Talk about “the other”!

Sure, maybe god-botherer is a little excessive, but why not pro-theist, say, or “theitistic”, instead of making belief the default position?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

evidently. It’s been about 30 years now. We had a moment of silence, and announcements every morning; some mornings a reading or a prayer accompanied these, some mornings not (depended on the kid who got called in to read the announcements. My favorite days were when the boy who’d started school on the Navaho res in Arizona got called. He always spoke the loveliest blessings!)
About 10 years ago when my kids were in junior high, I had a discussion with another mom at a PTA. The school was a “magnet” school, and this mother found it absolutely horrifying that a couple of her daughter’s classmates were Buddhist. Of course, we had a couple of Muslim kids, too: their dad the doctor lived walking-distance away, having come to practice in the nearby neighborhood clinic from Indonesia. I distinctly remember her having a wall-eyed hissy fit at me, when I asked her why she wouldn’t want her kids to see their classmates at prayer and come to understand their religions; I had boys, and I knew darn well I didn’t want my sons killed in a war about religion.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

See the Ellen Goodman quote:

http://www.correntewire.com/we_dont_need…

Humanity has progressed by exercising skepticism, not by belief without evidence. But as for me and my house, we will serve nothing, for we shall be freethinkers and free. And we do not make room for belief, unbelief, faith, atheism, theism or agnosticism.

All those terms rest on the assumption that there may be something to believe or disbelieve in, that a *theos* may exist so that I have the choice of being theist or atheist. Without a *theos* the terms derived from it are not real words conveying meaning; they are just meaningless noise.

Self-styled atheists foolishly identify themselves with a label which implicitly concedes the possible existence of a *theos*. They defeat themselves before the debate begins. Both “theist” and “atheist” are vocabulary not of science but of theology.

If you let your adversary define the language of debate, then you have already lost.

i suppose by referring to myself as “black” so that people understand the context, history, culture and ideological moment of whatever i’m saying, i’ve “already lost” and given in to racism. quick, let me change my nym to “gender neutral being from a midwestern metropolis.”

you’re more Pure, good on you and yours. anyway, we’re trying to have socio-political interaction with people who aren’t from PerfectBurg, Intelligensia Planet. i hope you can excuse us.

and let me express my humble thanks for the educational golden apples filigreed in the finest chased superciliousness; i was completely unaware of the epistemologies of your fair world and i thank you for the etymological significance of ’theos.’

As Ogden Nash one wrote, “I’m too old to be pedantically hocus-pocused.”

For better or worse (mostly worse), we live in a world of theists. I do not capitalize my “atheism,” as it is no religion, creed, or nationality, but I do not shirk the label.

Much as rallying around “gay” identities helped a closeted minority gain hard-won (and still hard-fought) recognition, outspoken atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Sweeney are helping to legitimize what ought to be the simplest imaginable lifestyle alternative: not mistaking fantasy for reality.

But let’s not be coy. It is an active choice, in this God-Bless-America, in-God-we-trust, under-God, faith-based, Christian-Nation — and in much of the rest of the world — to resist the non-stop peer pressure to pledge allegiance to the local favorite sky-daddy.

as pro-reality.

For some definition of reality, I agree.

Still, I’d welcome a better substitute word for atheist than “bright” (which was IIRC developed on the analogy with the co-opting of “gay” but hasn’t been so successful).

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

a moral, ethical, social, whatever word you approve of me using, force for good, or progress, or freedom, or whatever term i can fail to properly impress upon you as important.

people were “skeptical,” based on “rational science,” that (um) humans from the continent some now call “africa” were indeed human. people were “skeptical” that jews in europe were really being slaughtered under the nazi regime, because “reason” and “tradition” precluded such horror from being a product of germans. people are “skeptical” about scientific claims relating to global climate change, or the remaining supply of oil, and those people have PhDs from “good” schools in the sciences and rational humanities.

we need beauty, imagination, creativity, mystery and hope- or we’re not the human beings we can be. that means “lying” to ourselves sometimes. i don’t like the frame or the argument, but at a gut level, i understand why many wingers always shout, “but hitler was a socialist, and stalin and pol pot killed millions!” there can be no doubt that they did, and intellectually honest progressives will recognize that any ideology can be dangerous, in the hands of those without scruple for human life and suffering.

Well, you know I like to defend Greg, especially since my personal humanism and identification with it has largely been shaped by him.

The problem is that fighting isn’t going to make religious nuts suddenly think humanism is the greatest. I think that’s pretty clear. Greg isn’t so much trying to proselytize humanism but to make people have more positive feelings toward it, and as a religious leader (like a rabbi or priest or whatever), that is his duty. Being aggressive is just not his style, and unlike Congressional politics, majority doesn’t rule here — if one humanist somewhere actually believes in the positive aspects of humanism it doesn’t actually hurt our cause. We need ALL of our Dems to stop the war in Iraq; we don’t need 50%+ of America to stop believing in gods to be accepted by the religious.

Vastleft, I think you’re committing a fallacy when you bring up how religious people are the best people in this case (though the implicit schadenfreude makes reading your posts about it very entertaining, in a good way). Religion doesn’t make people into good people, but it does require it in often specific ways, emphasizing family ties, for example, but doing so completely moronically (honor killings, anyone?). Still, the view by religious people is that rational people, by being “godless”, are also devilspawn, family-killers, etc. This is what we have to fight against, not religion in general. We don’t lose if the world is still religious tomorrow so long as we who know better aren’t demonized.

I mean, I hate religion, too, but being anti-religion is vastly inferior, as a guiding philosophy, to humanism.

1. Religion has long been pervasive on Earth, probably since God’s busy week 6,000 years ago.

2. It isn’t fading into irrelevance without some serious social change, and change in the way we talk about it.

3. There are benefits to Humanist-branded good deeds, both intrinsic and in marketing value. But they do not obviate the need for honest talk about the hazards of faith.

4. People like Greg Epstein are, in their well-meaning way, hurting the cause by helping paint atheist activists as too uppity, at the very time they’re finally gaining shelfspace in the marketplace of ideas.

5. I bring up “Religious People Are the Best People” because Epstein wags a finger at those who use real-world examples to demonstrate the fallibility and flaws of religion.

6. Atheism and anti-religion aren’t philosophies, and they’re in no way antithetical to humanism. If we define humanism as being resolutely unconfrontational in the face of pernicious bullshit, then yes. But beyond that, atheists are not only capable of being humanists, the terms are in practice all but synonymous.

7. In my own definition of humanism, it’s quite possible to be religious and a humanist. If Martin Luther King, Jr. wasn’t a humanist, I don’t know who was. Not a “secular humanist,” but someone who deeply valued human worth and human rights.

8. My philosophy is “honesty is the best policy,” not “best” like it always works, but “best” like it’s always just. With so much of our human potential under the sway of superstition, we do lose something in every unenlightened tomorrow.

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_…

Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

Epstein thinks that this work is of no value, maybe even counterproductive. He thinks an army of non-theological Ned Flanderses will git ’er done.

Frankly, I don’t have much faith, as it were, that religion is ever going to go away.

But God bless the outspoken atheists, I say, for tugging at the stained-glass Overton Window with all their might, and giving voice to our closeted sanity.

The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never doubt the existence of God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: Most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the 21st century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns—about ethics, spiritual experience and the inevitability of human suffering—in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith.

If there is anything that the last few years have taught us, it’s that misplaced respect can be just as dangerous as misplaced disrespect.

I’ll respond to what you said point by point because it’s easier.

1. Yes, of course.

2. Is it really our goal to delete religion? I suppose it may be, since religion is the cause of so much evil, but as I said, it’s also the cause of a lot of people’s morals — not ours, obviously. I don’t know if “the people at large” are ready to see things as they are. I think the goal ought to be acceptance of atheism, popularization of it, and the assurance that coming out, as it were, would not be equivalent to banishment from society. I don’t know if you were at Pete Stark’s lecture at Harvard a few weeks back, but when I asked him about the demonization of atheists, his answer was, I think, completely erroneous — that there isn’t any demonization — and my personal goal, as an atheist, for the set of nonbelievers is for the demonization to cease even in “red state” areas.

3. Yes, yes.

4. What I think you’re saying here, which is what I disagree with, is that we atheists need to monolithic to be marketable, that one guy being “off-message” is bad for everyone. Perhaps you’re right that this pluralism gets in the way of marketing, but being monolithic is, I believe, intellectually dishonest, in a way, which sounds worse than it is. It’s unfortunate, because the target audience is partly made up of unthinking idiots who will take one atheist to represent everyone who’s not stupid enough to believe in gods, but at the same time it’s misleading to have everyone “fall into line”, as it were. It’s the same bone I have to pick with politicians, who say things that fit into 30 seconds instead of giving real answers to questions because the stupid section of the public won’t understand or care for the real answers.

5. While I love your feature, it kinda is just anecdotal; since so many billions of people are religious, most of the crazy people will also tend to be religious. I’m Jewish, so my model religious person would be a rabbi who is a good person, follows most of the rules/customs, and generally tries to live a good life. Most of the rabbis I’ve met are of this sort, or at least they appear to be. Obviously some aren’t. Some religious people are very misguided when it comes to things outside their experience like homosexuality. And everyone knows that, if you aren’t allowed to have sex with man anyway, if you’re a gay Catholic male you might as well join the clergy. But are these people who do awful things in the name of religion actually the fault of religion? Or are they just crazy enough to accept it? I think that religion, on the whole, is a positive force in people’s lives, even if many bad things are done by people who happen to be religious, even if in name of their religion.

6. Someone was saying that “atheist” is a bad word to use because it uses the religious’ frame for the debate, defining an atheist as a person who does not believe in gods, which is the standard. I think “Humanist” is a good label because it does not use that frame. And again, being unconfrontational in the face of pernicious bullshit may not be your or my preferred method, but I still respect it. If it were up to me, I’d be singing atheist Christmas carols in front of people’s houses in Cambridge. But perhaps that wouldn’t be wise, and a slow push would be much wiser. We’re fighting for respect, mostly, not so much rights, even though we want some of those as well. Maybe we also need to show that we’re good people even though we don’t believe in gods.

7. Eh. I wouldn’t define Humanism that way, but that’s fair.

8. Mine, too, actually. But again, I still view religion as a generally good thing for other people to have, because believing lies can be helpful in some ways. I actually can’t justify why honesty is the best policy — or, more appropriately, why ignorance isn’t strength — which annoys me greatly, but it does afford me the benefit of not having too much of a moral problem with the Soma addicts. I’ve made my choice to go Soma-free, and I wish you would as well, but if you don’t, I don’t have a good reason for you.

When I was little, I used to believe in Santa Claus (as a Jew having little contact with non-Jews, I had no impression of Christmas as something religious). If I was good, Santa Claus would know and give me presents, but if I wasn’t, he would know and give me bad presents. I was never one to plan ahead, so that didn’t deter me, but if it did, if it made children be good children, this story about a Coca-Cola marketing icon might be a good thing. There are plenty of things we are taught as children that are actually wrong — I’m a physicist, so right away I remember F = ma and that there’s no such thing as the centrifugal force (F = ma is wrong in relativity, and there is a centrifugal force in a rotating frame). But these are useful lies to believe, at least for a while… Same with creationism. It might be OK to believe that there exists a god who created the creatures while you’re little, until you’re smart enough to understand that actually that’s all wrong.

Mauro,

1. Done

2. “Deleting religion” sounds like banning. Wouldn’t be right and wouldn’t work.

On the other topic, it would be hard to argue that atheists aren’t treated as second-class citizens.

3. Done

4. Au contraire. It is Epstein who wants atheists to be monolithic. I’m not knocking him for promoting a “good works” agenda. He’s belittling others for using strong words to criticize big problems. Why else does he a) disregard the value of their outspokenness and b) validate erroneous, anti-atheist lingo like “atheist fundamentalist”?

5. There is precisely one point to the “Religious People Are the Best People” series, and that is to — as the Brits say — take the piss out of the widely accepted idea that religiosity equals morality.

6. There’s a certain refreshing bad-ass bluntness to owning up and saying “I’m an atheist.” Even though, like most “atheists,” I’m really an agnostic++. All evidence tells me that the claims of religious believers are hokum, though I’m not arrogant enough to claim to know everything about the universe (unlike True Believers, who pretend their dogma gives them special answers). I choose “atheist” because it very directly says “I ain’t buyin’ what nearly everyone’s sellin’,” rather than sounding like I’m sugar-coating it.

Everyone should try to be a good person. I don’t accept that I have an extra burden in that regard because I’m an atheist.

7. OK.

8. The danger in the veneration of lies is that it never stops. If people aren’t willing to question religious authority (or any authority), it often leads to some very dark places, and it leads to a world out of skew, where fair is foul and all that. What makes us special isn’t our being made in God’s image, it’s that big brain of ours that allows us to create art, science, and all that. Loving lies over truth seems like an awful abuse of that big brain.

[rimshot. laughter]

Actually, it’s not the “big brain.” It’s the entire body. Brain, tongue, hands… And all the way down.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

… but I wasn’t sure how religion might affect those….

…religion has played a positive role in a lot of art and even science, but it seems that opposing them (like thumbs) is what God’s about these days.

It’s all those stupid humans trying to force their view onto God.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Hello fellow atheist blogger!

Over the past couple of days, we’ve emailed libraries across the U.S., telling them about Onion Breath and asking them to consider the book for their collections. Libraries are one of the last public institutions specifically dedicated to improving the mental landscape of the nation. They’ve traditionally been great advocates of diversity and tolerance, so we’re approaching them on this basis.

In most libraries, anyone with a valid library card can request additions to the collection. We hope our friends in the humanist and atheist communities will go online or visit their local libraries and ask them to get Onion Breath. As Amanda said, “Whether it helps normalize atheism in broader society will depend on it being carried by libraries and bookstores, and being read by families who do not identify as atheists.” We hope kids with no idea that there are atheists in their communities will open the book in their libraries and run to mommy or daddy asking questions. It all begins with questions.

An early response to the email came from a library administrator in Logan, Iowa. It said:

“Hmmm! No God ? No Creator? I Wonder where they got all
their humor and creativity? A Fish I suppose, Wonder who
created the fish? Something to chew on!!!”

We emailed back:

“Well, we have our own ideas on that, of course. The cool thing is, Onion Breath doesn’t try to slam religion or recruit for atheism. It just mentions that the characters are all atheists. If kids become familiar with the fact that the world they’re living in is filled with diversity, they may grow up more open to different points of view. That’s why we think Onion Breath belongs in your library. Thanks!”

We hope even librarians who are not atheists themselves will put Onion Breath on their shelves, in the name of diversity and tolerance. It’s important for kids (even the most conventional kids) to know there are other types of people in the world. Libraries get endowments, grants and government money to buy books like this. If they’re buying titles that support ethnic, lifestyle, or religious minorities, they ought to be buying Onion Breath. But usually it takes someone requesting the book to alert them there’s a community that needs service.

So please ask your library to get Onion Breath! And please let us know how it goes. Thanks!! Dan & Steph.

… open to books that debunk YHWH in favor of Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Joe Pesci?

My knee-jerk response would have been: “Wonder who created the Judeo-Christian God? Something to chew on!!!””

The feedback has so far been mostly positive. A couple of emails like this one:

“THIS STINKS. FEAR GOD!”

to which we replied, “What stinks? Tolerance? Diversity?” Made me feel better, but I’m sure it was spitting in the wind.

One way of looking at Onion Breath is that it’s so low-key and non-threatening that in order to come out against it you really have to out yourself as a religious bigot.

Being sneeringly called an atheist by some of my remaining religionist friends (remaining because most are head-up-their-asses wingnut apologists for bush) is much the same to me as being sneeringly called a liberal by someone like his supreme ignorance Limbaugh.

Meant to mention this the night it happened but forgot. The last R. debate?

They went to the Religion question, I forget how phrased, and damn all if HUCKLEBEE wasn’t the only one to stand there and say “Religion is very important to me [snip blah blah blah “Yay Religion!”] but we must always remember the important thing about our country is diversity including NO RELIGION AT ALL and …[conclusion snipped because my head was spinning in glee at hearing the words no matter how improbable the source.] “

Not a word about rewriting the constitution to follow the rules of God. Wrong audience. And of course not a word from the Moderators bringing up the point of his saying those very words just a week or two before. But still…any shoutout in the storm, I guess.

To paraphrase Robert E. Lee, it is well that Hucklebee is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of him. I catch myself getting a giggle out of some of the things he says on Colbert for example, then slapping myself in the face for operant conditioning purposes. This guy is the potential Nehemiah Scudder that Heinlein predicted so long ago.

http://www.correntewire.com/huckabee_ath…