Friday morning February 26th, 60 representatives from the Secular Coalition of America met with White House staff to discuss three issues of concern to it’s members which consists of non-religious Americans. Those three issues included protecting children from religiously motivated neglect and abuse, ending proselytizing in the military and working to ensure that various faith based initiatives don’t cause religious discrimination to individuals in need.
While that agenda seems fairly benign and something most individuals regardless of faith or lack thereof would agree with, that didn’t stop the right wing smear machine from spreading fear and lies about the meeting. Apparently the idea that non-religious Americans should be treated with the same respect all other citizens expect from our government is enough to cause right wing hysteria. Sean Hannity of Fox News was found to have made at least 4 factual errors in his quick statement about the meeting falsely claiming that this meeting in some way meant that the nonreligious were getting special treatment from the Obama adminstration. Sean’s statement was nowhere near as inflammatory as what occurred in the right wing blogosphere, which basically labeled the groups participating in the Coalition as hate groups. For perspective on this issue, it is important to realize that one of the groups runs a summer camp and another one is the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.
Hey Look I’m Bobbo and I’m so profoundly funny DURP DURP DURP!
Bobbo is a gnostic trapped is a fool’s body!
bobbo is not angry.
bobbo has no intuited knowledge.
bobbo does believe any god that affects hooman beings without their permission is above all a tyrant.
Perhaps that is a dualism?
I am not an atheist or an agnostic. I’m normal. Atheist, gentile, infidel, heathen, and such words are what YOU use to describe me, or anyone not subscribing to your myths.
I don’t have any religion. Or faith in a higher or superior being. I do have faith in the basic good of mankind towards one another; we are a herd animal. We are also territorial though and that becomes our mean streak or nasty side.
When someone can show me some empirical evidence that there is some “invisible dude in the sky” I will most likely re-evaluate that position. Until then, there is nothing to demonstrate there is one.
So Ralph what makes you think you aren’t an atheist?
“Other” people will also call you a man, 5 foot 8, or college educated. Why pose as if the dictionary meaning of words don’t apply to you?
#104 – Ralph,
I understand the desire to not be labeled by a negative, i.e. does not believe in god. Unfortunately, people seem to adore putting labels on everything and everyone. And, belief in god is quite pervasive. So, people want a label for none of the above. Also unfortunate is that there are many flavors of choosing none of the above with respect to religion. So we have many labels for it.
Deist: Rejects organized religion but does believe in god.
Agnostic: Doesn’t know.
Apatheistic: Doesn’t care.
Atheist: Believes there is no god, generally based on available evidence, though the god crowd likes to call it an assertion.
Antitheist: Believes that religion is evil, generally antitheists are also atheists. Though, I could imagine a deist being opposed to religion. I’m not sure what that would be called, presumably Thomas Jefferson.
So, I don’t mind the label atheist much. I’m also an a-stamp-collector, a-golfer, a-hunter, etc. And, I wear many labels that are based on my actual beliefs rather than a lack thereof, such as antitheist, liberal, progressive, environmentalist, pro-choice, feminist (yes, a male feminist, the belief that women have brains), pro-LBGT-rights, and I’d love to add scientist as the belief in science as the way to learn, though the word is already taken to mean a professional researcher.
And, how about sexist, the belief that sex is good? But, that word already has a negative denotation. Too bad really. I could see sexism as a religion based on the Kama Sutra. That would be much better than the current meaning.
Bobbo,
I don’t consider myself an atheist for the same reason you don’t consider yourself an asshole, regardless of what pedro or doill think.
Misanthropic Scott,
Agnostic = lazy atheist
Apatheistic = stupid atheist
Atheist = Someone who knows there isn’t a supreme being. Usually has a higher regard for science and scientific methods than non atheists.
Antitheist = Someone who enjoys tormenting theists with their own religion. Richard Dawkins is a good example. Usually quite funny and always entertaining, in a good way.
Normal = Someone smart enough to know using labels is a trap.
Theist = Someone I don’t want piloting or maintaining my airplane.
Ralph, I’m a stupid atheist! Cool.
I’ll admit I really don’t know anything, it’s the beginning of wisdom. Being told that you know know nothing means you have teenagers.
If anyone quotes Psalms or Proverbs I’ll be deeply disappointed.
Voltaire said “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
I take that to mean that humans need to believe in something bigger than them. (But, like the 12-steppers’ “higher power”, it doesn’t have to be a Big Guy in the Big Sky. It could simply be the whole of humanity, or the universe itself.) But I digress.
So even if there isn’t a BGitBS, people will believe in it anyway. So it doesn’t really matter if God exists or not, people will believe anyway.
So we have
God exists
God doesn’t exist
I don’t know if God exists
I don’t care if God exists
And now we add:
It doesn’t matter if God exists
What kind of XXXX-theist is that?
Phydeau, I couldn’t have put it better.
Phydeau,
Maybe there is a third option Voltaire missed. The need to be labeled, although that is starting to sound like something Maslow would come up with. We want to be known, or are at least comfortable with being known, as white, American, male, professional, young, good looking, intelligent, follicle endowed, etc. (or whatever your label is). Yet elderly, native, Canadian, bald, women, laborers might object.
All of those adjectives are simply labels we either like, accept, or consider negative. Theist, agnostic, or atheist, depending upon which side of the fence you are on.
#112 I think there’s something to that, a need to be identified, and also to be identified as part of a group of similarly inclined people. Good survival technique in general.
Though I get the impression that atheists are less inclined to want to group together than theists.
RE #108,
I would like to rephrase part of my comment.
“Atheist = Someone who
knowsbelieves there isn’t a supreme being. Usually has a higher regard for science and scientific methods than non atheists. Thus an atheist believes there is no supreme being as there is no evidence to support such a theory.#114 Well, as you know, it’s very hard to prove a negative. Lack of evidence to support a position is not the same as disproving that position. That’s why I don’t consider myself an atheist. I haven’t seen evidence to make me believe a deity exists, but I haven’t seen all the evidence in the universe yet so I’m not ready to make a decision on that issue.
#113, Phydeau,
We are venturing into an area I don’t know. I tend to agree with your statement and put it down as Man’s tribal nature. we prefer to congregate with those we identify with, be it skin color, employment, sex, sport or other entertainment, sex, age, etc., with the one exception of our drive to mate. As an example, one of the biggest draws to join a religion (or church) today is the sense of community and the comfort that gives.
I would hope that as our technology has improved, the need to congregate for the more primitive reasons has diminished. Our tribal congregations today are less the need to find some beef to eat and instead has progressed to become divided between hamburgers and prime rib.
#115 – Phydeau,
Well, as you know, it’s very hard to prove a negative. Lack of evidence to support a position is not the same as disproving that position. That’s why I don’t consider myself an atheist. I haven’t seen evidence to make me believe a deity exists, but I haven’t seen all the evidence in the universe yet so I’m not ready to make a decision on that issue.
Just a quick consistency check, how do you feel about the existence of fire-breathing dragons? There’s lots of existing literature featuring them. Many people tell such tales. There is no less evidence of dragons than gods. Do you allow for the possibility that fire-breathing, flying dragons exist?
If so, you’re self-consistent. If not, why the difference between dragons and gods?
Ralph,
Labels are a quick shorthand. When I say I’m a liberal, most people can guess many of my political opinions. The fact that I do actually think for myself and have some differences of opinion with the liberal platform, if there can still be said to be a platform now that the party is dead, does not change the fact that it is still a convenient shorthand.
The idea of the labels is to convey larger chunks of data in shorter time frames. It’s not a perfect mechanism because few of us fit very many labels perfectly. But, it would take far less time to tell you my differences with most liberals than it would to tell you where I agree. So, the label works for me.
The idea of ridding ourselves of labels just means that discussions would take a lot longer to convey the same information.
#115, Phydeau,
No disrespect, but your post reminds me of an insult from when I was a kid.
(The person is so stupid that) When they were handing out brains he thought they said trains so he is waiting for the caboose.
When a theist states that “my god created the heavens and the earth in six days” I say show me the evidence. When a theist suggests “all great warriors end up in Valhalla” I ask where that is. When a theist tells me “you wassa goat, or maybe an artichoke, in a past life” I want to know how he knows this when I don’t. I don’t need to wait around for the evidence to arise that these theists are talking fantasy. Their claim, their responsibility to demonstrate that claim.
No, science hasn’t discovered everything. Science has demonstrated that so many previously common myths, such as lightening being god’s anger or Thor’s hammer, have a much more rational explanation. Babies aren’t god’s will, design, grace, benevolence, or blessing. Babies come about because an egg was fertilized by some male sperm, usually after some whoopy. Hurricanes are caused by very large low pressure systems being fed by the updrafts of the Canary Islands. Earthquakes are tectonic plates moving against each other. Droughts are caused by shifts in winds and sea temperatures.
These things we know that the gods don’t do. Waiting for the caboose means the train will leave the station without you.
#117,
If so, you’re self-consistent. If not, why the difference between dragons and gods?
Cuteness factor. Would you like to live with a god that has a reputation of smiting, floods, pestilence, and causing birth defects?