… Or at least that is MY term for it. Other people, especially outraged Christians like to call it “Militant Atheist”. Recently here at ProgU a blogger came up with another term … “Evangelical Atheist”. I had originally planned on answering her blog there, but what I have to say is certainly substantive enough to warrant a blog of its own.
Besides what I have to say, I cannot say gently. It seems so much nicer to leave the above link to her blog, and leave any harsh words here. Her blog demonstrates a reason why I think religion is NOT a good thing … it seems to kill off some people’s critical thinking ability.
It may sound kind of funny but it is true. There are atheists who try and convince people that there is no God. …
Yep, I’m one of them. That is what I mean by “Vocal Atheist”
… That sounds just like an evangelist to me. …
That depends on what is meant by “evangelist”. Are teachers who try to convince their students of the usefulness of arithmetic evangelists for mathematics? Are parents who warn their children of the dangers of playing with matches evangelists for fire safety? If that qualifies for evangelism, then I proudly accept the term.
However, when I think of RELIGIOUS evangelism I think of people who:
(1) Preach often uninvited;
(2) Use personal anecdotes about the benefits their belief has had in their life; and/or
(3) Use threats of eternal torture if one doesn’t believe what they believe.
If that is what is meant by evangelist, then I equally proudly reject the term.
… It is interesting that there are those who feel the need to convince others that there is no such thing as God. …
That is a difficult one. I don’t feel the need to convince people. I HOPE to convince people, but I will sometimes present arguments even when I have no doubts that the person I argue against will not accept them. I do that for two reasons. (1) There may be lurkers who are potentially swayable; and (2) I like to test my arguments.
I believe that doing so will lessen the bad effects that I see from religion. I also think these arguments have an overwhelming weight of evidence on their side. By keeping them alive in people’s minds I believe that ultimately reason will win out and religion will become a thing of the past. I have no illusions about that ultimate day being near. The prevalence of religious thought and the will to believe it despite the evidence is so strong that at best atheism can only stem the tide … right now.
… Philip Pullman, the pioneer of the new film "The Golden Compass" is just one example of an avid "atheist evangelist." The purpose behind his books and now the film is to "kill God in the minds of children." Why would he feel the need to do so when there is no such thing as God?
I do not know Philip Pullman. I have not yet seen the movie, THE GOLDEN COMPASS, nor have I read any of his books. Up until a couple of weeks ago, I had never even heard of Philip Pullman. So I cannot speak with any authority on what Pullman may or may not have said.
However, from numerous dealings with evangelical Christians, I highly doubt that the paragraph accurately represents Pullman’s position. I suspect that the quoted phrase, “kill God in the minds of children” comes second (or more) hand from an evangelical website the blogger read. The context of the quote is likely to have been lost long ago.
Evangelicals take it for granted that God is the greatest good thing possible. They do not realize that there are people that not only think that the evangelical God concept is not only not so great … it is a bad thing overall. I am one of those people. I think that the typical evangelical Christian’s belief in God promotes an unthinking dogma that is attempting to inculcate itself into the laws of secular society. If it is allowed to do so, the result will be catastrophic. Because of that I would be very happy if “God were killed IN THE MINDS of children”. That way the potentially destructive influence of Christianity would be lessened in future generations.
I suspect (but I don’t know) that or something close to it, was the point that Pullman was trying to make with regards to the quoted phrase. I certainly hope that Pullman doesn’t have that as “the purpose” behind his writings though. If that is why he is writing then I’m afraid that he is destined to fail and fail miserably. How can any book or series of books compete against the parental indoctrination so prevalent in our Christian-dominated society? Instead, I hope a purpose behind is writings is to expose children to an alternative to Christian-dominated indoctrination. That is a purpose that is realistic and I gather from the popularity of his books, one that he HAS succeeded in and succeeded in admirably.
You may as well call atheism an evangelistic religion. …,
You may as well do that if it is your goal to make misstatements. Even if we use the loose definition of “evangelist” that would allow one to legitimately think of vocal atheists as evangelists, then you are still wrong to call atheism a religion. If atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
All atheism entails is a belief that no gods or God exists. It has no theology beyond that.
… I can't even imagine expending so much time and energy on writing books on a topic I find absurd. …
I suspect that most people reading this blog think it is absurd to live under the threat of death for naming one’s teddy bear “Mohammad”. I also suspect that many people reading this blog, if they lived in a society like that of the Sudan in which an English teacher recently faced just such a situation, would spend a lot of time and energy into doing what they could to eliminate the conditions that give rise to such absurdities … especially if the society allowed them to do such a thing.
What the blogger seems unable to realize is that vocal atheists like myself not only think that aspects of religion are absurd, we also think them dangerous. Our efforts are not directed primarily at the absurdities of religion, it is directed primarily at the dangers of religion.
… He finds it absurd that people believe in God and yet he feels the need to fabricate a way to kill God. …
Here is a classic example of damaged critical thinking. She has taken a phrase out of context from an atheist “kill God IN THE MINDS of children” [Emphasis added]. Even this distorted phrase does not suit her purposes so she changes it even more … to simply “kill God”. That would be absurd. We atheists do not think that God exists. One cannot kill that which doesn’t exist. But the BELIEF IN GOD, does exist. That belief has consequences. The consequences are not always good and they can be absolutely devastating. It is NOT God we would like to see die, it is this destructive belief in him.
… Many atheists complain that Christians try to force their beliefs on others, but some atheists also attempt to make people believe that there is no God.
Another classic example of damaged critical thinking skills, the belief that by making an argument one is trying to FORCE their beliefs on others. No atheists I know of have ever advocated anyone be punished for not accepting their arguments. Evangelicals, however, HAVE threatened atheist with an eternity of torture in the fiery furnaces of Hell for not believing theirs.
When was the last time an atheist tried to LEGISLATE that biology classes must teach the specific doctrine that there is NO GOD? When was the last time an atheist tried to LEGISLATE the phrase, “one nation, under NO GOD” be inserted into our national anthem, or the phrase “In NO GOD we trust” on the back of our money? When was the last time an atheist head of a state Supreme Court tried to get a sculpture honoring the Humanist Manifesto be displayed on its grounds?
The answer to all these questions is NEVER. But Christians have tried (and in some cases successfully so) to do the equivalent. Whenever one tries to legislate one’s beliefs, then one is by definition trying to force ones beliefs on others. Christians have been guilty of this, not atheists.
Another classical example of the deadening of critical thinking skills religion has on some people is the hypocritical accusation that atheist (along with enlightened theists) opposition to their efforts to legislate Christian beliefs constitutes judicial attempts to inculcate atheism into our government. But again opposing a blatantly Christian agenda, does not constitute an atheistic agenda. It is simply upholding the Constitution AND the CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT of the separation of Church and State.
Yes, I try to obey the Bible when it says to "go out into all the world and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ." …
The blogger is perfectly within her rights to do just that. However, others are just as much within their rights to tell her to go to hell. Furthermore, if she does it to a captive office without invitation to do so, I suspect that a lot of those people who tell her that will not even be atheists.
Actually, I hope that if and when she does so, she does so very ineffectually. I think her message is not a good one. For instance, from other blogs she has written I know that she does not support gay rights. She doesn’t because she thinks homosexuality is a sin. And she thinks homosexuality is a sin simply because of biblical proscriptions against it. She is in effect trying to LEGISLATE her Christian belief.
She is well within her rights to think of homosexuality as a sin. If she does, then I would highly recommend that SHE not practice it. If she were a true American who valued the Constitutional separation of Church and State, then she would realize that others have just as much right to disagree with her on that specific agenda. Gay rights is not demanding that marriages be limited to man with man or woman with woman. Allowing others freedom to do as they wish does not detract from your own.
But instead she actively promotes denying gay couples the right to marry and she does so for no other reason than her religious convictions. That is using the legislative process to force your religious beliefs on others. I think it is immoral and another reason I think that religion is not a good thing.
Finally, what is wrong with living by the biblical mandate of Matthew 6:5-6?
… No, I cannot ever force someone to believe because it is only the power of the Holy Spirit who can save, but I desire to tell others of the greatest love story ever told because of what it has meant in my own life. …
(1) The “greatest love story ever told” – that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life -- is really a thoroughly ridiculous story when one really thinks about it. The fact that it isn’t apparent to so many Christians is yet another example of the debilitating effects religion can have on some people’s critical thinking skills.
(2) If God is as great as she seems to think he is, then why does he need her to sing his praises? She isn’t all that effective. If God wanted to convince people of his love for them and his beneficence, then doing so in person would be a MUCH better way to do it. If God is as great as she seems to think, then he should certainly have the power to do it. If he truly wants people to believe in him then he should want to do it. Yet he doesn’t do it … curious. Unless, of course, no God exists and it everything she thinks of God is a delusion she has fostered upon herself. Then everything becomes totally understandable.
… Atheists appear to be doing just the opposite, which you would think would be unnecessary because if there was no God, no one could possibly believe because no one would ever have been changed and affected by something that is non-existent.
Another classical example of the stultifying effects religious belief can have on some people. Using the logic of her argument then all gods throughout history must have existed. Every religion that has ever existed has changed people’s lives. This does not mean that all those gods actually existed, what it means is that the BELIEF IN THOSE GODS existed. What changed the people was not the god, but their own belief in it.
What she also seems to be incapable of realizing is that the change is not always for the better. The Rev. Jim Jones was not changed for the better. Osama bin Laden belief in God has not changed him for the better. George Bush’s personal life may have changed for the better, but our country would have been much better off he was out-of-work alcoholic with a rich father. I believe he is the worst President in our history. I also believe that his religious conviction that God made him President so that he could deal with this time in history and the war on terror played a major role in making him that.
It is because there IS a God that some atheists need to try and convince people of His non-existence. If He was not real, there would be no need to convince people at all.
Again this is the same fallacy noted above. If no other gods existed then there would be no need for a biblical proscription against idolatry. After all, if those gods were “not real, there would be no need to convince people at all”. So why is the biblical proscription there? Because even if the gods don’t exist, the belief in them did. And again the consequences came from the belief, not the god.
I suspect that she and I agree with respect to the existence of all those other gods. I just happen to go one god further. If she can understand why it is that she doesn’t believe in those gods, while other people sincerely did (and for a whole lot of them – still do), then just perhaps she will understand why people like me don’t believe in the existence of her God either. Her God is just as ridiculous as theirs. Unfortunately, our country is ruled by people who believe in his existence. They, like believers in past gods, believe despite the evidence. They call it faith. I happen think that is NOT a good thing. In this modern era where we have weapons of mass destruction, it has the potential to be a deadly thing.
To a true believer Jesus’ parousia (his second coming) is the best thing that could possibly happen. A true believer with access to weapons of mass destruction could make the prophecy of “wars and rumors of war” as heralding Jesus’ return a self-fulfilling one. Already just such a true believer – Pat Robertson – has mounted a campaign for the Republican nomination for President and been successful in obtaining delegates.
Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher who makes that a big part of his campaign, is presently leading in Iowa, and a win there could boost his chances. Huckabee has stated that he believes the bible is God’s personal revelation to us. He tempers that with the statement that he doesn’t understand everything in it ... what is his understanding of the Parousia?
Another strong Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, says that religion is necessary for our very freedom. He also advocates that religion play a major role in government. But there is not now, nor has there ever been any theocracy that offers the freedoms found here and in the secular governments of Europe.
I do not deny that many individuals have benefited from having religion in their life. If religion was strictly an individual belief then I would have no problem with it. But it isn’t. It is slowly (or perhaps rapidly) making inroads into the secular sphere. That is where I have the problem. That is why I am as vocally against it as I am. I think the only way to eliminate the threat of religion is to expose its irrational foundations. That is where I shall concentrate my arguments.
Cheers,
Darwin’s Beagle
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I only scanned your blog, but I wanted to clarify this one point...
Instead, I hope a purpose behind is writings is to expose children to an alternative to Christian-dominated indoctrination.
From what I can tell, he's going on and on about the corruption of the church in his books, and in the end "Authority" dies, who is revealed to be an angel of God, and not God himself, implying that perhaps people have been worshiping the wrong thing.
The death doesn't happen until the third book in the series though, so I doubt there's much of an alternative offered. Having not read the books, though. I can't know for sure.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
As always, I learned a lot from this blog. Very thorough.
I haven't figured George Bush out yet, but I agree with you that his religion has interfered with his ability to lead. I also hope that our next leader will be better able to separate the religious and the secular, and less prone to forcing his beliefs on this country.
Based on the wordiness of this blog. I would think that your typing speed and ideation might run faster than hers, so the ratio of religious fervor I use is subject to question and reevaluation.
---
"Even if we use the loose definition of “evangelist” that would allow one to legitimately think of vocal atheists as evangelists, then you are still wrong to call atheism a religion. If atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."
Actually the vocal Atheism being discussed would be equal to actively trying to convince people not to collect stamps. I think that would qualify as a hobby albeit a rather strange one. I agree that the general term Atheism is not a religion, but the peculiar beliefs of each atheist often qualify.
---
"Our efforts are not directed primarily at the absurdities of religion, it is directed primarily at the dangers of religion."
Hmmm. Replace absurdities with Heresy and religion with Atheism and you would have a statement that you might consider intolerant fanaticism coming from a Christian. There were quite a few places where you do this; I just selected one that jumped out. Would you consider one of those dangers to be suppressing other beliefs?
---
"Another classic example of damaged critical thinking skills, the belief that by making an argument one is trying to FORCE their beliefs on others. No atheists I know of have ever advocated anyone be punished for not accepting their arguments. Evangelicals, however, HAVE threatened atheist with an eternity of torture in the fiery furnaces of Hell for not believing theirs."
See reply immediately below.
---
"When was the last time an atheist tried to LEGISLATE the phrase, “one nation, under NO GOD” be inserted into our national anthem, or the phrase “In NO GOD we trust” on the back of our money? When was the last time an atheist head of a state Supreme Court tried to get a sculpture honoring the Humanist Manifesto be displayed on its grounds?"
You don't know about Marxism? I find that selective awareness might be a sign of "debilitating effects religion can have on some people’s critical thinking skills." Perhaps this Atheism thing does rot the brain.
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?art=2029&l=en
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDP/is_2004_Nov_24/ai_n7582025
Force? Threat? Yes, very real ones.
---
"It is slowly (or perhaps rapidly) making inroads into the secular sphere. That is where I have the problem. That is why I am as vocally against it as I am. I think the only way to eliminate the threat of religion is to expose its irrational foundations. That is where I shall concentrate my arguments."
Actually the inroads are clearly being made by Atheism and secularism. Stretch out your time line to more than a couple of decades. We are living in the golden age of reason. It may not be recorded that way by history, because it just keeps getting better.
In fact I hope it gets enough better that a champion of reason might not draw non sequitur attacks against entire religions based on the professed source a some people have for their feelings concerning social policy, or attack politicians based on their faith. G. W. Bush may be a bad president, but nearly every president before him shared the same religion so using that as an example weakens your entire position. You are a fanatic DB and you only respect reason when it agrees with your prejudice. Thank God that people of your peculiar religion are not the majority in any country.
It seems that chillbill is doing his usual disingenuous rant.
(1) He accuses my vocal atheism as qualifying as religion. But how so? I make no arguments for a supernatural being. I do not claim my arguments are authoratative. At worst, I can be legitimately be accused of presenting my arguments passionately. But passion is not religion. If such an approach upsets his delicate sensibilities I suggest he not read it. No one is forcing him to.
(2) He takes issue with my statement, "Our efforts are not directed primarily at the absurdities of religion, it is directed primarily at the dangers of religion". He says, replace "absurdities" with "Heresey" and "religion" with "atheism" and you get intolerant fanaticism coming from a Christian.
Let's see ... "Our efforts are not directed primarily at the heresey of atheism, it is directed primarily at the dangers of atheism".
Hmm, the first thing to ask is what ARE the dangers of atheism if it is not its heresey? If the dangers are not specified then it certainly IS dangerous fanaticism. That is why I carefully spelled out what I thought some of the dangers of religion is. The fact that chillbill totally ignores that shows his inability to grasp the problem.
(3) I was wondering how long it would take for someone to play the "communism" card. I'm not surprised it was chillbill. He (partially) quotes from a paragraph I wrote concerning the legislative abuses of Christians, and then chides me for not mentioning Marxism. He links to two articles concerning the existence of some secret Chinese directive advocating increasing propaganda to promote atheism at the expense of religion.
Let's look at my FULL paragraph:
I don't think Chinese communist ever tried to insert "under NO GOD" into our pledge of allegiance. Anybody with any intelligence what-so-ever should realize that my argument dealt with the United States. Not with China. chillbill has a very annoying tendency to ignore what is actually said and criticizing what is not said.
But, does he have a point? Can atheism be blamed for the abuses of communism? A proper response to that would require a blog of its own. And here it is. I will give you an abreviated overview of what it says. I will do that by quoting from my blog above:
What is bad about evangelical Christianity is that it is an UNTHINKING DOGMA that is attempting to inculcate itself into the laws of secular society. I was no arguing that Communism is a good thing. It too is an UNTHINKING DOGMA. I want to replace the UNTHINKING DOGMA of religion with REASON, not another UNTHINKING DOGMA that happens to incorporate atheism.
I generally associate with scientists, and scientists are the one group of people in this country that are more likely to be atheistic than theistic. So I know a lot of atheists. However, to my knowledge I don't anyone personally who advocates communism.
(4) Next chillbill believes that contrary to what I wrote about inroads of evangelical Christianity into secular society, it is the other way around. He says:
Hmm, at least it is somewhat reassuring that he seems to equate atheism and secularism with reason.
He would be correct IF that timeline spread back to the Dark Ages. It is certainly better now than it was when one who would have expressed beliefs like I have would be subject to burning at the stake. But again, for anyone with any intelligence what-so-ever, one would realize that is not what I am talking about.
First of all, a timeline of a couple of decades should be sufficient to see the trend that is happening now. Second of all, the problem DOES extend beyond a couple of decades. I wrote a blog about Mitt Romney's speech in Texas where he addresses his religious faith. It was a very concious attempt to emulate what John F. Kennedy did in 1960. However, whereas Kennedy stressed that the separation of Church and State was "absolute" and religion was a personal choice. Romney stressed the importance of being religious and advocating religious involvement in secular government. That change has taken place across almost 5 decades. And it is decidedly a change for the worse.
(5) Finally chillbill launches into an ad hominem attack. He blathers a bit so it is not entirely clear what he says but the gist is that:
(A) I make non-sequitur attacks.
I'm not sure that chillbill understands what a non-sequitur is. It means "that which does not follw". It is a conclusion that is not warrented by the evidence. It is true that I make statements of certain things for which I did not present sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge. For the most part those statements are easy to spot. They are the ones that are preceeded by "I suspect ...", or "I believe that ..." or something similar. Anybody with intelligence would realize that means that I am not pretending to claim that as fact. That is hardly non-sequitur.
(B) That I condemn all religion by the acts of some religious people.
I have dealt with this in numerous other blogs and I am frankly tired of this canard. I have never claimed that ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are bad. I am specifically claiming that in my opinion the OVERALL EFFECT OF RELIGION is bad in today's society. In fact, that is the whole point of that argument. Furthermore, I have given reasons that I think that is the case. chillbill has carefully avoided addressing those reasons favoring misdirection and ad hominem instead.
(C) George Bush may be a bad President, but other Presidents were Christians so one cannot blame his religion for his being bad.
One certainly CAN blame his religion for his being a bad President IF he uses that religious belief to make bad decisions. George Bush has been quoted as having said that he felt like God specifically put him in the Presidency at this moment in history in order to deal with the problem of terrorism. That along with his continuous references to his faith makes me think that he does use his religious beliefs as a basis to make bad decisions.
(D) I am a fanatic
Let's see, I have said I would l like it if religion were to disappear. That is true. I suspect that every theist who is honest with themselves would be happy if disbelief in God would disappear. After all, if they TRULY believe that God is just and promotes a good lifestyle, then why would they not believe that a world in which everybody felt the same way couldn't help but be a better one. That does not make them a fanatic. They become fanatics when they are so convinced they are right that anybody who disagrees with them should be physically punished for their disbelief.
I may not like some of these knee-jerk evangelicals, but I would be horrified by any law forbidding them to believe whatever they want to believe. I cannot think of anybody more heinous than Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church group. But I will fight tooth and nail for their right to believe whatever disgusting thing they may want to believe. I am a fairly strong supporter of gay rights, but I am against hate-law legislation making judicial punishment harsher for targeting gays and other minorities for victims of crimes ... I AM in favor of stiff penalties for any serious crime no matter who is targeted.
I believe that the freedom to believe whatever one may want to believe is the most important basic right in humanity. I say that because occasionally the crowd is wrong. Unpopular ideas can sometimes be right. They should be allowed to compete with opposing ideas in the minds of people ... but that doesn't mean that every hairbrained idea be given respect. That is what competition is all about. Not all beliefs are created equal. Some are better than others. While a person is perfectly within their rights to believe ridiculous ideas, others are equally within their rights to ridicule him for doing so.
I am not advocating the death of religion by anything more forceful than the force of REASON. It is my view that in the long run, reason will win out. I may be wrong about that, religion is firmly entrenched in virtually every society there is. I have no illusions about that. But I think in the (distant?) future, there will come a time when religious belief is a thing of the past.
chillbill, on the other hand, takes personal offense whenever religion is criticized. He tries to insulate religion from criticism by claiming that it shouldn't be criticized unless every religious person on the face of the earth believes something. That is a neat trick, there is nothing on which every religious person agrees. So chillbill feels perfectly happy ignoring any criticism that doesn't fit with his beliefs.
It should be noted however, that he himself is not beyond criticizing religion when it suits his purpose. And this occurs quite often since he holds certain views that are well beyond that of mainstream Christianity. For instance, he doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. He seems to base this on the pericopes in Mark and Luke where a person addresses Jesus as "Good Teacher", and Jesus replies, "Why call me good? None is good other than the father." How does he rationalize that so many others disagree with his assessment? He simply dismisses their arguments and accuses "organized religion" of hijacking the bible for their own personal agendas. Yeah right, ... All those other guys are being misled by nefarious bad guys, but fortunately he is able to see right through it..
He accuses me of respecting reason only when it suits my purpose. Perhaps so, but at least I actually look at the reasoning of others. He doesn't. He does laud reason, but doesn't use it. His arguments are most often non-sequiturs and proposes "alternative hypotheses" that explain nothing.
He again accuses me of having a religion ... I believe I have dealt with that canard as well ... and "Thank[s] God" that people of my sect do not constitute a majority. I wonder if he "Thank[s] God" that his biblical "studies" have led him to becomes a sect of 1.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I think I can confidently take credit for being twice as rantaceous as MissionMindedMaiden, since the wordiness, and irrational condescending qualities you exhibit are apparently undiminished.
---
"...disingenuous rant"
(School yard for school yard)
I know you are, but what am I?
---
"He accuses my vocal atheism as qualifying as religion."
You say this more than once. Since I did not say it I suggest you read more carefully.
---
"Hmm, the first thing to ask is what ARE the dangers of atheism if it is not its heresey?"
I would suggest the murderous history of the world’s only Atheist states. Hopefully this will improve, or at least not be repeated.
---
"When was the last time an atheist tried...?”
I seemed to miss the qualifier that your hatred of those that disagree with you extends only to the US border. Perhaps that is because it was not there.
"But, does he have a point? Can atheism be blamed for the abuses of communism?"
I doubt it, but the only experience we have with Atheists in power is the Marxist (not communist, some communist experiments have been Christian) nations that were worse in almost every ailment you place at the feet of religion. Since my point was your selective memory when it comes to supporting your intolerant views, yes the point is valid even though you missed it.
---
"(4) Next chillbill believes that contrary to what I wrote about inroads of evangelical Christianity into secular society, it is the other way around."
It is good to see you read some of what I wrote. You have accurately defined the position I took on this one issue. Your anecdotal evidence is a nice story, but I prefer facts to supposition. Here are some facts. Christians have gone from 96.4% in 1900 to 83.3% in 2005. Atheists were a tiny 0.001315% in 1900 to 0.5% in 2005 with most of the growth occurring since the mid 1970s. The Atheist number from 1900 may be artificially small since the US was a much more dangerous place to be different 100 years ago.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9437360/Religious-Adherents-in-the-...
So Christianity has been shrinking as a percent of the total, and Atheism is growing rapidly. Consider also the religious symbols that have been removed from some public places, and the Abortion and Gay rights progress that has been ongoing most rapidly in the past 30 years. The only complaint an Atheist can make is that they have not removed every trace of the once more pervasive Christian bias from government. Any illusion that evangelical Christianity is becoming more involved in secular society is just their vociferous reaction to the ground they are losing.
---
"...non-sequitur is. It means "that which does not follw". It is a conclusion that is not warrented by the evidence. It is true that I make statements of certain things for which I did not present sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge."
How about ones that do not follow?
"George Bush may be a bad President, but other Presidents were Christians so one cannot blame his religion for his being bad."
"If God is as great as she seems to think, then he should certainly have the power to do it. If he truly wants people to believe in him then he should want to do it. Yet he doesn’t do it … curious. Unless, of course, no God exists and it everything she thinks of God is a delusion she has fostered upon herself. Then everything becomes totally understandable."
Do you need to see any more of your non-sequitur statements? I am tired of them, but you are right the unsupported ones are just as bad.
---
"That I condemn all religion by the acts of some religious people."
"I have never claimed that ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are bad."
All religion is what you blame, not 'all religious people' by the acts of some religious people. Both would be fanatically oposed to religion, I only noticed the one I pointed out, which leads us to.....
---
"fanatic "
Main Entry: fa•nat•ic
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈna-tik\
Variant(s): or fa•nat•i•cal \-ti-kəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin fanaticus inspired by a deity, frenzied, from fanum temple — more at feast
Date: 1550
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion
"I have said I would l like it if religion were to disappear."
The desire to eliminate every other point of view except your own is a leetle beet FANATICAL! Just a little bit. Some religions teach love and tolerance for everyone (can you name one?). Thus trying to project your intolerance onto those people is a stretch. Many religious people are just as if not more fanatical than you are, so at least you have company.
---
"I believe that the freedom to believe whatever one may want to believe is the most important basic right in humanity."
Are you confused? Just when you are really rolling into an intolerant rant here comes a 180. You have gone all human on me for about three paragraphs. I hope good beagle runs things in your head more than bad Beagle does.
---
"It is my view that in the long run, reason will win out."
I agree with this whole heartedly. I think a bit more faith would help you avoid projecting the hostility that may be symptomatic of your insecurity.
---
Sandwiched between the personal attacks (bad beagle is back) you say this:
"He tries to insulate religion from criticism by claiming that it shouldn't be criticized unless every religious person on the face of the earth believes something."
Would it be too much to ask that you oppose the ACT? Since your broad application of blame on innocent people is what I am objecting to it would satisfy me. I also wonder if the same acts by the non-religious have escaped your notice.
---
"he himself is not beyond criticizing religion"
Any disagreement I have with anyone is on an issue by issue basis. I find it strange how a person that claims reason is his ideal objects to the discussion of specifics. It is so much more convenient to dehumanize all of the people you disagree with by insisting they brainlessly follow one thing that you can vilify. VERY bad beagle. I would also like to clarify that if I do not believe something I do not believe everyone that does is wrong. Most often I just don't know.
It sure looks like i have upset you. I can't pretend it is unintentional. You become even more irrational and I find it funny. What I do not find funny is the hate you spew in the name of rational thought. I does seem to come out on a very specific topic; Religion.
"Thank God that people of your peculiar religion are not the majority in any country."
oops, I did say your slant of anti-religion was a religion. The first instance you note I did not, I can see how a person of your persuation would find that particularly distasteful, so I take it back.
"11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
Mathew 15
I really enjoyed your post- mind if I friend you?
Thanks,
I would be honored.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
I see a common link here. Just saying
(1) Not every belief is a religion. I believe in the rule of law. I believe the Harry Potter books are fun reading. I believe I'm hungry and it is time for lunch. None of that constitutes a religion.
(2) I believe that what makes atheism NOT a religion lies in the words you did NOT emphasize:
Atheism has no generally agreed upon practices.
Off to lunch ...
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I agree with most of the points you made, but at one point it started to seem like you were bashing Christianity. Maybe you were, or maybe I just felt that way because I am a Christian. I would really like to point out, though, that I agree with your statement that you would be okay with religion if it were a personal thing and were not such a big part of society. Religion is a big part of my life but it doesn't have to be that way with others. I don't think that religion should in any way, shape, or form run our country or our society, except on an individual basis.
You didn't mention at what point you thought I was bashing Christianity so I can't be sure, but I probably was. I am not a fan of it. I find the arguments in favor of it ridiculous to the extreme, and I object to the undeserved respect people get for espousing them. Sometimes I think it is a good thing expose religious sycophants to an in-your-face, take-no-prisoners point of view.
However, the fact of the matter is that I know that the "typical" Christian is much like you ... one whose religious convictions are part of their personal and private life. I can easily see where you might think it unfair. In real life, unless you came to me and argued your religious faith I would never mention it to you. Your private religious beliefs are inconsequential to me, and contrary to the impression you may get from the argumentative style I employ here, I am not one who gets upset over disagreements on matters of personal choice.
I suspect you are a member of what I call "reasonable" Christians. I do not think "reasonable" Christianity is a good thing either. For one thing, I think it cannot withstand scrutiny, so it is almost certainly wrong. But more importantly it gives more extreme positions an undeserved umbrella of respectability. In other words, they use the identity of Christian, and the goodwill that "reasonable" Christians have bestowed on it to further their agendas.
So I don't applaud you for being a "reasonable" Christian, but it is not my intent to beat you up too much about it either.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
From my blog above
It turns out that it may well be worse than I thought. Pullman probably never said the quote at all.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
[Hat tip to mvenus]
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France