Possibly true, but atheists have seen the result of religious views that people have decided is right for them, and it's often disgusting. One can only expect such sorts of hostile reactions.

Truly, to each their own, but if what you choose threatens the lives or liberties of others than with all due respect: go to hell.

A few years ago, it was difficult to persuade commercial publishers even to think of bringing out books on religion.

I guess that's why "The Da Vinci Code" is such an unpopular book.

My impression is that atheists want only level-headed discourse on the realities affecting humanity, and are happy to leave fantasy to people's personal lives.

atheist- someone who does not believe in a "higher power"

religious person- someone who does believe in a "higher power"

douche bag- someone who feels there way is the only way and anyone who doesn't do as they do or believe as they believe, then that person is somehow "flawed" or not intelligent.

here endeth the thread.

log_jammin: there way

meh

/thread over

FTA: "On the whole, however, the anti-God squad has dominated the sales charts, and it is worth asking why."

Duh. Because the West is being challenged by Islamic religious fanatics, and the Christian religious fanatics are making ID-iots of themselves with their Evolution opposition. Common sense dictates looking for another alternative, and Science is bigger than Taoism/Buddhism in the West.

The problem is that while Science has been stepping onto traditional religious turf by explaining the universe, it hasn't yet stepped up to taking a rigorous look at morality. (Probably because there's no obvious big money in it.)

/I wonder when Bevets wakes up on Saturdays?

abb3w: The problem is that while Science has been stepping onto traditional religious turf by explaining the universe, it hasn't yet stepped up to taking a rigorous look at morality.

Is morality a scientific concept?

log_jammin makes a good point

abb3w I wonder when Bevets wakes up on Saturdays?

you mean: I wonder when Bevets is BOOTED up on Saturdays.

/It's a bot, I tells ya.

FTA - "Something like this occurred in Nazi Germany."

So he auto-Godwins his own argument? Nice.

And, as been mentioned above, us atheists don't want to ban your worship: we merely don't want your morality enshrined in law. The author's mention of "militant secularism" is another attack on a non-existent group.

Mr Logo: log_jammin makes a good point

meetings are every other thursday, and the newsletter is mailed out on the second tuesday of the month

Professor_Nutbutter: FTA - "Something like this occurred in Nazi Germany."

So he auto-Godwins his own argument? Nice.

And, as been mentioned above, us atheists don't want to ban your worship: we merely don't want your morality enshrined in law. The author's mention of "militant secularism" is another attack on a non-existent group.

Someone's never met an anti-theist before.

Atheist: person who, based upon observation and analysis, hypothesizes that there is no god or gods.
Anti-theist: person who believes in a dogma of unfailing science and whose behavior centers around the unceasing denigration of persons who hold differing opinions. See also: Douchebag.

Sun God: Is morality a scientific concept?

Not particularly at the moment, and certainly not rigorously, no. A more interesting question is, could it be made so?

Occam's Chainsaw: Someone's never met an anti-theist before.

Sigh... someone is going to drag out the better version of this graphic, even though it's horsepucky....


Many people use the same word to mean different things. It would be nice if people distinguished between those who hold their positions on the existence of God as Theory, Theorem, or Axiom/Postulate. Most disputants don't bother. It is an error of Equivocation to treat all such meanings of "theist" and "atheist" as interchangable.

It would be nice if those in the inevitable flamewar could strive to be clear as to which they mean... but I ain't holding my breath.

Feel free to consider me as a test case for your categories. I have no faith in God's existence; I have hope for God's existence.

/I haz theory

I can barely get any peace for all the atheists knocking on my door telling me how to live.

The problem isn't Atheism. The problem is Anti-theism. Every now and then when you have an idea, people will abuse, distort, and twist that idea until its practically the opposite that it started with, and still identify with the original group.

These people are insane. They are in every group, and the rabid anti-theist atheists prove this. No matter what you are, what you represent, what you believe, there is someone who will identify themselves with that idea while not performing in full accordance of what that idea stands for. As rational people and Americans, we should separate ourselves that a name applied to one's beliefs, no matter what they may be, is what shapes the person and not the beliefs themselves.

abb3w: Many people use the same word to mean different things. It would be nice if people distinguished between those who hold their positions on the existence of God as Theory, Theorem, or Axiom/Postulate. Most disputants don't bother. It is an error of Equivocation to treat all such meanings of "theist" and "atheist" as interchangable.

It would be nice if those in the inevitable flamewar could strive to be clear as to which they mean... but I ain't holding my breath.

Feel free to consider me as a test case for your categories. I have no faith in God's existence; I have hope for God's existence.

/I haz theory

Agreed. As usual, the semantics of the discussion get in the way of the discussion itself. Were we to use more precise, deliberate wording, a goodly bit of the snark and flames could be avoided. But this is Fark, where brief and pithy trumps long and accurate just about every time.

/I hypothesize that there is some sort of higher-order being(s)/force(s), but am wiling to accept all evidence to the contrary and have been known to be wrong before.

abb3w: Sun God: Is morality a scientific concept?

Not particularly at the moment, and certainly not rigorously, no. A more interesting question is, could it be made so?

There would have to be some axioms and postulates. Such as: 1) Wrong=harm. 2) Right=benefit. 3) Justice=zero.

Or something like that. Anthropologically, altruism doesn't exist.

FTFA: Religion has not gone away. Repressing it is like repressing sex

Geez, I can't decide whether to go highbrow or mudslinging... I'll just do both.

I came out of the metaphorical closet as an atheist last Christmas (yes, Christmas, that's the name of the farking festivity) but long before then I have been promoting critical thinking and encouraging people to fend for themselves, so they are able to defend themselves against frauds and cons.
I always stop short before pointing to religion, hoping that someone of the dozens of people I speak to makes the connection.

Impossible? My dear mother has stopped going to church and become very critical of organized religion.

Sun God: Or something like that. Anthropologically, altruism doesn't exist.

Well it depends on the field of others that the actors consider themselves responsible towards in their emic perspective. If you recognize a benefit to yourself from helping others, does that deny the motive?

In countries where there is a large percentage of atheists, or with a small percentage of fundamentalist religious types, or both, the subject doesn't come up much because there is nothing for those on either side to react to.

I've lived for 25 years in two such places (Hong Kong and Thailand) and have probably had three or four conversations concerning god(s) in all that time. Because almost nobody cares about the subject.

So if everybody became atheist (without coercion), then yeah..life would be transformed. Can there be any argument here?

they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody."

Like hell it is. The idea of the people who are convinced that without some omnipotent babysitter looking after them, they'd be out raping, pillaging, and murdering their way to success turning into atheists scares the fark out of me. Atheism is not for everyone, as it requires some level of comfort in the idea that there is nothing beyond us. As such, a lot of people need religion so that they can cope with not just their own death, but the deaths of family members as well.

abb3w

Anti-theists is a bit of a misnomer in and of itself because typically they aren't "anti-god", but anti-Abrahamic religions (usually as a result of losing their faith and feeling betrayed). Most aren't even aware Hindu, Shinto, or other Eastern religions that have managed to keep a majority of their focus on spirituality.

Seems those crazy atheists believe in all manner of offensive stuff:

"A credulous belief in world revolution, universal democracy or the occult powers of mobile phones is more offensive to reason than the mysteries of religion"

Wait, mobile phones have occult powers??!? Do I have to dial a secret number? I bet the UltraFarkers know...

Professor_Nutbutter: FTA - "Something like this occurred in Nazi Germany."

So he auto-Godwins his own argument? Nice.

And, as been mentioned above, us atheists don't want to ban your worship: we merely don't want your morality enshrined in law. The author's mention of "militant secularism" is another attack on a non-existent group.

I'm not so foolish as to think the source of morality is in any religion. It probably comes from humanity's evolution as a society - individuals can't interact within a society without the expectation that their counterparts behave within certain norms. However, religion does have a role to play in addressing whether particular behaviours are ethical. Even if society at large dismisses the arguments presented, they are at least worthy of consideration before a decision is reached.

I think it's kind of funny that religion likes attacking atheist a hell of a lot more than they like attacking agnosticism. Yet, I've met a hell of a lot more agnostics...

I think it tells me the major religions are scared of going up against it and logically speaking, it's a hell of a lot easier to go up against agnostics.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. From an abstract view, Atheist = Christian = Anything other religion. You have no proof, why take concrete stances and leaps of faith?

abb3w Common sense dictates looking for another alternative, and Science is bigger than Taoism/Buddhism/Quakerism/Unitarianism in the West.

FTFY, just to note that there are a few of us out there who manage to exist in one "christian nation" or another while still accepting that almost everybody has at least some good ideas... and that in a lot of cases, we rather like science. (Stephen Hawking's co-author on "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time," George Ellis, is but one of many examples.)

It was my understanding that the "argument from equivalence" was pretty widely understood to be a fallacious one. An adult does not attempt to justify unacceptable behavior by pointing at some other person or group and proclaiming "they do it too!".

Okay before I was just snarky because the guy kept using "Darwinist" over and over. That word just shows his bias.

However, as an atheist (of the 'I lack any belief in a supernatural entity of any kind, but am willing to change my views if anyone can provide objective evidence to the contrary' kind for those wanting clarity) I have no desire whatsoever to force anyone to believe as I do. I think if you flat out asked the atheists mentioned in the article if they thought they would see the end of religious faith in their lifetimes, that all of them would say no.

The vast majority of atheists I know only want the religious to quit trying to force their beliefs on us or our children. I want them to quit trying to distort science for reasons that are only slightly related to my atheism. Namely, in the long run screwing up people's understanding of science can't be good for humanity in general. I make a much greater effort to push skepticism than I do atheism.

I've never had the impression that any of the atheists mentioned had a quarrel with anyone who said "I believe in a god. This is based only on faith. I can't prove any of it. I however feel it is right for me and I won't force it on anyone else."

Neurochemist:

I think it's kind of funny that religion likes attacking atheist a hell of a lot more than they like attacking agnosticism. Yet, I've met a hell of a lot more agnostics...

That's because most self-identified "agnostics" don't know what the term means.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. From an abstract view, Atheist = Christian = Anything other religion.

From this comment it looks like you might be one of them.

You have no proof, why take concrete stances and leaps of faith?

Saying "Prove your claim with objective and verifiable evidence" isn't "taking a leap of faith".

You = Fail.

log_jammin: meetings are every other thursday, and the newsletter is mailed out on the second tuesday of the month

Can I have a 3 year subscription please.

Sun God: I guess that's why "The Da Vinci Code"

That book, first of all, wasn't some kind of "atheist bible". It slammed pretty hard on Opus Dei, but (spoiler alert) the real bad guy at the end wasn't the Opus Dei guy.

abb3w: Duh. Because the West is being challenged by Islamic religious fanatics, and the Christian religious fanatics are making ID-iots of themselves with their Evolution opposition. Common sense dictates looking for another alternative, and Science is bigger than Taoism/Buddhism in the West.

This is a better reason for the publishers being willing to publish more "anti-god" stuff.

The problem is that while Science has been stepping onto traditional religious turf by explaining the universe, it hasn't yet stepped up to taking a rigorous look at morality. (Probably because there's no obvious big money in it.)

Ummm .... They are.

unfortunately, it is mostly being published in papers dealing with evolutionary biology and psychology. Essentially they are endeavoring to understand why certain behaviors are favored over others.

One example ^{(^)}
Another example ^{(^)}

Sure, those two studies (the first articles I found in a very brief search) are about birds, but they reflect very "human" style behavior. Which, from an evolutionary standpoint, gives evidence that behaviors that enhance the survivability of a group tend to proliferate, and those behaviors that don't enhance survivability of the group or individual or a group, tend to disappear.

Huge chunks of "morality" can be predicted based on how beneficial those moral codes will be to group survival. On top of that, there are seemingly paradoxical behaviors which will each enhance survivability, but are mutually exclusive. For example, the behavior of some men to try to have sex with every female they deal with, as opposed to men who have solidly monogamous relationships for a lifetime. Each potentially enhances the chance of DNA proliferation, although in a different way.

The difference between the scientific approach and the religious approach is 1) The religious approach adds in random nonsensical rules and demands you follow all the rules 2) The scientific approach looks for the reality of the situation, and doesn't condemn you to hell for not doing what they tell you to do.

// emergency at work.. gotta go...I'll be backk

Why do so many people keep saying that atheism requires faith? Do you think that rejecting every baseless, arbitrary belief also requires faith?

There is no such thing as an invisible monkey jackhammer-humping your head. You don't believe me? You dogmatic faith whore!

Evangelical _________s never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody

Fix'd.

maddogdelta: Sun God: I guess that's why "The Da Vinci Code"

That book, first of all, wasn't some kind of "atheist bible".

It also wasn't an unpopular book. Did you miss my sarcasm?

I read a wonderfully articulated criticism of this guys philosophy by Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter:

Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia

"What Gray fails to grasp is the transcendence and power that comes with achieving the moral life, a life a realist has to concede is absurd. There is a meaning to existence. It is found, as Fyodor Dostoevsky, Joseph Conrad and Vasily Grossman knew in simple, blind acts of human kindness, especially towards the outcast and the stranger. It is discovered when we confront and acknowledge the inevitable chains and limitations of human nature but do not completely succumb to them. These small acts of compassion, never free from the taint of self-interest, do not make the world a quantifiably better place. We will not be rewarded for them. We will not save ourselves from evil, suffering and death. But these acts mean that we have, if only for a moment, felt what it means to be fully human. We have reacted not as animals in a herd, but as individuals who rose above our baser instincts and the clamor of the mob to defy hatred and bigotry and to cherish life. These acts of compassion allow us to become conscious, if only for a moment, in an unconscious world."

Capitalist1: Why do so many people keep saying that atheism requires faith? Do you think that rejecting every baseless, arbitrary belief also requires faith?

There is no such thing as an invisible monkey jackhammer-humping your head. You don't believe me? You dogmatic faith whore!

Again, atheist -vs- anti-theist. Atheism requires very little faith, relying more on fact and simple conjecture. Anti-theism is practically a religion in and of itself.

If tomorrow, someone were to provide some sort of proof that the Judeo-Christian YHWH existed:
Atheist: Hmm. Wow, how unlikely is that? I'll have to wait until all the evidence is in, but for the moment, I'm convinced. I was wrong. Guess I better get to my local mock-cannibalism ceremony and quick.
Anti-theist: THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

Neurochemist: I've said it before and I'll say it again. From an abstract view, Atheist = Christian = Anything other religion. You have no proof, why take concrete stances and leaps of faith?

Because atheism is a lack of belief. Not a claim of certain knowledge.

Occam's Chainsaw: Anti-theist: THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

Perhaps. Or more likely, "Ah hell. I gotta bow and scrape to this immature egomaniac?"

Sofa King Awesome: Sun God: Or something like that. Anthropologically, altruism doesn't exist.

Well it depends on the field of others that the actors consider themselves responsible towards in their emic perspective. If you recognize a benefit to yourself from helping others, does that deny the motive?

Altruism is usually defined as doing good without the expectation of reward. So, yes, it does deny the motive.

0Icky0: atheism is a lack of belief. Not a claim of certain knowledge.

A lack of belief is ignorance.


Claiming to know(and therefor believe) there is no "god" is atheism.

log_jammin: A lack of belief is ignorance.

So you are ignorant because you don't believe in the Thunder God Thor?
Or in the Fountain of Youth?
Or in an infinite number of conjectures?

Occam's Chainsaw: Capitalist1: Why do so many people keep saying that atheism requires faith? Do you think that rejecting every baseless, arbitrary belief also requires faith?

There is no such thing as an invisible monkey jackhammer-humping your head. You don't believe me? You dogmatic faith whore!

Again, atheist -vs- anti-theist. Atheism requires very little faith, relying more on fact and simple conjecture. Anti-theism is practically a religion in and of itself.

If tomorrow, someone were to provide some sort of proof that the Judeo-Christian YHWH existed:
Atheist: Hmm. Wow, how unlikely is that? I'll have to wait until all the evidence is in, but for the moment, I'm convinced. I was wrong. Guess I better get to my local mock-cannibalism ceremony and quick.
Anti-theist: THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

I think my response would be, "That's nice, now why exactly should I care?" I mean knowing such a thing would be interesting in the same way the horsehead nebula is interesting, but I can't see certain knowledge that a god exists changing my life much.

Just as an aside, can someone explain to me what the fark is an "Evangelical" atheist? Is it yet another term for the mythical category of disbeliever that folks like the author use in an attempt to create false equivocation between the beliefs of theists and the disbelief of atheists?

Empanda: but I can't see certain knowledge that a god exists changing my life much.

Unless it was a goddess with like 20 tits or something.

Murkanen - well, why don't you clarify for me?

Because I'm under the impression that:

Atheist contend that no afterlife exist until it is proven.

Agnostics contend that they are refraining from making a decision until it is proven.

Empanda: "I believe in a god. This is based only on faith. I can't prove any of it. I however feel it is right for me and I won't force it on anyone else."

That is exactly my position. However, my religion - like many religions - is based around a core of dogma. Certain fundamental precepts that govern what I believe and how I behave. I can see why people who choose a different belief system (or an absence of beliefs) can think that I and my counterparts are somehow judging them or feel that we think they are doing wrong if they behave in a way counter to our beliefs.

It doesn't feel good to be judged and I think that might be the biggest part of the feelings of ill-will. I'm Catholic and I can guarantee that there are many people out there that blame my particular religion for all sorts of things from AIDS in Africa to the Holocaust to the belief that every priest is a pedophile. Some other Christians have told me I'm going to hell and that I'm not really Christian at all. I treat this as an exercise in humility.

How about the simple fact that this is on the Guardian?

log_jammin:

A lack of belief is ignorance.

I think this may be the first facepalm-worthy comment I've seen from you.