Asymmetrical Information

Having lived in the born again Christian wing of my freshman dorm, I find that EA's, not fundamentalists, seem to be the undisputed champions of arrogant, intolerant, pig-headed religious boorishness.

I'm not so sure about that, probe in the right places and I think you'll find some hot contenders for that title from the fundamentalist league. Not everyone claiming the mantle of Christ feels compelled to act like Him; some just want the fire insurance and badge and can turn downright nasty when their POV is challenged.

That said, there may be yet another link between atheism and socialism. In a society dominated by Judeo-Christian tradition, government is viewed as being (in some degree) an agent of God for maintaining structural order, while God Himself provides for needs. There is a strong religious compulsion to maintain traditional family structures, which (speaking from experience) can be a great way to avoid the gutter when résumé after résumé returns nothing. Additionally, there is a strong religious compulsion to help the less-fortunate in giving.

Delete this framework, however, and government becomes the surrogate for maintaining personal welfare. The people have no concept of higher obligation than government, and government is big and has access to everyone's resources, so why not let government care for everyone through a generous social welfare program? The individual, if s/he so desires, is saved from the obligation of addressing poverty from his own income; just pay your 60% taxes and avoid running afould of the law, and bingo, the rest of your life is yours to do whatever. Get layed with thirty people at a party next week or maybe lose your job, who cares? God doesn't exist to have an opinion and the social welfare state will cover the rest.

Or, maybe my last intellectual screw is loose, and unhinging lingers ahead. But I don't think that it's just coincidence that the social welfare state dominates "post-Christian" Western European thinking while the United States, still heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian tradition, resists it to a much greater degree (while giving heavily to the less-fortunate through private channels, natch).

When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door for the express purpose of converting you? Are there atheists who canvas, speading their own version of Good News (to wit: there is no god)? I've lived in blue states for over 30 years, and I've never encountered the "pig-headed religious boorishness" of EA's. Not once. On the other hand, People Keen on Jeebus come out of the woodwork. My red-state experiences have been no less sullied by the self-sanctified.

Jane, it's a question of tolerance. I am a happy atheist, or really more of an ag-care-stic, as I don't care whether or not there is a God. It doesn't keep me from exchanging Christmas gifts. I politely skip over "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance mostly because it screws up the cadence. I probably ought to be more true to my small-l libertarian roots and skip the whole damned thing. My grandparents are born-again Christians. I'm glad they are finding meaning in the late stages of their lives. Whatever gets people through their days, so long as they don't want to impose their will (whether they think it comes from within or without) inappropriately on others.

Believing in God doesn't make you stupid. Not believing doesn't make you a Socialist. There are reasonable, fun, friendly people across the spectrum, and there are insecure fools as well.

I work right next to a very devout evangelical. He's a nice, intelligent, thoughtful guy who respects my desire to be left alone about it. Yeah, there are some annoying evangelicals, but in my experience they're all right so long as they aren't standing on my porch offering me magazines. And I do have to say that EAs tend to demonstrate less respect for other people's fundamental beliefs, does anybody else remember that incredibly vitriolic exchange between Den Beste and Ravaing Atheist a while back?

Philboid (surely one of the more interesting monikers I've heard this week):

The question, I think, is not so simply settled. There are many communities of Christian believers who don't evangelize very actively, or who consider that their most effective evangelical tool is their lives (like my own, Episcopalian - "God's frozen people" as we're sometimes known)(and btw, that "life as evangelism" thing seems to me to be a cop-out, but it doesn't bother me enough to get me started witnessing at a cocktail party... possibly to my discredit, but there you have it). On the other hand, as far as I know there IS no "community" of atheists - it's kind of antithetical to the whole atheism thing, isn't it? To organize into a group dedicated to the belief that there's nothing bigger than itself to believe in? Therefore, no organized door-to-door handing out of atheist tracts. Or, one could argue that some socialistic-ish organizations are de-facto atheist organizations, that call me during dinner several times a week to encourage me to give till it hurts because there's nothing to rely on except the goodwill of this or that group.

In one neighborhood particularly, I used to be doorbelled by members of Christian groups. I never once had any member of any group stick a foot in my door once I had told them I wasn't interested. I do, however, have a friend who misses no opportunity to tell me that he is his own G*d, though he knows I find that position disturbingly arrogant and insulting to my beliefs (since it places him on a par with the G*d I profess). Reasoning from anecdotes is a fool's game, but in my own experience I'd rather be around many fundamentalists than an atheist who possesses the zeal of the converted (I also have atheist and agnostic friends who aren't so zealous - no problem there).

OK, this kind of things really gets me ticked off. When you run into these 'EA' types just slap them upside the head, tell them to get over themselves and then just ignore them (same advice applies for evangelical Christians, too).

I'm an atheist and like most other atheists I know I don't care one whit what your religious beliefs are as long you don't try to force them on me. If you want to discuss the issues then fine I'm there, but I see absolutely no need to evangilize my beliefs and I think you will find most atheists are the same way. Don't judge the whole by the actions of a few nut cases on the fringe. Would most Christians want to be be judged based on the actions of the evies and the fundies?

If you are talking to someone who is "oblivious to the possibility that they might be wrong" then tell them so and walk away. There's really just no point in even talking with them. In my experience this applies far more often to the religious types than to atheists, but there is no doubt that there are atheist nut cases out there, too. Best to simply ignore them.

I KNOW that I may be wrong. I know that if my observations of the world contradict my beliefs then my beliefs will have to change. That is what separates my beliefs from religious faith. If an atheist can't understand that then, atheist or not, he's no less religious than fundamentalist Christian.

Now, what really gets me pissed, though, this belief that atheism some how requires or causes socialism. That is utter nonsense. I think you would find that most atheists are rather libertarian in their politics. I am an atheist and in my opinion socialism is one of the greatest evils ever perpetrated on humanity. Yes, communism was atheistic, but it was an forced atheism. It had everything to do with totalitarian control and nothing to do with rational philosophy. Even if you want to believe that "all socialists are atheists" (which would be wrong) that does not imply that "all atheists are socialists". Review logic 101.

And how in the world does removing Judeo/Christian priniciples undermine "traditional family structures"? A general review of world history would indicate that people have been maintaining family and tribal organizations for MUCH LONGER than either Judaism or Christianity has been in existence.

What a blatant straw man. When was the last time a complete stranger approached you and tried to convert you to atheism? Oh, it never happened. I see.

Jamie writes: On the other hand, as far as I know there IS no "community" of atheists - it's kind of antithetical to the whole atheism thing, isn't it?

I don't know if it's "antithetical," but there are actually a couple of "communities" of atheists out there.

See, for example, the American Atheists (they have a 2005 Atheists' Calendar, their 31st national convention in Philadelphia this month, and a scholarship program) and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which has a student essay competition, a newspaper, and a big building ("Freethought Hall") in Madison, Wisconsin for its headquarters. It seems pretty active in both Atheist Evangelism, and imposing-their-views-on-others. (In the "What does the Foundation do?" section, the first thing listed is "File lawsuits!")

Objectivists are both atheists and extremely anti-socialist, although some folks say that the more extreme versions do worship Ayn Rand. A lot of the hostility that Objectivism got from mainstream conservatives (William F. Buckley and his ilk) was because Rand was loudly atheistic and expected her followers to be atheists, too.

American Atheists was badly served by its leaders; apparently Madalyn Murray O'Hair was a pretty dishonest, disagreeable person in her own right, and did a lot to hurt the atheist movement.

As for me---these days, I like to say that I'm an "agnostic apathetic"---I don't know and I don't care. Or I say that I'm a "maltheist agnostic"---I don't know whether god(s) exist, but if they do, they're hostile.

I have met evangelical atheists and they're pretty easy to shut down. You just tell them it's none of their damn business and walk away. The difference between them and Evangelical religious fanatics is that generally to engage you in a conversation the EA's actually know you first. They don't just approach you on the street or ring your doorbell as opposed to EC.

I have always characterized myself as a "devout Atheist" I have no idea what might be out there and though I doubt the existence of God, I have no proof that God does not exist and, more to the point, if it does exist, I don't want to piss it off.

Philboid:

On the other hand, People Keen on Jeebus come out of the woodwork. My red-state experiences have been no less sullied by the self-sanctified.

And I find Girl Scouts to be annoying, particularly the ones who were given permission to canvass my bank's drive-through lot one Saturday, running eagerly up to my open car window with 9-year-old glee chirping "Do you want to buy some girlscout cookies?!" -- when I'm not currently making enough money to even cover all of my fixed expenses (and I say that as someone having no credit card debt).

I said "no," and got on with my life. Hardly a sullying experience, anymore than pointing JWs or whomever back down the front walk. If the Jesus Freaks flash you or moon you Braveheart-style or something, we can talk further on that one :-/

Marc:

And how in the world does removing Judeo/Christian priniciples undermine "traditional family structures"? A general review of world history would indicate that people have been maintaining family and tribal organizations for MUCH LONGER than either Judaism or Christianity has been in existence.

Correct, and in those times it would have been rather difficult to survive -- as an individual, and as a group -- apart from a family and tribe/clan, along with a normal male/female reproductive regimen. Going out in an independent direction would be a quick ticket to starvation in a dry year.

Modern technology removes one key physical barrier -- the need to provide one's own food and shelter from very basic materials -- and when a sufficiently generous social welfare state is present, the other significant physical barrier collapses, because a traditional family or clan structure isn't necessary to survive during leaner times. Some people may prefer it anyway, but IMO any level of deviation is possible and practical once other restraining factors -- e.g. traditional religious influence -- are removed.

There must be a certain humility in believing there is a higher power than you...

This humility is often well-concealed.

However, it takes a special kind of arrogance to believe that you (or any human for that matter) can direct an economy.

So, that whole "divine right of kings" some countries used to have was an example of that well-concealed humility, then.

I'm gonna recycle a comment I left on another blog dealing with this topic:
"I sympathize with the disaffection with organized religion expresed here. I fell away from a protestant church in the late 80's as Punk Rock became more appealing to me and indeed conflicted with my fellow congregants' sensibilities.

In my early twenties, I began an independant study to determine if my departure was warranted. Long story short: I found that the Bible is more credible than MOST for whom it is sacred. Put simply, years of evolving tradition has created a chasm between modern dogma/doctrine and that which the text actually communicates.

The issue of faith is problematic for many in an age of scientific enlightenment. While certain aspects of the Bible are a matter of historical fact, the controversial elements are useless to an empiricist. My belief in it's veracity is qualified by the following: I don't expect anyone else (my kids included) to take my word for it. I often describe it as a philosophical construct. The premise of an omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign deity is absolutely supported by the subsequent textual information. Said premise provides for each and every supernatural occurance. This does not prove it, but demonstates consistency.

The construct is quite sound; the question is whether or not one accepts the premise. I stand in support of any contrary view, but respect greatly a noncontradictory thesis."

"And how in the world does removing Judeo/Christian priniciples undermine "traditional family structures"?"

Well, then, how do you explain the rise of feminism, which is just about the religion of the anti-Christ? And, how do you explain the devastating destruction of family through divorce that accompanied the rise of feminism?

Humans need to submit themselves before a greater power. This is a psychological and social need. Atheism does lead inevitably to belief in socialism and crackpot religions like feminism, because atheism is a refusal by the individual to submit to something greater than self.

I don't know whether there is an actual anthropomorphic God as Christian teachings state. I do know that, when humans do not submit themselves to the greater mystery and power of the creator, they engage in evil and destruction.

The discussion of whether or not God exists misses the point. The issue is human psychological development and spiritual need.

I'm speaking from the perspective of an agnostic with athiest leanings. I am put off by the arrogance of the EA, but here is the question:

To what extent should the belief in God be handled differently by a skeptic (say, in the Humean sense) than the belief in ESP? Should we all be neutral on the issue of telekinesis?

From my perspective, there are very few times in life when I can say, "X is definitely not the case," but there are quite a few when I can say, "I have no reason to believe X."

Libertarian evangelical atheists are the worst kind. They pretend to be scientific, but atheism (like religion) is scientifically indefensible. Their urge to outlaw religion fairly vibrates just beneath the veneer of their so-called libertarianism. I speak as an agnostic who is staunchly opposed to the intrusion of religion in government, but who is secure enough in his agnosticism to forbear from attacking religion at every opportunity.

Ask yourself a simple question. It is easy to tell if someone is a member of a particular race. It is relatively easy to recognize certain ethnic origins by accent. But how do you know if someone is an atheist? You know members of all sorts of minorities who have never once mentioned it to you. In fact, there's a good chance that you know members of groups you would consider "fringe" and aren't even aware of it. Zealots are annoying regardless of the specifics of their belief system and cause. Happily most people aren't zealots. That's why I know so many great people who are members of so many religions, so many political groups, so many races.

Jane, if I ever get the opportunity, this libertarian atheist would love to buy you a beer and discuss economics.

Philboid Studge,

When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door for the express purpose of converting you?

Actually, I had that happen once; I forget which magazine got accidentally delivered to my neighbor instead of to me (The Nation, probably), but evidently he concluded (wrongly, as it happens) that I was a "sister in freethought."

(Yeah, OK, he was "really" at my door to deliver my misdelivered magazine. Sure he was. You don't spend fifteen minutes on the doorstep dropping off misdelivered mail.)

But the real reason I'm posting this is to say that I know all about Filboid Studge, and so ought you all to. (Hint: if you search it, it may help to include "Saki." I haven't actually tried Googling, but that's just because I know the story very well.)

We used to call these folks "Atheists with God on their side." Glad to see someone else noticed.

I generally prefer to call myself a 'militant agnostic', but I understand what you mean about 'evangelical atheists'. Many people who seem to bemoan the religious right and pride themselves on their lack of belief in their 'stupid religious views' subscribe to any number of secular 'religions'. There just seem to be this tendency in human nature to convince oneself about the purity of one's 'truth'. Once someone becomes a true believer, it becomes very difficult to convince him/her otherwise.

I'm not theist or socialist (I'm an agnostic New Dealer), but I'd just like to add that there are many Christian socialists as well. Some even say Jesus was a socialist. ya know, values of compassion and what not. Socialist and not, many people find their desire for social justice rooted in religion. Ah. Cornel West. There's an example of a Christian socialist. You'll find more if you go through the history books back before McCarthy and the redbaiting.

But what's this foolishness about God directing the economy, "it takes a special kind of arrogance to believe that you (or any human for that matter) can direct an economy." That has to be the most irresponsible thing I've heard in a while. Of course humans direct the economy. Who sits on all the corporate boards? Humans! Who is a CEO? A Human! Who buys and sells goods and services! Humans! Who manages all the regulatory agencies? Humans! Who decides what to invest large sums of money in? Humans! This is not arrogance. Humans do things. What a surprise.

And might I add one more thing that in an economy where the richest 1% of Americans own more capital than the bottom 95% combined, very few humans direct the economy.

Phil, there is a huge difference between participating in the economy, even at a high level, and directing it. It's like arguing that being stuck in a traffic jam is directing traffic.

Philboid, thanks for reminding me (via your name) of that old Saki short story. Everyone in marketing or advertising should read it (though I hope they won't).

Really, what's more annoying? One evangelist (atheist or religious), several sales phone calls a day, or 100 junk e-mails? The evangelists are trivial next to the salespeople & fraudsters. If you can't shut the door in the face of a Jehovah's Witness, how in heck do you deal with a pushy salesman?

But over the years I've had dozens of JW's, Baptists, etc., knocking on my door, but I've never met an evangelizing atheist. Then there was the room-mate the Air Force assigned to me once - recently "born again", would not shut up about it, and I couldn't exactly kick him out of his bunk...

As for Raving Atheist - I think you'll see Christians posting on his web site a whole lot more than he's posting on theirs. A lot of them seem to consider the mere existence of his site an affront. The idea of just not looking at it doesn't occur to them.

[D]does anybody else remember that incredibly vitriolic exchange between Den Beste and Raving Atheist a while back?

I only remember Steven's totally non-vitriolic response. I really like his essay about a non-disprovable Fr-d, since I find it aesthetically pleasing, but not essential, to believe in a slightly more involved Creator.

Stephen:

Well, then, how do you explain the rise of feminism, which is just about the religion of the anti-Christ? And, how do you explain the devastating destruction of family through divorce that accompanied the rise of feminism?

Is that really serious or was it an attempt at satire?

Humans need to submit themselves before a greater power. This is a psychological and social need. Atheism does lead inevitably to belief in socialism and crackpot religions like feminism, because atheism is a refusal by the individual to submit to something greater than self.

I absolutely and completely disagree with the premise that people *require* a belief in a greater power. But even if you are correct the rest of your argument simply doesn't follow. In socialism, the community becomes the thing that is "greater than self" and individuals must submit themselves to it. In this case it is the supposed need to believe in "something greater" than leads some into socialism. Socialism isn't the lack of belief in a "higher thing" it is the transferrence of that belief from God to Community. Remove this bogus need to believe in something bigger than yourself and socialism becomes impossible.

As for atheism leading to belief in crackpot religions. I don't think you'd have to look very far to find several Christian sects that qualify as "crackpot". It seems to me that theism/atheism is a non-factor; people will belive nutty things whether they believe in God or not.

squawkbox,

Finally someone else who's read Saki! As I recall (doing this from memory; moved recently and a lot of the books are still in boxes), the original name of the "breakfast food" was "Pipenta." Not a bad drug name, as they go. I still marvel that someone proposed "Orudis" and someone else passed it.

I never quite understood the "power greater than oneself" rhetoric. The crosstown bus, for instance, is greater and more powerful than myself, and I have no trouble believing in that - anti-Christ heathen though I may be. I also believe in Niagara Falls and MX missiles black holes and sperm whales and on and on.

Anyway, it seems to me that the God question is - or ought to be - a question of fact, not of feeling. Was the universe created by some intelligent force, or not? Yes or no? It's an interesting research program. But the whole sub/dom dynamic just muddies the waters.

Though I wonder if maybe it's intended to?

Saki? He rocks! Check out The Toys Of Peace for some good satire of progressive addlepatery circa 1914. Gabriel-Ernest is one of my favorite spooky ones.

I never quite understood the "power greater than oneself" rhetoric. The crosstown bus, for instance, is greater and more powerful than myself, and I have no trouble believing in that - anti-Christ heathen though I may be. I also believe in Niagara Falls and MX missiles black holes and sperm whales and on and on.

Wrong analogies.

The crosstown bus was designed by people like you (perhaps having a different set of talents than what you possess but their DNA wasn't so different), and if you know what you're looking for in the engine bay, you can shut the thing down completely by simply removing one part here or there. Likewise for MX missiles.

The Niagra falls is a huge body of water expending great amounts of energy, yet it already has been limited and controlled for hydroelectric power production and dams have been built to stop things larger than that. Black holes...well, they're a bit inaccessible for purposes of direct testing, so who knows what could or could not be done with them.

Sperm whales? You can kill them and use their body parts for a variety of uses -- as long as you don't go insane in the pursuit of a white-toned member of the species.

But try creating, from nothing, the elements by which to make a bus or MX missle, or try generating water where none previously existed without having oxygen and hydrogen to react. Try putting the whale back together again. Or try prolonging or restarting a human life after it has departed. That touches on a power "greater than one's self."

"But there is also the type of atheist who believes that he or she can be God, because the position is open. This person, in my opinion, must be watched far more closely than the Jerry Falwells of the world."

How many atheist Presidents has this country had?

Ayatollah Dobson and his followers own, not just appear as a radio personality, own radio stations and use them 24/7 to propagandize, demogogue and sell the right-tighty-whitey manifesto of having Jesus as your personal savior.

How many Atheists have this kind of power?

How many Atheist publishing companies exist as opposed to Regency? or Zondervan etc.

How many atheists have television programs that are aired daily and in which they proselytize and sell their faith?

How many solely atheist bookstores are there compared to solely christian bookstores in this country? (The wiccan and new agers dont count)

I worked in the court system for ten years. You know how much unsolicited christian tracts, magazines and scary newsletters I received? Too many to count. You know how many Atheists sent stuff? One, if you count scientology as atheistic.

I have not done so, but someone could do a little poll on the various legislatures of the 50 states and I you will not find a majority of atheists, in fact you might find more of our leaders who consider themselves evangelical than us free thinkers might find comfortable.

When was the last atheistic inquisition?

When was the last time a christian was killed in blood sport by atheists?

We was the last time that atheists, as a group of believers, fielded armies and warred with others of differing belief.

How many Atheist domestic terrorist groups exist or existed in this country as opposed to: Christian Identity, etc.

Who is more dangerous again?

Or try prolonging or restarting a human life after it has departed. That touches on a power "greater than one's self."

Actually, no it doesn't. By the definitions of 'death' from various points in the past, we already possess the capacity to bring someone back from the dead. Every time our revivification ability increased, we changed the definition of death to compensate.

j swift:

When was the last atheistic inquisition?

Depends. Do we get to count the countless millions who have died under the hands of atheistic communists in places like Russia, China, and portions of Southeast Asia? (If you only want to count a fraction who officially died for "religious" reasons, then the inquisition's body count has to be similarly discounted on the grounds that much of it was motivated by political ends.)

When was the last time a christian was killed in blood sport by atheists?

Rome in the first century AD (CE, whatever) may qualify...and Christians are still a persecuted and sometimes-martyred group in China.

We was the last time that atheists, as a group of believers, fielded armies and warred with others of differing belief.

Depending on exactly how you intend to ply the definition, we could go back to the famous communist regimes again, and pop out some fairly big numbers.

Matt G.:

Actually, no it doesn't. By the definitions of 'death' from various points in the past, we already possess the capacity to bring someone back from the dead. Every time our revivification ability increased, we changed the definition of death to compensate.

This is an interesting point, but it doesn't change the fact that there is an absolute line beyond which no human, with any amount of technology, has brought someone back from the dead. Even machines that can keep the meat performing basic life processes can't reverse the loss when the essence of life has plainly departed.

J.Swift asked:

"When was the last atheistic inquisition?"

I'd say the Killing Fields in Cambodia; before that Cultural Revolution in China and before that the 1930's show trials in Moscow. [For Naziism, it would depend whether you consider it atheist, an outgrowth of spiritualist kookery, or the warped fruit of native, largely Catholic, anti-semitism.]

anony-mouse answered J.Swift:

"Depends. Do we get to count the countless millions who have died under the hands of atheistic communists in places like Russia, China, and portions of Southeast Asia? (If you only want to count a fraction who officially died for "religious" reasons, then the inquisition's body count has to be similarly discounted on the grounds that much of it was motivated by political ends.)"

You'd also have to take into account that often there was coexistence between church and said states, e.g the revivialist Church in Russia and, later, the Orthodox Church (especially in the Border areas) were willing to make their peace with the CPSU if it meant gaining strength relative to rival churches. The Orthodox church did not follow the pattern of resistance of e.g. the Catholic Church in Poland, and Stalin (who, BTW, was an ex-student for the priesthood) was not as militantly atheist as Trotsky.

On the flip side, you can argue Leninism is a form of monotheism: the Proletariat as a replacement for Christ as the suffering persecuted object and as the fated source of redemption, the party as the church, the ritual invocation of sacred texts, the persecution of heretics (Zinovev, Bukharin), the sanctification of its prophets, the conviction that their way is fated ("inevitable dialectic of history" versus "God's will) and the promise of an ultimate paradise ("after the state has withered away").

Hence the reason why Nietsche, who hated the German Social Democrats, then turned his ire to Christianity - he saw one springing from the other.

I see what's going on here. The fact that any atheist dares to talk publicly about their atheism is so outrageous that it's important to try to put them in their place.

I'm an atheist, but coming from the Northeast US (where really we don't talk about religion) I bring it up approximately never. Whether or not someone else is religious is a matter of indifference to me. If your religion makes you happy, then I'm happy for you.

But I'm getting a little sick of the endless villification atheists must endure in this country, and the endless double standards. Can you imagine (in this day and age) anyone outside of the fringe speculating that Jews are necessarily socialists, that a society that became majority Christian must necessarily be immoral? Atheists vote for non-atheists all of the time, yet any number of the religious hold it as a badge of honor that they would never vote for an atheist.

Christianity is everywhere in the public sphere. If I drive down the freeway from Seattle to Portland, I will see twenty billboards explaining why I'm going to burn in hell. Yet if a few atheists have the temerity to exercise their free speech rights and bore you with their atheism, it's somehow dangerous.

Such a classic baiting post.

By the "submitting to a higher power" standard, Socialism, Communism, and Nazism are religions. And they have the other characteristic of fanatical religion - a complete imperviousness to empirical invalidation of their beliefs.

I've never felt any urge to submit to any higher power except the US Constitution.
"When was the last time a christian was killed in blood sport by atheists?

Rome in the first century AD (CE, whatever) may qualify." Not at all - unless you think that every religion outside the Judeo-Christian-Muslim lineage is atheism. The Romans worshipped most every god they'd ever heard of, and sometimes worshipped their emperors as gods, too. It was the Christian's monotheism that got them into trouble, when they refused to join in the Romans' official rights. (The Jews had it just as bad - their temple was destroyed and eventually they were driven out of their own country.)

Stephen:

Well, then, how do you explain the rise of feminism, which is just about the religion of the anti-Christ? And, how do you explain the devastating destruction of family through divorce that accompanied the rise of feminism?

Is that really serious or was it an attempt at satire?

Deadly serious. First, let's separate a couple of issues. The notion that men, or this society, ever opposed accomplishment by women is a crock. That women have entered the workforce and succeed is not the work of feminism. Feminists have taken credit, here, for the sun rising in the morning.

Case in point. My daughter tried to tell me how women were "oppressed." "Women didn't get the vote until 1920," she said. Problem: men in my family were serfs until they boarded coffin ships to sail to America in the 1880s. The men in my family didn't acquire the franchise until well into the 1890s. That those men supported the franchise for women is evidence of the goodwill of men toward women. This is, in reality, the reason why the women in the U.S. have moved toward full public lives so quickly. Feminism is all lies all the time. Men have always been motivated by goodwill toward women. Your college professors lied, demonically and purposefully, when they told you otherwise. They lied to you because they want you to be miserably unhappy. They are.

Feminism is a crackpot religion. In the last few months, as feminism has imploded into self-satire, its proponents have argued that it just needs fixing. What it needs is to be dumped in the trashbin.

Feminism has no good intentions. The purpose of feminism is to sow discord and anger between the sexes. That is now its only distinguishing feature. The measure of intelligence in a feminist society is the degree to which women seek confrontation and discord in relationship to men.

The lying, and the attempt to set men against women, is best exemplified by that demonic liar, Betty Friedan, who compared the "plight" of the housewife to that of the concentration camp inmate. Problem: Friedan only pretended to be a housewife. She was a Stalinist labor organizer, with a rich publisher husband who hired a maid to do the housework. Feminism is lie on top of lie on top of lie. It is, in fact, the religion of the anti-Christ.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that I oppose freedom and accomplishment for women. In years to come, we will discover that feminists lied even about having any real input into this. The only purpose of feminism is to sow hatred and division between men and women. And, it has succeeded quite admirably in this.

God created men and women to love and comfort one another. Feminism is the religion of the anti-Christ. It is evil personified.

Stephen, you need to get laid more, dude!

Jeekers Creekers: Nothing like a sweeping statement to condemn an entire group of people. Didn't any of you ever take a debating class? There are looney tunes on both sides of the table. The fact that SOME evangelicals feels they had a hand (and therefore are owed) in electing this president has empowered them. And the media sensing another way to actually not have to do their jobs, gives them coverage, stuck between hard hitting news about Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart. I live in MA, can't get much Bluer, and I live right next to several fundamentalist. Fine people, good neighbors and never tried to "convert me" once I said I was happy with my religious choices - lapsed Catholic.
Nothing like the "he did it too" argument. Jeekers Jane. Although I am only a lurker, a have to say, I expected a better arguement from you tham I get from my 9 year old.
Oh, and Stephen. Dude, that argument won't work on us any more than it worked on your -- what mother, girlfriend, wife? Just do your own damn laundry!

The answer to both of these ignorant replies is contained in today's entry to my weblog, "Harleys, Cars, Girls & Guitars":

www.shoutingthomas.typepad.com

And, incidently, I was married to the most beautiful Filipina woman in the world for 16 years. She passed away five months ago. We made love every night.

I don't think I've ever had a mainstream protestant come to my front door and try to convert me.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, yes... but they have a relationship with protestantism similar to Nation of Islam's with Mainstream Islam.

But that's besides the point. Having been a militant atheist, I think that atheists who witness are worse because they do have established relationships with those to whom they provide their missionary services.

And, of course, the occassional "fun kids" asking people in the mall to "come to our youth group!" (I asked them what denomination they were, they said "non-denominational" (which means "Evangelical Protestant") and then I asked "what tradition do you come from?" and they told me "John the Baptist" at which point I reminded them that John the Baptist was out in the middle of nowhere and people came to see him while they were in a mall asking people to come to their youth group. I was then told to have a good day.)

And Chuck,

I've led, and continue to lead, a sex life that would cause you to drool in envy if you knew the details.

If you think that feminist women are the answer to your sex life, God have mercy on you.

Footie, you are condemned to a live of misery. You are welcome to it.

Once again:

www.shoutingthomas.typepad.com

Stephen:

Well, then, how do you explain the rise of feminism, which is just about the religion of the anti-Christ? And, how do you explain the devastating destruction of family through divorce that accompanied the rise of feminism?

Is that really serious or was it an attempt at satire?

Deadly serious. First, let's separate a couple of issues. The notion that men, or this society, ever opposed accomplishment by women is a crock. That women have entered the workforce and succeed is not the work of feminism. Feminists have taken credit, here, for the sun rising in the morning.

Personally, I don't care much about 'feminism' either way. However, I can disagree with them without calling them 'the religion of the anti-Christ'. I think you've gone way over the top on this one. Whatever. Live and let live.

My real beef is with the 'atheism causes socialism' meme. That's just plain wrong. You can certainly make the case that totalitarian communist/socialist governments imposed a godless way of life but it is arguable whether even that actually caused atheism. Theism/atheism is a question of belief, not action. Maybe some peoples beliefs were changed, but it is clear that many people living within these totalitarian societies did not loose their theistic beliefs even if they could not legally practice their traditions.

You might be able to argue that to truly embrace socialism one must be an atheist, although I think you would find many socialists who would disagree with you.

However, none of that has any bearing at all on the question of atheism causing socialism. A --> B does not imply that B --> A. Someone must show some causal relationship between first being atheistic and then becoming socialistic. I have seen nothing to support that premise and have a lot of personal observation to the contrary.

In my opinion this whole thing is about politicising a religious issue. There are people who would like to use the government to expand or impose their religious and moral tenets. They can't do this on strictly relgious grounds but by making the phony atheism --> socialism claim they attempt to move the debate into the political realm. I'm not falling for it.

"There are people who would like to use the government to expand or impose their religious and moral tenets. They can't do this on strictly relgious grounds but by making the phony atheism --> socialism claim they attempt to move the debate into the political realm. I'm not falling for it."

Exactly Marc, just like the school prayer canard.

"There are people who would like to use the government to expand or impose their religious and moral tenets. They can't do this on strictly relgious grounds but by making the phony atheism --> socialism claim they attempt to move the debate into the political realm. I'm not falling for it."

That statement cuts both ways, though, doesn't it? Activists (for lack of a better word) who profess "atheism" as a belief system ("I don't believe in a god or gods" could, I think, accurately be restated "I believe there is no god") seem to follow an agenda that removes all trace of religion from the public sphere - as witness the silly redesign of the LA County Seal. Pretending that religion had no role in the founding of this country is, IMHO, about as good an idea as mandating school prayer.

Or, to restate, they can't do this on strictly anti-religious grounds but by making the phony theism --> fascism claim they attempt to move the debate into the political realm. I'm not falling for it.

The Founders were mostly Deists. Even the ones who weren't made clear that the United States was in no way founded on religious thought.

Every reasonable person wants to remove the vestiges of religious thought from the government. Disagree? I suspect you wouldn't if those traces were of a religion other than your own.

"I don't think I've ever had a mainstream protestant come to my front door and try to convert me." I thought Baptists were mainstream Protestant, but they're knocking on the door all the time. As for Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, the JW's apparently gave up on me long ago, and I've worked with Mormons without being proselytized.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the only people who come door to door in Colorado Springs are the Mormons/JWs.

And since I like to argue religion, it's always nice for them to come over. They enjoy being invited in and having someone be nice to them, I enjoy arguing religion, everyone benefits.

Actually, Matt G, no - I don't want to see all vestiges of religion banished from government. There are some well-known faiths that I have less common ground with than others, but any faith tradition that emphasizes the imperfection of humanity and its need continually to seek to better itself - for whatever reason - is welcome to exert that influence in limited amounts in my little world.

My husband is basically a church-going agnostic, because although explicit belief in a higher power doesn't seem to happen for him, he does believe in the values of community, consideration for others, and a sense that there's something better, more sublime, to strive for than our grasshopper lives. Not to say these values are absent outside professing a faith and goin' to meetin', but it's sort of a shortcut for him, he says. (So he cheats. Life is short; I'm not going to judge him.)

Jamie:

That statement cuts both ways, though, doesn't it? Activists (for lack of a better word) who profess "atheism" as a belief system ("I don't believe in a god or gods" could, I think, accurately be restated "I believe there is no god") seem to follow an agenda that removes all trace of religion from the public sphere - as witness the silly redesign of the LA County Seal. Pretending that religion had no role in the founding of this country is, IMHO, about as good an idea as mandating school prayer.

Actually there is a fundamental difference between the atheist "disbelief in god" and the statement "there is no god". Atheism means 'without theism' rather anti-theism. Consider, for example, the difference between amoral and immoral. That misdefinition of atheism leads to lots of the strawman arguments against atheism.

I haven't made any argument about the impact of religion on the founding and I'm not sure where that came from. The point that I've been arguing is that the relationship between atheism and socialism is being misrepresented in order to create argument along the lines of "We must stamp out atheism in order to rid ourselves of socialism." I believe that argument is flawed and I've provided my reasons. My opinion is that the rise of this argument is due to religion trying to co-opt a political argument to further their agenda, but that's just my opinion.

There are some well-known faiths that I have less common ground with than others, but any faith tradition that emphasizes the imperfection of humanity and its need continually to seek to better itself - for whatever reason - is welcome to exert that influence in limited amounts in my little world.

Great! I'll let the Scientologists know.

There is a classic example of what Jane describes commenting on this this post. I've never seen an Evangelical seek out a discussion for the purpose of spilling such hostility.

Matt G:

Though I'm not a Scientologist and am insufficiently up on them to comment knowledgeably, they're welcome to try to become big enough to influence a culture; if their influence meets my criteria for "my little world," good enough. As usual in my life, I'm not in an oppressed minority and don't want to step on the toes of any who are, but when I try to put myself in the shoes of, say, a Buddhist in America, I think it might be irritating to have Christmas off for no reason that's important to me (as well as to have to listen to MONTHS of Christmas carols), but it wouldn't actually materially harm me nor interfere with the practice of *my* faith. So it seems to me.

Marc:

I'm aware of the difference between a- and im-/anti-; but in practice, I'd contend that "atheist" is not equivalent to "agnostic." I did come across a website - http://www.2think.org/hii/atheism.shtml - that claims that agnostics call themselves such because they don't understand what atheism is, but the guy who wrote the essay therein provides no sources for his definitions except his own writings, and on the other hand, this site - http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=atheist - defines "atheist" as I contend it's commonly used: "someone who denies the existence of god." Merriam-Webster online defines "atheist" as "one who believes there is no deity" and "agnostic" as "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."

Possibly I'm in the realm of connotation as far as you're concerned. But I'd argue that what you might consider my connotations for these terms are this society's denotations.

All that aside, I understand your point and agree: socialism isn't part-and-parcel of atheism (esp. given things like the "liberation theology" of the activist Catholic church starting in the '60s, which went beyond socialism into the wide wonderful world of Marxism and Stalinism in spots).

Side note: I loved Jane's line about Sartreian atheists: “Holy crap! There’s no God! Now what do I do?”

"I often ask myself why a 'Christian instinct' often draws me more to the religionless people than to the religious, by which I don't in the least mean with any evangelizing intention, but, I might almost say, 'in brotherhood'. While I'm often reluctant to mention God by name to religious people -- because that name somehow seems to me here not to ring true, and I feel myself to be slightly dishonest (it's particularly bad when others start to talk in religious jargon; I then dry up almost completely and feel awkward and uncomfortable) -- to people with no religion I can on occasion mention him by name quite calmly and as a matter of course. Religious people speak of God when human knowledge (perhaps simply because they are too lazy to think) has come to an end, or when human resources fail -- in fact it is always the *deus ex machina* that they bring on to the scene, either for the apparent solution of insoluble problems, or as strength in human failure -- always, that is to say, exploiting human weakness or human boundaries."

-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (April 30, 1944)

- the finished product was surprisingly credible

Matt,

"Every reasonable person wants to remove the vestiges of religious thought from the government. Disagree? I suspect you wouldn't if those traces were of a religion other than your own."

Well, according to the gentleman above who thought my Mormon religion was to Protestantism what the Nation of Islam is to Islam, those traces ARE those of a religion other than my own. (Said gentleman may kiss my Brighamite backside.) And I don't want those traces removed, because the Founders, far from being classical French-style deists, believed in a Providence which, if it wasn't exactly like the count-each-sparrow God of modern evangelicals, was far more active in human affairs than the European deists' "master watchmaker."

And a darn good thing, too, otherwise the American Revolution would have been like the French one, to the everlasting detriment of civilization.

The vestiges of religious thought in the American political tradition have traditionally been (with some exceptions) a broad, inclusive "ceremonial deism," not a sectarian establishment. Since the secular perspective is so well represented in the public sphere (which sphere continues to expand as a share of American society, crowding out the private sphere), the traditional broad nod to theism in public life seems not to be such a great imposition on the non-religious.

Stephen:
I don't know whether there is an actual anthropomorphic God as Christian teachings state. I do know that, when humans do not submit themselves to the greater mystery and power of the creator, they engage in evil and destruction.

And I know (as a Southern fella, raised in the Church and now all backslid) that humans engage in "evil and destruction" all the time, whether they don't submit, believe they're submitting, or even try to make manifest on this earth their particular interpretation of that creed they're submitting to.* Witness those lovely heretic sleuths empowered during the Spanish Inquisition. Witness the horrific actions at the hands of Japanese troops during WWII in carrying out the orders of Hirohito, their terran descendant of the "sun God" Witness pro-life activists acting as judge, jury & executioner for performers of abortion. Witness, if you will, the leaders of Al-Quaeda (supposedly, so we've heard) believing the murderers they dispatched were part of God's will. I could go on, but the salient point is simply that humans seem to demonstrate this proclivity over and over throughout our history; for the overall pattern it doesn't seem to matter so very much whether the evil and destruction springs from supposed doctrinal backing or just plain greedy megolamania.

worn

P.S. Stephen - I did indeed check out your website. It was quite touching and helped convince me that your comments were posted from the heart. I hope you won't take mine as some sort of trolling expedition, for that is not my intent...

*You may notice that I left out the obvious "submitting to" as part of the list. That's because firstly, I don't wish to impugn others' religous belief on the basis of others hijacking it for their own purposes, and secondly, it is pert near impossible to figure out whether someone is truly "submitting" themselves to the will of God - both in terms of what they are really thinking or by God's opinion of a given set of actions (except in the latter by virtue of some sort anecdotal inference).

Comments are Closed.