their home turf, ever. Public spaces are a different matter.

I agree, Dennett is consistently, unfailingly polite. Dawkins is polite in tone, all the while aggressively pursuing his victims with his meanings. Myers is sometimes fairly dry and clinical, sometimes virulent in his tone. Hitchens rails at people to the point that I find him hard to listen to for very long. The ones that I find myself agreeing with the most and enjoying the most are Sam Harris and Dan Barker, who both seem to adopt the appropriate tone for the situation.

[DMB]

Dawkins is polite in tone, all the while aggressively pursuing his victims with his meanings.

He is an Oxford academic. That's what they do all the time with their colleagues.

[Jobar]

Jesus and Mo (http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/09/) offer their usual trenchant commentary on this matter. :D

[trendkill]

I think it's pretty disrespectful to suggest that anyone would identify as an atheist because of fashion or what they see on the side of a bus. In my experience the unthinking are likely to shun the dangerous word "atheist" and simply say that they are "not (very) religious".I guess by those standards it could be seen as disrespectful to imply that people do a lot of things (crimes, for instance), but that doesn't mean it makes sense to pretend that nobody ever does them. Fact is that it's human nature to believe things because of social pressures, i.e. "fashion", rather than because of evidence. Disrespect would be singling someone out, for example, saying that only atheists believe things because it's fashionable and theists are smarter than that. But that's not what he says.

[wordy]

I think it's pretty disrespectful to suggest that anyone would identify as an atheist because of fashion or what they see on the side of a bus. In my experience the unthinking are likely to shun the dangerous word "atheist" and simply say that they are "not (very) religious".I guess by those standards it could be seen as disrespectful to imply that people do a lot of things (crimes, for instance), but that doesn't mean it makes sense to pretend that nobody ever does them. Fact is that it's human nature to believe things because of social pressures, i.e. "fashion", rather than because of evidence. Disrespect would be singling someone out, for example, saying that only atheists believe things because it's fashionable and theists are smarter than that. But that's not what he says.

When I grew up it was fashion to be short cut in hair style. Even Elvis had too long hair but being an artist the fans kind of accepted it to be his style.

When Beatles came along we where so unused to their hairstyle that it took us with surprise. When one look at old pictures of them now then I even fail to see how it could have looked too long.

Fashion is a very strong social group pressure.

Very few seems to be strong enough to not fall for doing a Tattoo somewhere or to pierce themselves.

The problem with evidence based beliefs are that people use very diverse criteria for what counts as evidence.

Sam Harris is a good example. He has personal experience of being one with the Universe and seems to count such experiences as good enough evidence for to recommend others to do same kind of meditation that gave him that feeling of unity with all there is.

To me that is to see evidence where there is none to be found.

To me it is immoral to recommend such meditation. There is no evidence for it to be what they claim. It only feels like they are one with the Universe.

I like some aspects of Shin Buddhism very much. Because I felt like them. Similar to Sam Harris me too have had personal experiences. But I can not recommend Shin Buddhism because they make a lot of claims that there is no evidence for.

I dare to recommend Aweism because it doesn't make a claim. It only express a feeling or maybe an attitude.

Extraordinary claims needs extraordinary evidence.

Is that not why atheists are so adamant???? or keen or persisting or eager to always plug that atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

They prefer to not make claims that gods doesn't exists. Because if you make a "positive claim" then you have the burden of providing evidence for that claim. So by saying that they lack beliefs in gods they don't have to give evidence for there to be no god.

Is it not almost a fashion to say that atheism is without faith, that atheists lacks beliefs in gods? When I grow up it was fashion to say that atheists say that there are no gods. But that such expressions came out of fashion around 1970 or so due to books by Anthony Flew, George Smith, Michael Martin, Paul Kurtz, maybe John Mackie? also contributed?

[wordy]

How far to go in mocking religion.

Some atheists say religion should be as ridiculed by us atheists as possible.

I thought so too and felt for actively do that for some thirty years and I took every chance to express it in public too.
When I really was at it I climbed up on the stage and tried to take away the microphone from the Christian and to tell the believers that they where wrong.

There are no gods!

I was like that for thirty years and then some. It felt very good. I felt righteous, I was the Good Guy doing the right thing. Down with faith. Faith no more. The End if Faith.

Since 1983 I don't trust this is the right thing to do. I guess I still hate evangelists but it is not a working strategy to mock religion.

I have tried. I think it is fair to say that I have mocked Terevada Buddhism in FRDB for many years. Did it change any Buddhist at all? No they grew only stronger in their defense of their version of Buddhism. To mock religion only makes it more persistent.

Do you know why Denmark, Norway and Sweden are among the ten most secular countries? Maybe because Christian faith was obligatory in School so we felt it as a Top Down demand to comply to something we had not chosen on our own free will.

I am naive enough to trust that the reason we got Elvis and all the others that didn't sing Jazz was that Jazz had become a kind of Top Down social pressure. We had not chosen it based on our own preferences. The Teachers told us it was good music.

So we chose Elvis instead. Which they hated because it was simplistic music. Not art to them.