Would Jesus Practice Vandalism?

Atheists Are Really Sad Because People Keep Vandalizing Their Adopt-A-Highway Sign, You Guys Via @dailycaller:

The Adopt-A-Highway sign heralding a stretch of road occasionally cleaned by a California atheist group has been defaced for a second time in the last three weeks.

The most recent act of vandalism to the sign sponsored by Atheists United San Luis Obispo occurred last week. An unknown perpetrator sawed the sign off its posts and painted over the first letter and the last letters of “Atheists.”

Thus, after the vandalism, the all-caps word “ATHEISTS” was transformed to “THEIST.”

Members of heathen group say they refuse to be intimidated by someone causing damage to their highway sign on the southbound side of Highway 101 near Atascadero, Calif.

“Despite this act of vandalism, AU SLO remains dedicated to making it acceptable to be a non-believer in this county,” group president Steven Arkowitz said is a press release sent to The Daily Caller.

These vandals are simply proving what many atheists already know, that morals and ethics are not exclusive to the religious.

Atheists can do good. I won't comment on the vandals.

I'm not sure why this is on The Daily Caller. Also, it's weird that they have a "poll" question at the bottom: "Does The Highway Sign Deserve To Get Vandalized?"

I think that The Daily Caller thinks that the sign is alive.

Atheist

God does not exist. The word atheist should not exist.

There is no need for the word. The word nothing already suffices.

I have read quite a bit about atheism. I have just read On Defining Atheism and it has motivated me to write some things I have been contemplating for some time.

I must credit Greg Graffin for these thoughts from his book Anarchy Evolution:

"But I have problems with the word "atheism." It defines what someone is not rather than what someone is. It would be like calling me an a-instrumentalist for Bad Religion rather than the band's singer. Defining yourself as against something says very little about what you are for.

Greg Graffin prefers to call himself a naturalist for this reason. I now prefer the word naturalist to describe myself.

Another problem I see with the word atheist is that many of its definitions have the word God in them. Some use the word deity, or supreme being, or god. Some, however, use the word God as in Christian God.

Simply put, many describe an atheist as a person who does not believe in God. This is problematic. The mindset of a believer is different than that of a non-believer. I believe that deists and theists do not formulate the same meaning of the word atheist that atheists do. To them, God is a truism. There is a God, atheists simply do not believe in Him. To them, atheists do not believe in something that is real.

There is a problem with the construction of the definition. Having the word God in the definition of atheism implies that God exists, and is real. Atheists simply choose to not believe in something that the dictionary defines and has a word for.

The existence of the word atheist elevates the word God and gives it more importance than it deserves. Greg Graffin is a singer, not an ainstrumentalist. People who do not believe in Bigfoot are not called abigfoot. People who do not believe in ghosts are not called aghosts. This is another case of religion being special. It has a special word for those who do not believe.

The word atheist gives an unfair advantage to the religious believer. It is similar to a runner being given a head start or a golfer a handicap. I prefer to think of it as special dispensation.

In nothing we trust.

I Call Shenanigans

Words matter. It is deceitful to use a word to mean something it does not mean. Dave Armstrong should revisit the 8th commandment.

Dave Armstrong is a writer for Patheos. His bio is posted on his site. In part it says:

Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991...

Ted Cruz sees an "assault on faith", others see "militant atheists" and others see a need to "defend" Christianity. This here means war, I guess. I don't understand the need for all of these war words. Why does Christianity need defending? The dictionary gives one definition of defend as "to maintain or support in the face of argument or hostile criticism". I think that Christians need to convince themselves of their faith and that is the reason they become so defensive. By the way all of the above war labels like "militant atheist" come from the religious. Atheists do not define themselves in those terms. At least I haven't come across any that do. Most of us dislike those descriptions.

Later on Armstrong's bio says:

Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.

It's kind of a low blow to emphasize a Catholic priest named Father Hardon, but I simply couldn't pass this by. Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour. Also, Dave seems rather proud of his association with Father Hardon. It seems to me that Father Hardon should have moved to Fucking, Austria. Either that or maybe a name change was in order. Sometimes it seems like The Onion is hacking other websites and sneaking in little tidbits. Or maybe sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

Enough of all this silliness.

I call shenanigans because of this:

My bottom line point in all this is that atheism requires as much faith as Christianity does...

No. No No. A thousand or more times no.  My dictionary defines an atheist as "a person who believes that God does not exist". Atheism does not require any faith, it requires a lack of faith, no faith at all. Faith does not exist in this equation.

Armstrong's post is all about how atheists didn't seem to realize that a previous post was sarcasm. It is a really strange and tedious rant.

Perhaps this is the strangest part:

Y’all need to lighten up! It’s satirical humor. Have you never read satire? Never watched Saturday Night Live or read the Harvard Lampoon or watched Monty Python or Stephen Colbert or listened to Rush Limbaugh? If so, did you take every word of those things literally (as mine were approached)?

Rush Limbaugh, satirist? I think that explains a lot.

I really hope that my writing is not as tedious as Dave Armstrong’s is. To each his own I suppose, but his style is very difficult to understand. Perhaps that is why he is complaining about all the atheists that misunderstood him.

Thank God For Making Me An Atheist

Ricky Gervais: Why I’m an Atheist

Oh What A Joyous Time Of Year

It’s time for another episode of The War On Christmas. Let’s all play. It’s so much fun.

From For What It’s Worth by Stephen Stills:

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong

A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid

From No Christmas Presents for the Obama Kids This Year by Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights:

If the Obamas want to deprive their children of celebrating Christmas, that is their business. It is the business of the public to hold them accountable for the way they celebrate Christmas in the White House. We know one thing for sure: no other administration ever entertained internal discussions on whether to display a nativity scene in the White House.

From Fox & Friends Attack Atheists (Again) And Yet Another School For Being Anti Christmas – Ho, Ho, Ho! by Priscilla:

Once again, Fox News, as part of its traditional crusade known as “the war on Christmas,” is creating national controversy about a local school decision which, up till now, wasn’t controversial. While other adult networks are discussing the escalation of troops in Afghanistan, today’s Senate debate on a monumental health care bill, and the unemployment situation, the kids on Fox & Friends are discussing yet another school which doesn’t get its Christmas seal of approval. And to make the point, they brought in Pastor Rick Warren whose refusal to denounce a draconian law mandating life imprisonment for homosexuals in Uganda, supported by one of his pastors, means a less than merry Christmas for Ugandan gays. But it’s Christmas time and it’s Fox News mission to spread less than holiday cheer and drive a sprig of holly into the hearts of those who don’t get right with Jesus.

Read the rest here.

From Atheist Group Says Christmas Isn't a Religious Holiday by American Atheists:

Atheists and others who demand strict separation of church and state seek only to prevent government agents from deciding, for anyone, whether or how to celebrate the season. The multitude of seasonal celebrations underscores the importance of the government's neutrality.

Atheists enjoy parties, celebrations, presents, and life. To those who celebrate America's diversity, we extend our heartfelt wishes for a wonderful season. To those who selfishly try to claim the whole season as their own, we wish a lousy one.

I’m simply quoting that last bit. I don’t wish anyone a lousy season. (However, I like the rest of the quote very much.) With each passing year I simply become more weary of all of this.

Misguided?

From Atheist billboards are misguided by Jan Ainsworth:

In their latest poster campaign, Ariane Sherine and members of the British Humanist Association appear to have decided that it is a Very Bad Thing that parents might try and bring up their children within a religious or philosophical framework of their choosing. They suggest it is wholly unacceptable that anyone might suggest that their own child might belong to a particular religion.

While I know I risk offending the loyal and noble readers of Cif here, I genuinely can't believe that people actually donated good money to spend on billboard advertising that proposes such a misguided and patronising argument.

It is telling that Sherine resorts to quoting Richard Dawkins when she needs to find someone to explain the rationale for the campaign: "Children are routinely labelled with the religion of their parents", Dawkins suggests. By who, exactly? And if the answer is by their parents, who are the BHA to tell them to stop?

It is surely central to the role of a parent, whether committed to a religious faith or not, to want to pass on to their child the things they value most, the beliefs and world view that shape how they live. It is also consistent with that role to want to have those beliefs and world view acknowledged and affirmed as part of their children's education.

Read the rest here.

Why does this seem to bother Jan Ainsworth so much? Her spurious arguments and reasoning can simply be reversed and used to support Ariane Sherine and to denigrate herself. Of course this would be as useless and as pointless as what Ainsworth is trying to do. Yes, people should have freedom of religion. People also should have freedom of speech. If Sherine wants to spend money to express herself, then who is Jan Ainsworth to tell her to stop? All of this seems so pointless.

Speaking from personal experience, what matters the most to me about this issue is that people can end up getting hurt. If the child makes the choice to turn to another religion, or to atheism, there is immense potential for things to get very ugly.

The indoctrination of a child into a religion puts the child who doesn’t believe in their parent’s religion in a terrible position. The child must choose between what he/she sees as the truth, and his or her parents. Were his parents lying to him, or simply misguided? This is not an easy thing to deal with. The more that the religion defines who the parents are, the harder it is for the non-believing child.

This also puts the parents in a terrible position. If they truly believe, then their child will suffer for being a nonbeliever. Look out below, my kid’s going to hell.

I realize that some parents may be able to respect the wishes of their child to not believe as they do. However, simply by definition, their religion will not allow them to see their child as whole anymore. God will not accept him anymore. If they truly believe, then how can they accept him anymore? To me, this is absolutely monstrous. I find all of this to be very hard to put into words adequately, so I hope that some sense of what I mean is coming through.

Religious people claim to be compassionate. To me, they never seem to be very compassionate when this issue is brought up.

Oh, and it’s even worse if the child is gay or has had an abortion.

Before I go, here is one final quibble. Why the hell does Ainsworth write: “It is telling that Sherine resorts to quoting Richard Dawkins when she needs to find someone to explain…” Why is this “telling?” Could someone tell me? The only reason I can think of for Ainsworth to write this is because it comes off as some kind of insult directed towards Ariane Sherine. Poor woman, she can’t think for herself, she has to quote Dawkins. Yet, it’s not an insult to say that she quoted Dawkins, is it? I hate it when people do this kind of thing. It serves no useful purpose. Is it telling when Ainsworth quotes from the Bible? (I assume that she does, frequently.)

Voiding The Void

Disbelief in God does not equate to nothingness, no matter how many times some people say that it does.

From Atheism: A Cost/Benefit Analysis by Randal Rauser:

Let's just admit it: atheism boasts some significant advantages. For one thing, the atheist does not have to get up early on Sunday mornings and corral the kids in a frantic effort to make the service on time. Rather, he is free to loll around the house, reading the Sunday paper over a cup of smoky French Roast while getting all the latest political gossip on "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation".

And there is no requirement to give to the poor. If the Christian kept the hundreds (or thousands) of dollars that she spends every month in tithes, in no time she too could have a new Samsung LED TV sparkling in her living room.Now that's the good life!

And while the Christian groans under the weight of the cross she has been directed to take up and carry every day, the atheist is free to go play tennis, ride a bike, or do simply whatever his little heart desires. Not bad at all!

But like the "Don't pay for sixty days" ads for that new Samsung TV, atheism also has a cost that eventually comes due. And you start paying it once you begin to realize that, according to atheism, we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. For the shallow atheist, that "for nothing" promises to liberate (no obligations!). But the thoughtful atheist understands that "for nothing" means that there is no meaning or purpose to life. And the repercussions of that are staggering indeed.

So staggering is the cost that many atheists cannot admit that there is no meaning to life, and so they engage in the futile and self-deceptive attempt to project meaning onto the universe.

Once again we have a religious mind-reader telling us what atheists think. Because I do not believe in God, the arrogant assholes tell anyone who will listen that my life has no meaning. How dare they assume that what I do, say, and think has no meaning to me. How dare they say that my wife and family have no meaning to me!

Whose life is more shallow? One who only finds meaning from believing in God, or one who finds meaning in everything but believing in God?

Does Randal Rauser actually believe that there is no meaning to life? ("So staggering is the cost that many atheists cannot admit that there is no meaning to life.") Why does he care if some atheists do find meaning to life? Perhaps he’s jealous.

Why Do Atheists Care?

From God doesn't believe in atheists by Jack Chapman:

I noticed people who claim to be atheists always get upset whenever Christians have a National Day of Prayer, or set up a nativity scene somewhere, or maybe even say “God bless you.”

I even read a couple of weeks ago that some atheists are being “de-baptized.”
These are people who once believed in God, accepted him, then decided he doesn’t exist.

That has me wondering: Why do they care? Why waste their time if they believe our belief doesn’t exist? What’s so offensive about that?

It’s because every atheist deep down inside knows there is a God, they are mad at him and want to fight him with every bone in their body. Sad, isn’t it?

But there is good news, God doesn’t believe in atheists.

Obviously, Mr. Chapman doesn’t believe in listening. He seems to have never listened to any atheists at any time in his life. He also seems to not listen to himself. Otherwise, why would he write anything as stupid as this?

Why do we care? I’ll give a two word answer. Arrogant assholes. Arrogant assholes like Jack Chapman who presume to know what we think. Who don’t believe us, actually they refuse to believe us. According to the arrogant assholes we are not only wrong to not believe in God, we actually believe in God!

Mr. Chapman, I could ask you the same questions. Why do you care what atheists say and do? Why are you wasting your time on atheists? And the question that confuses me, what is so offensive about believing your beliefs don’t exist?

Mr. Chapman, you are correct that some atheists are angry. However, we are not angry at something that does not exist. That would be rather foolish. We are angry at arrogant assholes. Arrogant assholes who say that belief trumps logic when it comes to what our laws should say, when it comes to the appointment of our judges, when it comes to voting for our politicians, and when it comes to what should be taught in our schools.

Mr. Chapman, you should try a little empathy. Try to put yourself in the shoes of an atheist and you may gain a little insight. You give the examples of a National Day of Prayer, a nativity scene, and the expression “God bless you.” Use your imagination. How would you feel about a National Day of something you do not believe in, little statues put up once a year in honor of martians, and people saying “May the flying spaghetti monster grace you” every time that you sneeze? Do you think that this would be silly? If you do, then you are beginning to understand the atheists' point of view. Thank you for that.

Mr. Chapman, if you do believe in God, why do you insist on making your God into an idiot? After all, atheists do exist. For God to not believe in atheists would really be rather stupid of him, wouldn’t it?

Some Tips

Here is some advice to make Christians act, well, more Christian when dealing with atheists. Another ten commandments, as it were. When dealing with atheists thou shalt not do these things. Do you think that any of them will pay any attention?

From Ten Tips for Christian Evangelists (Courtesy of Atheists) by Hemant Mehta:

5. Don’t talk about Jesus like he’s part of the conversation.

The people you’re talking to don’t share your beliefs, so they’re not going to be thrilled to hear that Jesus is listening in on their thoughts and sending messages or providing inspiration to the person talking to them.

This makes you come off as either crazy or… well, mostly crazy. I get that you actually believe that Jesus is alive and God is everywhere and all-knowing, but to non-Christians, he’s just an imaginary friend of yours, and so telling us to listen for his voice in our hearts is creepy.

6. Don’t plant literature.

We’re already stuck with Bibles in hotel rooms (thanks for that, Gideons and pushover hotels!). There’s no need to hide tracts inside books at the bookstore or leave those horrible fake $20 bill pamphlets with (or instead of) the tip at a restaurant. They don’t work. They’re impersonal, often accusatory, and extremely classless. If someone isn’t already a Christian, a pamphlet isn’t going to change that.

8. Don’t assume that we have “God-shaped holes in our hearts” and try to get us to admit it.

I certainly think that religion helps meet various psychological needs, and there are plenty of warm, fuzzy feelings (and deeper emotional experiences as well) that come along with it. But just because you have a proverbial hole-in-your-heart that only Jesus can fill doesn’t mean that all of us do.

Trying to convince us that our lives suck or are incomplete without God isn’t going to work. Stop insulting us and implying that we’re secretly miserable. We’re getting along just fine without any gods, so this line of strategy won’t work.

9. Don’t compare your past experiences to our present.

I cannot count the number of times I’ve heard Christians enthusiastically share their stories of horrible, sinful lives that left them feeling empty and lonely.

These “sinful” lives usually consisted of such shockers as swearing, going to R-rated movies, looking at porn, drinking, partying, smoking, and occasionally doing drugs. Oh — and having premarital sex.

The thing is, maybe these things made you feel guilty or empty; maybe you developed addictions or other problems relating to these activities, and maybe you’re much happier now that you don’t do them. That’s great. But it doesn’t mean that hearing your story is going to shock us or convince us to change our ways. There is such a thing as a healthy balance, and it can include some (or maybe all) of those “vices.”

This tactic seems especially silly when different Christians groups and denominations can’t seem to decide what’s sinful and what’s not.

10. Don’t talk down to us, as if we’re just not understanding something perfectly obvious.

Many of us have read the Bible, prayed, attended church for years, and still ended up as atheists. There’s no magic bullet that converts people to Christianity. Whatever experience led you to believe probably happened on a pretty personal level. We haven’t witnessed anything miraculous or heard any voices, and we don’t see anything self-evident about God in nature or humanity. So if you insist on trying to save us, at least familiarize yourself with our perspective before jumping in, because assuming we’re simply uninformed or dumb is only going to hurt your chances.

I singled out these five of the ten tips because I have had similar thoughts on these issues for many years.

It is annoying and even insulting to an atheist to have Jesus become a part of a conversation or greeting when he has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It pisses me off that God is all over the place. No, I suddenly did not start to believe in God. What I mean by God being all over the place is that he is on our money, in our mottos, our Pledge of Allegiance, our swearing in ceremonies, at the end of Presidential speeches, etc. I find all of these things to be ridiculous and insulting, as well as illegal. (I know that the courts don't agree with me on the illegal part. However, they've been wrong before, you know.) And yes, God's book is in my hotel room, even though I didn’t ask for it, and I don’t want it there.

I would be miserable if I tried to be religious. It’s not the other way around. I would always know that I was lying to myself if I pretended to believe in God. I allow you your belief, please allow me my non-belief. Let’s leave it at that. The problems come when you try to convert me. The problems come when you try to inject your beliefs into the public dialog and pretend that they are facts. I am not trying to stop you from believing. I just think that you are being stupid by believing. I think that you are being stupid giving your money away. I think you are being stupid when you elect George W. Bush because of his values.

I don’t need God to make me be a moral person. I don’t need to be born again. There is nothing wrong with me in that department. I’ve got plenty of other flaws that need working on, and no imaginary monarch (good Lord!) is going to help me there. Oh, and by the way, it would be a little bit easier to even think about believing in God if he himself was a little bit more moral. Not to mention his sexually abusive priests.

Yes! Please don’t talk down to us. I've been down the religious road. I reject it. I’ve read (and still do read) chunks of the Bible. It hasn’t made me believe. If God’s own words don’t make me believe, why are you so arrogant to think that you have something to add?

Not all religious people are arrogant and rude. It’s just that the ones who are arrogant and rude happen to be especially so. I find it most irritating to have someone place their need to convert me above my existence as a fellow human being. If you are going to try to convert me, you should, at the very least, try to get to know me first.

Religious people seem to be the least empathic people on the planet. It is unfortunate that there are so many of them.

“In Reason We Trust”

From More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops by Laurie Goodstein:

Two months after the local atheist organization here put up a billboard saying “Don’t Believe in God? You Are Not Alone,” the group’s 13 board members met in Laura and Alex Kasman’s living room to grapple with the fallout.

The problem was not that the group, the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, had attracted an outpouring of hostility. It was the opposite. An overflow audience of more than 100 had showed up for their most recent public symposium, and the board members discussed whether it was time to find a larger place.

And now parents were coming out of the woodwork asking for family-oriented programs where they could meet like-minded nonbelievers.

Read the rest here.

Does God Care If An Apologist Clashes With An Atheist?

From Atheist & apologist debate God’s existence by Michael Farr:

A prominent atheist and a Christian apologist clashed April 4 in a debate titled “Does God Exist?” at Biola University, an evangelical school in La Mirada, Calif., near Los Angeles.

Christopher Hitchens, regarded as a leader of the new atheism movement, went head-to-head with William Lane Craig, a Biola professor regarded as one of the world’s leading religious philosophers. About 4,000 people watched the debate in the university’s gym while an estimated 6,000 others watched it online or from satellite locations around Southern California.

While Craig had the home court advantage, Hitchens didn’t hold back, exhorting, “Emancipate yourself from the idea of a celestial dictatorship and you’ve taken the first step to becoming free.”

But Craig had his rejoinders.

“The fruit of the naturalistic worldview is that mankind is reduced to meaninglessness, valuelessness and purposelessness,” Craig said.

And the fruit of the religious worldview is that it is better to pretend and/or lie that God gives us meaning, value, and purpose. Believe in God, you’ll feel better. How is this different from numbing yourself with drugs or alcohol, or some other fantasy that hides or masks reality?

“We’ve heard attacks upon religion, Christianity impugned, God impugned, Mother Teresa impugned, but we haven’t heard any arguments that God does not exist,” Craig said. “Mr. Hitchens seems to fail to recognize that atheism is itself a worldview, and that it claims alone to be true and all the other religions of the world false. It is not more tolerant than Christianity in respect to these other views.”

Someone should inform Mr. Craig that atheism is not an organized religion. Unlike the religious, atheists make no claim to the truth. Unlike the religious, atheists make no claim to tolerance. We simply believe that there is no deity. An atheist does not need to prove the non-existence of God in order to be an atheist. Or to win any debate concerning atheism. Atheism is not about proving that God does not exist, it is about the absence of proof that God does exist.

I want the next debate to be about my imaginary friend Harvey. Title it: “Does Harvey Exist?”

Let the clashing begin. Harvey won't mind.

“Cussing! God isn’t real!”

From Anti-atheist prejudice widespread in America by Zac Smith:

Americans find atheists a particularly repugnant minority. According to Gallup, they are more disliked than any other major religious group, with the exception of Scientologists.

Research by Gallup also indicates the majority of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheistic presidential candidate. Even a gay candidate, the data suggest, would face less formidable discrimination.

But what is it about atheists that makes the American public revile them so intensely?

To illustrate anecdotally, in 2007, a Sunday-school teacher asked a class of fifth and sixth graders to draw a Christian and a non-Christian. One student drew his Christian as a cheerful-looking man holding a cross and declaring, “I LOVE GOD!!”

His non-Christian was unkempt, tattooed, covered in piercings, holding a bottle of “drugs” in one hand and displaying angry eyebrows. His speech balloon read, “Cussing! God isn’t real!”

This is, to my observation, actually a pretty accurate depiction of the popularly perceived dichotomy between theistic and atheistic character. The atheist is beheld as a hopeless individual roaming a world which, devoid of gods, is without purpose or potential for the morality that would ward him away from swilling down bottles of “drugs.”

Read the rest here.

Arkansas And Atheists

From Anyone Have Smelling Salts? by Tom Flynn:

Last post, I mentioned one brave legislator’s campaign to strip obsolete but discriminatory language from the Arkansas constitution that bars atheists from holding public office or testifying in court. On Feb. 17, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—a legal advocacy group that usually comes down in favor of accomodation between church and state—sent a letter to the Arkansas legislature coming out foursquare in favor of amending the state constitution.

How about those smelling salts? Just pinching myself doesn’t seem to do the trick.

Read the rest here.

Giving Without God

From Atheist Bill Gates to give more during economic crisis by Trina Hoaks:

Many statistics and people say that atheists aren’t charitable people. However, they seem to miss that the nation’s largest charitable foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was founded by an atheist – Bill Gates.

Is Bill Gates really an atheist?

From Is Bill Gates really an athiest really an Athiest? I find that hard to believe.? by Jesus is the best:

It is hard to believe, because I viewed him from a distant unresearched point of view. I do have a tendacy to see people through rose colored glasses. I know many intelligent people have a tendacy to be criminal minded. It doesn't take much to be ruthless and rise above others. It is just that he appeared gentle, when a lot of athiests have a really nasty spirit.

Nasty spirit? “Judge not lest ye be judged."

Jesus may be the best for some people, but Jesus does not seem to have given any assistance to “Jesus is the best” who really did really did ask the question “Is Bill Gates really an athiest really an Athiest?” Jesus seems to have not helped with the spelling of the word atheist as well. I also have a tendency to believe that tendacy is not really a word. I’ve also learned that sometimes I can be incredibly petty.

From Meet A Few Rich Atheists!

Microsoft Cofounder and CEO, was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits...

Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?

Gates: I don't. I'm not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I'm a huge believer in. There's a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very, very positive impact.

Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you'd say you don't know?

Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.

At the bottom of the page we learn that “Judgment Day is Coming!” and “It is tragic and sad when men deny their Divine Creator, the very One Who keeps them breathing.” This little bit of religious wacky weirdness does not change the fact that Bill Gates was interviewed by David Frost and the quotes above are accurate.

If there really is a God, I wonder who he would look more favorably upon, Bill Gates (who is doing so much to fight AIDS) or people who have nothing better to do than judge people who question God’s existence?

On The Sides Of Buses

From Around the world, atheists hit road to knock down God:

An atheist drive to persuade people that God doesn't exist is catching on in a surprising fashion -- on the sides of buses in a growing number of countries around the world.

With the concise message "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life," the campaign took to the road in Britain this month, while similar drives are underway or planned in Spain, Italy, Canada and Australia.

The British campaign was originally floated by comedy writer Ariane Sherine in a newspaper column in June, and is hoping to reach the majority of the country's population in some fashion or another over the next three weeks.

"We could never have imagined it would have gotten this big, and we would have raised quite this amount of cash," campaign co-founder Jon Worth, a political blogger and website designer, told AFP.

"It's astounding."

Sherine wrote her column after advertisements began appearing on central London buses directing passers-by to a website that told those who did not accept Christianity that they would suffer for eternity in hell.

Soon after it was published, Worth contacted her asking if he could set up a pledgebank based on her idea, and shortly thereafter, the Atheist Bus Campaign began taking donations, initially hoping to raise 5,500 pounds (6,200 euros, 8,200 dollars).

To date, it has raised upwards of 140,000 pounds, enough to pay for advertisements on 800 buses across Britain -- 200 in central London alone -- along with 1,000 posters in London's Underground trains and two video screens in a popular Tube station, all for a full month ending in early February.

Unsurprisingly, the campaign has struck a nerve among God-fearing commuters, prompting around 200 complaints to Britain's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which regulates commercials here.

By way of comparison, the most complaints the ASA has ever received over an advert was 1,600.

The watchdog needs just one complaint to investigate an advertisement, which are judged on a variety of factors including harm, offence, taste and deceny as well as factual accuracy, but will wait until next week to decide whether or not to probe the Atheist Bus Campaign's ads.

"A few religious people have complained to the ASA, which seems rather odd, as if they (the ASA) will be able to make a judgment about the evidence on that sort of issue," said Peter Cave, chair of the Humanist Philosopher's Group, which advises the British Humanist Association.

Read more here.

From Catholic Church blocks plans for atheist bus adverts:

The Roman Catholic Church has blocked a plan to put atheist slogans on buses in Italy.

A spokesman for the Italian Union of Atheists and Rationalist Agnostics, which organised the campaign, said yesterday: 'It appears that buses can carry campaigns for underwear and holidays with no problem but if you ask for space to say God doesn't exist then you are denied.'

From Christian driver refuses to board bus carrying atheist slogan by Martin Hodgson:

You're either on the bus, or you're off the bus. And if the vehicle in question bears an advert proclaiming the (probable) non-existence of God, one churchgoing bus driver would rather not climb aboard.

Ron Heather, 62, an evangelical Christian from Southampton, refused to drive a bus bearing an advert from a national campaign aimed at persuading more people to "come out" as atheists.

About 800 buses across the country are to carry the adverts, which read: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and go and enjoy your life." Heather said he was "aghast" when he realized last Saturday that he would have to drive a double decker emblazoned with the slogan. He walked out of his shift in protest.

He said: "I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face - my first reaction was shock horror. I felt that I could not drive that bus, I told my managers and they said they had not got another one and I thought I better go home, so I did."

I wonder how many times Mr. Heather has driven his bus while passengers were either thinking about or discussing the non-existence of God.

Illogical?

I love it when someone claims that atheists are the ones who are supposed to be illogical, as if faith is the epitome of logic.

From Atheists' view illogical by Marty Dhabolt:

The barriers to truth on this issue regarding prayer by government officials are primarily psychological, not logical. Most of the confusion is born from a misunderstanding of proper “church” and state separation, along with two logical impossibilities — actual neutrality in government and genuine religious pluralism. Both assertions are nonsense.

Our local cadre of atheists have a Godless goal in mind. Atheists, including The American Gestapo, aka the ACLU, are intellectual hypocrites; their bankrupt worldview has been beaten like a drum on philosophical, historical and even pragmatic grounds. Although their arguments are tired they remain tenacious out of desperation. It’s been almost 50 years since it was determined that atheism actually presupposes and surreptitiously relies on theism to even have the appearance of cogency.

As no world renowned atheist has ever intelligently answered, let alone refuted that reality, what chance is there that local atheists are encumbered by any justification or coherency for their views based on their atheistic presuppositions?

Anyone care to translate this for me? Mr. Dhabolt seems to like to write in some form of George Will derived dialect that I am not familiar with. I will, however, do my best to try to understand this and give my thoughts.

How can one separate logic from the psychological? Psychology is generally defined as the study of the human mind. Where exactly does Mr. Dhabolt think that logic comes from? Perhaps he meant to use the word emotional? If so, I must ask if it is actually the atheists who are the ones being emotional here.

What exactly is “proper” church and state separation? One that is polite and has good manners? Perhaps Mr. Dhabolt could give us some proof as to why “actual neutrality in government and genuine religious pluralism” are nonsense and logical impossibilities. Perhaps something with a little more weight than “because I say so.” (Ahh, the basis of all religious belief and all religious argument: "Because I say so.")

From Myth: Religious Neutrality is Hostility toward Religion & Religious Beliefs by Austin Cline:

…the most devoutly religious people should also be the staunchest defenders of government neutrality in matters of religion. Given the awesome power of the modern state, religious people should want to do everything reasonable to reduce the risk that the state will interfere with their religious institutions, and that would include the state coming down against them in theological matters. Accomplishing this requires removing from the government the authority to support them in theological matters as well. How does a ban on government support of religion inhibit people from acting as individuals to express their religious beliefs? Christians have been expressing themselves quite well for millennia, and not always with the government supporting them. Just how weak is Christianity that it requires government backing today? The government doesn’t help atheists express their views, but you won’t hear atheists arguing that this a sign of government hostility towards atheism.

Mr. Dhabolt says that atheists are the illogical ones and that anyone who believes in “neutrality in government and genuine religious pluralism” believes in nonsense. This is, of course, nonsense. Actual nonsense runs through everything that Mr. Dhabolt has written. According to Mr. Dhabolt the idea of civil liberties is “bankrupt” and “tired.” Does Mr. Dhabolt want the Bill of Rights to be repealed and abolished? Why is Mr. Dhabolt arguing against his own self interest? Let’s remember that the Bill of Rights begins with: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The “American Gestapo” vows to “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country." Mr. Dhabolt throws around many big words, yet he does not seem to know the meaning of many of them. He claims that the ACLU as a group are intellectual hypocrites. The dictionary says this of the word hypocrite: “1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.” How anyone can describe the ACLU as a group of hypocrites is beyond belief!

There is even more illogical nonsense from Mr. Dhabolt. Mr. Dhabolt gives us the completely meaningless belief that atheists only exist because of non-atheists. (I find the response by Zephyr to this to be humorous: “Next, they’re going to prove that Christ exists because they found the Anti-Christ.”) Dhabolt then claims that “no world renowned atheist has ever intelligently answered, let alone refuted that reality.” Mr. Dhabolt should write his own dictionary so that we all would know what he means when he uses words like atheist and reality. Clearly his “reality” is simply not real.

It seems that there are nearly as many definitions for the word atheist as there are people. Of course the reason for that is because there are nearly as many definitions for the word God as there are people.

From Atheism:

Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of god and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability.

As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."

It appears that Mr. Dhabolt thinks that he has scored a few points by writing: “It’s been almost 50 years since it was determined that atheism actually presupposes and surreptitiously relies on theism to even have the appearance of cogency. As no world renowned atheist has ever intelligently answered, let alone refuted that reality, what chance is there that local atheists are encumbered by any justification or coherency for their views based on their atheistic presuppositions?” Writing something so pointless does not entitle anyone to any points at all.

Who was it exactly that “determined that atheism actually presupposes and surreptitiously relies on theism to even have the appearance of cogency.”? If those damn sneaky atheists are so clandestine and stealthy, how did anyone notice this? Does something have to exist for someone to have no belief in it? One source describes the etymology of “atheist” as deriving from the Greek word “atheos” (a- "without" + theos "a god"). “Without a god” does not seem to me like it is dependent on the existence of a god. One definition of the word "nothingness" is “void.” As in “no thing.” Does the word "nothingness" depend on there first being a thing before there was nothingness? Of course not. It all depends on what your definition of "is" is”. Or in this case it all depends on what your definition of “atheism” is.

All of this points to one of the dangers of faith. Faith is the actual barrier to truth. By the way, that is a logical statement, not a psychological one. Faith allows you to believe whatever the hell you want to without having to think about it. It also allows you to think that you have won the argument, when actually you haven’t made one at all.

Who really is the illogical one here?

Our Very Religious Congress

From 111th Congress reflects greater religious diversity in the U.S. by Joanna Lin:

"I think there's an incentive, certainly, for a politician to have some sort of a religious affiliation," Masci said. Americans, he said, have "a desire to have people in office who, to at least to some degree, reflect your own belief."

Yet a religious affiliation does not always correlate to a certain religious belief, said Woody Kaplan, chairman of the advisory board of the Secular Coalition for America.

Take Rep. Pete Stark: The Democrat from the Northern California city of Fremont identifies himself as a Unitarian but acknowledged no belief in a supreme being in 2007, making him the first member of Congress to publicly do so. Atheist groups said Stark was the highest-ranking elected official ever to admit he didn't believe in God.

Stark said in a recent interview that in the week following the announcement, he received more than 5,000 e-mails from around the world, nearly all congratulating him for his courage.

The reaction took Stark by surprise. Stark said he had simply filled out a survey sent by the secular coalition.

Stark, 77, said he was "agnostic at best" by the time he graduated from college in 1953, but his religious beliefs played little part in his first campaign for the U.S. House in 1972. His 13th District covers a variety of Bay Area cities, including Alameda, Union City and Hayward.

"In my district, it just didn't come up; nobody asked me," he said. "They didn't care much about what I did on Sundays."

Then in fall 2006, the secular coalition embarked on a quest for the highest-ranking non-theist public official in America. It offered a $1,000 prize to whoever identified the winner.

Nearly 60 members of Congress were nominated. The coalition sent them surveys, and Kaplan said that when he interviewed the lawmakers, 22 confided that they did not believe in a god. Fearful of exposure, all but Stark told the group to keep quiet.

"The perception is it's politically dangerous" to be godless, Kaplan said.

Indeed, a USA Today/Gallup poll in early 2007 showed that atheism would be a huge obstacle for a presidential candidate: 45% of respondents said they would vote for a nonbeliever, compared with 55% for a gay person, 88% for a woman and 95% for a Catholic.

For many Americans, "there's this idea of morality being linked to belief in God and to religion," Masci said. "Atheism is different in that it's a real departure from the common-denominator faith that at least most people accept."

But if more atheists, humanists, freethinkers and nonbelievers "come out," Kaplan said, "the stigma -- which is clearly there -- will begin to go away."

The evidence? Kaplan points to Stark. In November he was elected to his 19th term with 76.5% of votes.

No Society Has Ever Suffered Because Its Population Became Too Reasonable

Sam Harris - Misconceptions About Atheism:

…there's this notion that atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in the 20th century. Now this is actually, it is quite amazing to me, this is the most frequent objection I come across, so I think I should deal with it briefly. It is amazing how many people think that the crimes of Hitler and Pol Pot and Mao were the result of atheism. The truth is that this is a total misconstrual of what went on in those societies, and of the psychological and social forces that allow people to follow their dear leader over the brink.

The problem with Fascism and communism was not that they were too critical of religion. The problem is they're too much like religions; these are utterly dogmatic systems of thought. I recently had a debate with Rick Warren in the pages of Newsweek, and he suggested that North Korea was a model atheist society and that any atheist with the courage of his convictions should want to move there.

The truth is North Korea is organized exactly like a faith based cult, centered on the worship of Kim Jong-il. The North Koreans apparently believe that the shipments of food aid that they receive from us, to keep them from starving to death, are actually devotional offerings to Kim Jong-il. Is too little faith really the problem with North Korea? Is too much skeptical inquiry, what is wrong here? Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields are not the product of atheism; they are the product of other dogmas run amok; nationalism, political dogma.

Hitler did not engineer a genocide in Europe because of atheism; in fact Hitler doesn’t even appear to have been an atheist, he regularly invoked Jesus in his speeches. But that’s beside the point, he did it on the basis of other beliefs, dogmas about Jews and the purity of German blood. The history of Muslim jihad however does have something to do with Islam. The atrocities of September 11th did have something to do with what 19 men believed about martyrdom and paradise.

The fact that we’re not funding stem cell research at the federal level does have something to do with what Christians believe about conception and the human soul. It is important to focus on the specific consequences of specific ideas. So I want to make it very clear that I am not holding religion responsible for every bad thing that a religious person has done in human history. To be balanced against all the bad things that atheists have done, I am only holding religion responsible for what people do, and will continue to do, explicitly for religious reasons. So I submit to you there really is no society in human history that has ever suffered because its population became too reasonable.

For more information visit the Aspen Ideas Festival site and FORA.tv.

Lumping Together

Personal Religulosity, Part One

Update:
Meanwhile, over at the Multiplexcomic forum many words have been written about Personal Religulosity.

Billboards And Bus Signs And Histrionics, Oh My!

I don’t really care if “theists and atheists are guilty of histrionics.” So what?

From Both theists and atheists are guilty of histrionics by Steve Goble:

On the one hand, I fully support the rights of everyone -- on both sides -- to express their views. I'm deeply grateful to live in a country where people can debate these things openly. It's good that the sign battle has people talking about these matters. As long as people are talking, there's a chance at understanding. Not much of a chance, considering the deep divide, but a chance nonetheless.

It's also refreshing to note that people who feel differently from the majority no longer seem intimidated, and are no longer content to keep quiet. We all live here, and we all have a right to be who we are.

So far, so good.

OK, I have some serious problems with the billboard battles as well, and not so much stemming from the signs themselves as from the reactions they spark. It is appalling that so many people are howling "those people shouldn't be allowed to say that!" Or, "They should get out of America if they don't believe in our God!"

C'mon. It's a free country, remember? If you disagree with one side or the other, that's fine, but don't toss the Bill of Rights into a trash bin. If you dislike the other guy's sign, get your own sign.

It also bugs me that so many people these days instantly see any opposing viewpoint -- on just about any topic, but especially regarding religion -- as a "vicious attack." Say you don't believe in God, or that you want the government out of the religion business, and you are lambasted as an "atheist" who "hates Christians" and wants to "wage war" on "all that is good." If you tell someone you believe in God, you get labeled as an "anti-intellectual theocrat" who wants to "cram religion down everybody's throat."

Sorry. It's not a vicious attack on atheists if someone else believes in God and says so out loud. It's not a vicious attack on Christianity if someone believes in something else, and says so.

I think the histrionics on both sides hinder discussion and understanding. Consider the Bible-believer who says, "This is a Christian nation and if those God-haters don't like it, they can leave!" That person leaves the false impression that Bible-believers are all narrow-minded fools, which is not true. Some Christians believe that, but not the majority.

Consider the atheist who says, "Christians are all morons who want to set up a theocracy and burn the witches!" That person reinforces the false idea that all atheists hate Christians -- again, not true. Some atheists believe that way, but not the majority.

Hysterical, unreasoned comments from both camps prompt sensible people in the middle to keep their heads down and stay out of the discussion -- thereby assuring that nobody is actually listening to anybody.

In a debate like that, who wins?

It all depends on who the moderator of the debate is. If he is biased to one side or the other, then that is who will win. Otherwise this is a debate that no one will really win. The atheists claim their side has already won, the religious believe that their side has already won. Is that the best we can do? Agree to disagree?

I think that the “histrionics” (Steve Goble’s word, not mine) are an important part of the debate. Eliminate the fringe and you have censorship. Who gets to decide which voices are “histrionic” and which are not? The fringe are the most intolerant. Eliminate the fringe from the debate and you eliminate the debate itself.

I think that we are talking about more than one debate here. The debate that concerns me the most is actually the one in which “histrionics” plays the biggest part. The “agree to disagree” world would be one that I could be content with. Unfortunately it is not our reality. The reason many atheists are speaking out more frequently and more loudly as of late is because religion has become increasingly more political. It’s bad enough that religion has always been political, but we did have the Enlightenment and the U.S. Constitution, which led to a period of a little bit of separation of church and state. Now, we are taking steps backward. It seems to me that Roe v Wade was too much for many religious people to take, and that 9/11 and George W. Bush (along with his fundie following) were too much for non-believers to take. Sam Harris acknowledges that 9/11 was a catalyst that caused him to write The End of Faith. This debate is not really about whether God exists or not. It is about whether believing in God has made us more intolerant of one another. It is about whether believing in God can cause one person to kill another person, in the name of God. Let me take a moment here to point out that most atheists would believe in God if they were given irrefutable proof of his/her/its existence. Most atheists simply want to live a life of reason, and would prefer that reason dictate the choices made by others that have an effect on said atheists. In other words, it pisses me off that George W. Bush hears the voice of something akin to the tooth fairy as support for his invasion of Iraq. And I agree with what Sam Harris (who believes that religion played a large part in the 9/11 attacks) writes on page 31 in The End of Faith:

As I have said, people of faith tend to argue that it is not faith itself but man’s baser nature that inspires such violence. But I take it to be self-evident that ordinary people cannot be moved to burn genial old scholars alive for blaspheming the Koran, or celebrate the violent deaths of their children, unless they believe some improbable things about the nature of the universe. Because most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors. If we would speak of the baseness of our natures, our willingness to live, kill, and die on account of propositions for which we have no evidence should be among the first topics of discussion.

How willing are the religious to have this discussion? This is a simple debate about life and death, about pain and suffering caused because of religious beliefs. (It is curious, as well as despicable, that for those who chant the mantra of “Choose life” that life seems to not be a state of existence that pertains to adults and children.)

If the debate is simply about the existence of God, it seems that this should be an easy debate to have. And it actually is. There is no proof for the existence of God. Believe if you must, but there simply is no proof. Yes, the universe is a wonderful place. Yes, it exists. The fact that the universe exists is not proof that God exists. There is no reason to think that someone had to create the universe in order for the universe to exist. (In spite of the big bang theory, I tend to think that the universe had no beginning, and will have no end. No one had to create anything.)

Let’s get back to Steve Goble. He should read The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Sam Harris has plenty to say about religious moderates and religious extremists. In fact, Harris’ viewpoint is completely the opposite of Goble’s.

From page 20 of The End of Faith:

While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. From the perspective of those seeking to live by the letter of the texts, the religious moderate is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist. He is, in all likelihood, going to wind up in hell with the rest of the unbelievers. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God. Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance - and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on par with fundamentalism. The texts themselves are unequivocal: they are perfect in all their parts. By their light, religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God’s law. By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question - i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us - religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out the the wilderness.

How can we come together when we play by three very different sets of rules? The atheist plays by the rules of reason, the religious moderate plays by the rules of faith and reason, and the religious extremist plays by the rules of faith.

I feel that I must point out to Steve Goble that from the atheists point of view there is no such thing as a reasoned point of view from either the religious moderate or the religious extremist. Therefore, atheists do not see the religious moderate and the religious extremist as “sensible people.”

Steve Goble says “It's not a vicious attack on atheists if someone else believes in God and says so out loud.” I agree. I also know of no atheists making this claim, so I’m not sure what his point is. What is disturbing to many atheists is when the belief in God is taken outside of the realm of the church and into the secular world. I have already mentioned violence and killing. Add to that the issues of abortion, stem-cell research, and the creationism/evolution “debate.” These are vicious attacks on reason and logic, and they are too much to take lying down. These are also “debates” that simply have no place in the secular world, because belief is not proof.