Voices of Disbelief will likely be available around August of 2009. 

The contributors are as follows:

1. Peter Adegoke
2. Athena Andreadis
3. Julian Baggini
4. Gregory Benford
5. Ophelia Benson
6. Russell Blackford
7. Susan Blackmore
8. Damien Broderick
9. Lori Lipman Brown
10. Sean M. Carroll
11. Thomas W. Clark
12. Austin Dacey
13. Edgar Dahl
14. Jack Dann
15. Margaret Downey
16. Taner Edis
17. Greg Egan
18. Nick Everitt
19. Prabir Ghosh
20. A.C. Grayling
21. Joe Haldeman
22. John Harris
23. Marc Hauser
24. Philip Kitcher
25. Miguel Kottow
26. Stephen Law
27. Dale McGowan
28. Sheila A.M. McLean
29. Adèle Mercier
30. Maryam Namazie
31. Kelly O’Connor  (yours truly)
32. Graham Oppy
33. Christine Overall
34. Sumitra Padmanabhan
35. Tamas Pataki
36. John P. Phelan
37. Laura Purdy
38. James Randi
39. Michael R. Rose
40. Julian Savulescu
41. J.L. Schellenberg
42. Udo Schuklenk
43. Michael Shermer
44. Peter Singer
45. J.J.C. Smart
46. Victor J. Stenger
47. Peter Tatchell
48. Emma Tom
49. Michael Tooley
50. Ross Upshur
51. Sean Williams
52. Frieder Otto Wolf

Russell Blackford (co-editor) says "When it appears on the shelves, you'll see that it has something for everyone, from austere philosophical articles to relatively lighthearted biographical pieces - to some not-so-lighthearted ones! Some authors have encountered religion at its best; some have encountered it at its worst; none actually sees any good reason to believe its supernatural claims."

The announcement and more details are available here.

 In an interesting event inspired by Richard Dawkins at Beyond Belief 2006, Jonathon Keats has built a temple of science which he has named The Atheon. Hmmmm... For the full story, click here.

 A group of Christians from Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston, Texas, has decided to call upon the Almighty to stop the advancement of Hurricane Ike into Houston.  By beseeching the assistance of Jesus, the alleged son of God, they have "power and authority to affect the weather," says one churchgoer upon questioning. When asked how it came to be known that they possessed this extraordinary ability, the answer was simple: faith. While it may seem absurd to claim any knowledge of this power since it has not been borne out by evidence of any kind, faith is all the evidence these believers need. Rev. Caldwell, pastor of the church, says, "It is definitely by faith that we know that we have an impact." Their church recently held a prayer meeting in order to officially command Ike to cease and desist its approach into the Houston area. Some participants claimed to have calmed Edouard and sent hurricane Gustav into southern Louisiana. No explanation was given for the Almighty's lack of regard for the residents in that area. 

Other incredulous residents have demanded proof. "If they do have this power, then they should be using it for the good of all, possibly even 24 hours a day for weather all over the world," says one of these skeptics. Another person suffered mild oxygen deprivation and was nearly hospitalized after hearing the news due to sanguinea, or excessive laughter. Overall, the reaction has ranged from anger to hilarity. Some are simply curious. In order to quell the doubts of the faithless, it is the responsibility of the members of Windsor Village UMC and all others who feel that they possess this power to gather en masse and put this argument to rest.  

Staying in the Houston area and commanding this "satanic" storm to stop is not only the right thing to do for the sake of all of the residents of this heavily populated area, it will also prove the veracity of their claims. The existence of such a power could have life-saving potential for people all over the world, and the brave men and women here should do all they can for the benefit of humanity--gather together on the beaches of Houston, Galveston, wherever this storm is predicted to make landfall, and push it back with the power of prayer. With more knowledge of this phenomenon, we can all look forward to a future free from natural disasters and other, shall we say, acts of God.

(portions of the above are parody) 

If you are interested in helping to stop Hurricane Ike, the following prayer is the official "Severe Weather Prayer" being used:

THE NON-PARODY RESPONSE:

For the full story from the weather channel, click here.

I found this gem of an article while perusing Psychology Today, which is quickly becoming one of my favorite magazines. I won't reprint the entire thing here, since it is long, but here's the link.

Glory hallelujah! Finally, somebody is willing to tell truth even if it hurts somebody's feelings.

This goes against everything that the femi-nazi PC police want you to believe, but it is entirely accurate.

Gawd's perfect plan involves polygyny...hmmm. We won't even mention the thousands of biblical instances since we already know that they just make shit up at random.

Take that, every person who's ever criticized us for stating that being pretty is evolutionary advantageous. After all, what do we know?

I love this guy. Seriously. Can he confirm everything that I already thought was true?

I was about to say that one didn't work in my case, since I am divorced and have 3 sons, but thankfully he added the "wealthy families" part. *pshew*

Yeah--where are my daughters? Although, it's probably better for me to have boys. Mothers tend to pass on their body image issues to their daughters, and that would not be good.

Geez...we women are the masters of our own destruction...

Let's Bill Clinton off the hook...and the countless other philandering leaders throughout history.

I quoted that whole section because it the most difficult one to wrap my head around. I find that fascinating and I venture to guess that most have not considered it from that angle. Of course, men still need to learn how to behave in the work environment, but at least the concept of a man's brain being taken over by his penis is still undeniably true.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jul/Aug 2007 Last Reviewed 20 Sep 2007 Article ID: 4359

Sapient and Explorologist Settle Lawsuit

EFF and Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, LLP, represent Brian Sapient, who uploaded an excerpt from a documentary that critiqued Geller's performances and abilities to YouTube. Explorologist claimed the clip infringed its copyrights. More information about the case is available here.  Here is a previous post from Sapient on the court case.

The agreement should allow the healthy debate about the existence of 'supernatural powers' to continue without interference. As part of the legal settlement, Explorologist has agreed to license the disputed footage under a non-commercial Creative Commons license, preempting future legal battles over the fair use of the material. A monetary settlement was also reached.

Hehe...this article from Slate.com encapsulated the insanity that has forever gripped the anti-abortion movement. The double-speak required to pass this recent bit of legislation is beyond Orwellian. According to this recent mandate, abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Huh? Can you run that by me one more time? An implanted embryo is whole, separate, and unique? Then why does a mere separation of the placenta from the uterine wall inevitably result in death? Whether it happens via mechanical methods or spontaneously, it seems to be a near certainty that until the point of viability, which is somewhere between 20 and 28 weeks, detaching this supposedly whole and separate human being will result in its demise.

I agree with the author of this article: Abortions should be renamed "separations," and those who choose separation should no longer be held accountable for the consequences. After all, it is a "whole, separate, unique, and living human being."

This month's issue of Psychology Today has an interesting piece that reminded me of everybody's dear friend, Vox Day. He asserts in his blog and his book on many occasions that atheists are more likely to suffer from what he terms "social autism"--disorders such as Asperger's Syndrome or mild forms of autism. He bases this on informal internet surveys that questioned people on their personality traits. But is the correlation really there, or is this just another attempt to disparage atheists?

"It's All Geek to Me" by Benjamin Nugent discusses the difference between the systematizing brains of so-called "nerds" and the empathic brains of the more socially inclined. Although nerds, the "intellectually gifted but socially awkward" (p.39), do share some traits of those with ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorders) but not to a severe enough degree to be classified as a pathology. In fact, the behavior can be brought on solely by parenting style according to Dr. Mel Levine, and the socially inept can be taught the skills necessary for more intuitive social interactions. This is where nerdiness differs from ASD. ASD is persistent despite attempts at socialization.

So what does this have to do with atheism? Vox insists that atheists are more likely to be “socially autistic,” which is slightly redundant since autism necessarily entails a type of social ineptness, but I think that the correlation there is purely coincidental. We already know that atheism/nontheism is more prevalent among those of above average intelligence. If people with above average intelligence are also more likely to be “nerds,” or have S-type brains, then it stands to reason that the true connection has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with the fact that there are more educated and intelligent people in the atheist community who have the aforementioned traits. It is also important to keep in mind the fact that social awkwardness does not imply a pathological disorder.

Obviously, this is not a scientific study. This is my own inference based on what appears to be a logical correlation—as opposed to the completely illogical idea that atheism somehow causes autism or that autistic people are more likely to be atheists. Vox will probably backpedal and say that he was using the term “autistic” loosely, but he does spend quite some time reiterating these sentiments both in his book and on his blog.

Anybody with Lexus-Nexus or JSTOR subscriptions—I would love to get copies of any journal articles that may be relevant to this topic if you wouldn’t mind sharing.

In a recent study, researchers have found that people with higher concentrations of serotonin receptors were more likely to be religious or the nebulous "spiritual." This is interesting because it would explain the connection between transcendent experiences and the use of psychotropic drugs and also the inverse correlation between religiosity and depression. Check it out for yourself:

link

Well, kind of. In animated form.

The SheVibe poster is finished. I guess now I'm an atheist super-hero or something. Like Wonder Woman. Except less clothing. Hmmmm....*having thoughts about what kind of weapon I would have. Like a Reason Ray or something that would suddenly make people logical*

Anyway, I anticipate the usual reaction from the prudes and sexually repressed people. May I say in advance that not only do I not care what you think, I find both the "You're hurting women everywhere" and the "Truly rational people would never submit to a base desire such as...sex" complaints equally ludicrous, and I'll only laugh at you, so save your time and the bandwidth needed to tell me what a horrible person I am. After all, I am the Official Spokesperson of Atheists Everywhere At All Times^TM and something like this will only harm "The Cause." As you can see, I'm already aware of this. Don't make me shoot you with my Logic Laser.

For the rest of you (ie the human beings who accept that sex is a biological function and physical attraction is coupled with that), enjoy. I've got to get back to plotting my nefarious plan to destroy the public image of atheists and women.

Just had to post this so that everybody knows that I am not finished with chapter 4, nor did I saw I was. I found that there was enough material to cut it into 2 posts, and not wanting to make it too long, decided to dissect the foundation of chapter 4--the immorality of atheists, or lack of definable morality--before delving into the specifics.

Geez Vox, you shouldn't be so hasty to jump to conclusions.

…with none of the defining characteristics of a religion. It is because Vox Day says so in Chapter 4, entitled “The Religion of Reason.” Aside from the humorous comparison between an atheist politician and a “toothless, illiterate, homosexual Afro-Hispanic crack whore with a peg-leg,” his opening salvo misses the point when he adds in the footnote that “it appears that telling people how evil and stupid they are may not be the best way of convincing them….” (p. 61) The reason that atheists are distrusted and, in some cases, despised is not because of intellectual elitism and snobbery—it’s because atheism has been caricatured and stigmatized as a pseudo-Satanic cult in most popular media. It is still not socially acceptable to be as open with one’s non-belief as those who believe are. Walking or driving around with merchandise that announces one’s lack of superstitious belief still draws glares or snide remarks mixed in with the head shaking and sympathetic looks. Meanwhile, almost nobody looks askance at people wearing jewelry depicting crosses and dead crucified men, and Jesus fish are practically ubiquitous. Nonetheless, atheists are unpopular—just not for that reason. 

Vox relies on many non-scientific studies done by news organizations to prove his points in this chapter, which is fine as they can be a legitimate gauge of popular culture, but one must be careful to remember that these surveys are subject to many confounding factors that limit their usefulness—the most obvious being selection bias and lack of randomization. When a person chooses to call in to a place and voluntarily take a survey about an issue, they tend to have very strong feelings about the issue. People who don’t find religion to be an issue are not likely to waste their time. With that out of the way, he claims that people use the religion of a politician to have confirmation of their personal morality. Given the fact that within Christendom, people’s morality can vary widely even on issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and war, it wouldn’t seem to be a very accurate or reliable tool. With our current president displaying extreme bellicosity and having the honor of putting more people to death than any other during his gubernatorial term in Texas, his conversations with Jesus don’t appear to have had any effect. Life is precious and sacred—until it comes out of a vagina. After that, fuck turning the other cheek. Is anybody else confused? What happened to praying for those who persecute you and giving the thief your shirt after he steals your jacket? It seems that people are talking to lots of different Jesuses. Or the Jesus they are talking to suffers from dissociative identity disorder. 

Day admits that these moral boundaries are theoretical, and thus nullifies his own argument. We have already figured out that religiosity is no guide to an individual’s behavior, whether they are engaged in politics or not. The Jimmy Bakkers and Ted Haggards of the world only confirm the hypocrisy that is evident in the actions of most every believer. Given these facts, perhaps we need a better moral determinant. Maybe we could try some less nebulous ways of getting this information—such as asking them? I know, it’s a radical change from assuming that they hold to a set of beliefs handed down to fictional characters millennia ago, but it just might offer more insight into the personal morality of our leaders. 

Day then uses the absence of defining characteristics of atheism, aside from lack of god-belief, to bolster his argument that there is no way for a person to know what particular pursuits will be undertaken by the politician with no religion. While I agree that this is the case, it seems ironic that he (admittedly) reverses his opinion in this circumstance. Isn’t this chapter called “The Religion of Reason?” If it is in fact a religion, then there would surely be some tenets and guidelines. Moreover, he proceeds to go on and claim that, by and large, atheists “parasitically” adopt the morality of their “hosts”, AKA the religious people around us. Could it not be the case that the similarities in ethical belief systems lie in the evolutionary origins of morality? Humans have been selected for traits such as reciprocal altruism and empathy, and while the details may vary over time and cultures, the tendencies that lead one to believe that some standards must be adhered to have been hard-wired into the brains of those most successful at reproduction. The specific indulgences, such as premarital sex, prohibited by religion are just as easily discarded by the religious as the non-religious. It is not random, as he asserts, but rather based in our nature as social creatures dependant on one another and the maintenance of stable societies. Religion may have played a role in the establishment and development of these groups, but we have moved past the point where punishment from sky-daddys is necessary. That’s what the justice system is for, and if that isn’t enough of a deterrent, neither is god. As he again conflates atheism with communist fascism as proof of the willingness of atheists to kill, need I remind anybody of the violence inspired by religion throughout history? Oh wait, that only applies to atheists. When it’s religious people doing the killing, they’re merely power-hungry humans lying about their religious belief to attain the trust of the populace. It has nothing to do with religion. And leaders who claim a religious affiliation are still more trustworthy, despite all of that. Special pleading, anybody? 

To be continued…seemingly ad infinitum. Seriously, there’s so much material here that just begs for a response, I’m practically swimming in notes. Well, as they say in Japan, with the closest English equivalent lacking all of the sentiment, がんばります.*

*ga-n-ba-ri-ma-su - I will persevere.

Well, I'm thinking that it's about time to return to the grind here. Sorry, I was suffering from massive drama overload both in my real life and online. Anyway, Vox Day has been on my mind so expect the next installment within a few days. I assume his cronies have already declared victory due to my extended absence, but rest assured that whether anybody likes it or not, I will complete this project if only because I have committed to it and abandoning it would be a concession of defeat in the eyes of his fanboys. That and the fact that there's an incredible amount of material waiting for a refutation. So, if anybody missed me--I'm back. If you didn't miss me, .

Also, I semi-announced this on the boards, but the magazine SheVibe, which is totally NSFW, is currently working on a full-size poster of me which I expect to be totally hawt, so when I have more info on it, I'll be letting you people know. For an idea of what it will be like, check out their Eye Candi or magazine covers sections of their site. (Although, going by what they're saying about it, it should be infinitely cooler. )

ETA: In much more interesting news, while perusing the aforementioned SheVibe site, I found this story, interesting mostly because of proximity, of a pair of Bucks County, PA mothers who allegedly got their MILF on with the attendees of a slumber party of one of the women's son's. Wow, Pennsylvania's getting nuts.

The atheist community seems overrun by people who have no desire to reproduce. Not just that, but some even despise the concept and those who continue to do so. This is likely due to the fact that people with high levels of intelligence and education tend to have smaller families, and I am by no means trying to criticize anybodys personal choices, but the oft-quoted and equally misconstrued studies about that correlation lead to division between the "breeders" and the childless.

In the spirit of informed choice, I feel that it is necessary for both groups to understand that repercussions of their chosen lifestyle. The following piece is a tidbit that represents only a small fraction of the data on women's health and childbearing. Contrary to popular opinion, having children makes you healthier. Maybe also insane, but it significantly lowers the risk of certain diseases, including things like breast cancer if you breastfeed (which you should, but that's another topic).

And don't worry--I haven't forgotten about Vox Day. I'm just giving my readers a break.

From http://geniusbeauty.com/news/women-having-children-are-healthier/

I've been too busy lately to post on topics when they might actually be fresh (novel concept, I know), but I really wanted to touch on the Pope Benedict soliloquy on sex. Having read Humanae Vitae myself, I am quite familiar with the subject at hand. The Catholic Church, while progressive in some areas, most notably science, still clings to these archaic beliefs about sex and birth control. I guess that's not surprising considering that sins "of the flesh" are considered to be more grave than others, but even within the bounds of marriage, birth control of any sort other than Natural Family Planning (which differs from the commonly known Rhythm Method and is more effective, but not by much).  The HV also addresses euthanasia and abortion, rules for fair and justified war, and other issues that pertain to the creation or destruction of life.

Most interesting, though, was Pope Benedict's comment about sex "becoming like a drug" (link). There are people who deal with sex addiction, just as there are those with gambling or shopping addictions. What needs to be addressed here, though, is firstly, can a biological function become an addiction and should it be labeled as such, and secondly, the behavior of an addict is most often just the overt manifestation of a deeper issue. Often this may be a chemical imbalance in the brain, or it could also be a learned behavior primarily driven by the adrenaline rush. At any rate, if sex is a drug, then we have all the more reason to label religion as a drug as well.

Excluding those with eating disorders, which are problematic but not necessarily the result of our biological urge to eat as opposed to the ability to control oneself or self-esteem issues, is eating three meals a day a food addiction?  Even compulsive overeaters can't necessarily be labeled as addicts because their issues are often much more complex as well. 

Sex is a biological urge--something that we are literally driven to do, with a few rare exceptions. So, assuming that your sex life is normal and not problematic (ie not uncontrollable nymphomaniacs who can't stop themselves from having sex), how can we compare a normal bodily function to a drug to which we can become addicted? Is this just another scare tactic? The DARE program of sex ed? I guess the entire human race is addicted to shitting and sleeping as well.

Everything that a person experiences is the direct result of the release and uptake of neurotransmitters and neuronal impulses. A malfunction in that system, which is intricate and not well understood, could cause a cacophony of seemingly dysfunctional behaviors. The act of sex, or any physical contact, and orgasm in particular causes the release of oxytocin, which is a neurotransmitter that causes feelings of attachment and what we would call love. Childbirth and breastfeeding do as well. This is to facilitate the preservation of the family unit. Sex also causes serotonin and dopamine to be released in the brain, causing feelings of well-being and relaxation. In high concentrations, such as with the use of cocaine or amphetamines, it is dopamine that elicits the euphoric high. This cocktail of neurotransmitters is powerful--and necessary. Without it, who would really want to procreate? The fact that this has been selected for over millenia of evolution coupled with the success of the human race is an indicator of just how vital the pleasure associated with sex is.

A normal, healthy sex drive is not an addiction. One of the greatest sins of christianity, in my opinion, is the suppression of normal sexual behavior, which ironically tends to cause much more serious psychological problems than just admitting that human beings want to have sex.

Considering that the development of these responses is completely necessary for the propagation of the species, if Benedict considers sex a drug based on the neurochemical response, then he must also admit that religion is a drug. Religious practices cause stimulation of various parts of the brain, most notably the temporal lobes, and through repeated usage of those pathways, they become strengthened and the brain soon restructures itself to accomodate these neuronal connections, leaving one in a state in which they either cannot leave religion or just don't want to give it up. Going to church, reading the bible, and prayer could all be considered the "fix" craved by addicts of all sorts.

One of the most common excuses for the tolerance of religion in society is that it makes people happy or gives them comfort. Well, so does heroin, coke, or pot. As a matter of fact, if one takes it to that extreme, everything is a drug and we are all addicts. We're addicted to food, breathing, the beauty of nice spring days. The affection we have for our families is equally an addiction. Pope Ratzi can't just pick and choose activities of which he disapproves and label them as addictive drugs--to maintain his position, he must admit that everything is a drug, including his religion, and therefore the term drug is meaningless and obsolete.

How's that headline? Do I have everybody's attention now? Good. Because a headline like that should get your attention. Would anybody tolerate "Gay Bashing Week" or "Woman Bashing Week?" The very idea is ludicrous. Yet, Dinesh D'Souza can print an article entitled "Atheist Bashing Week" and hardly anybody bats an eyelash. There's certainly not public outrage and condemnation for such blatant bigotry. He was just joking, you say? Even in all of our stunts, which are regularly criticized by atheists (often quite vehemently), we've only dared to tell people that their god doesn't exist or encourage others to say so and post it to YouTube. Even the mind disorder controversy doesn't encourage physical harm or even allude to it. If we haven't had "Christian Bashing Week," you can bet it's because we find the notion repugnant, even in jest.

D'Souza's piece may have been tongue-in-cheek, but that is of little consequence to the typical reader who barely scans headlines and will be even subliminally influenced by this, much less those who don't have the reading comprehension to detect his almost imperceptible sarcasm. Could any of you imagine a "Muslim Bashing Week?" Even if a "Ha ha! Just kidding!" is added at the end, it is still extraordinarily offensive, and the fact that he isn't facing scorn for this piece is evidence that people are still permitted to discriminate against those evil godless heathens.

Though our numbers are increasing, it seems that our influence is not--at least not fast enough. Criticism of anybodys belief system is a freedom that I prize, and I have no desire to silence the apologists, but an inference to acceptance of physical harm is quite different. If we ever want to cast off our mephistophelian characterization, we must put a human face on the term "atheist," and the easiest way to do that is to openly identify yourself as one. Only then will we see public criticism of this rhetorical intolerance--when almost everybody has a son, daughter, sister, brother or friend who is an atheist.

Sorry - this is a long one. For my next blog post, I'll be taking a break from Vox so I can kick somebody else's ass and all of you who keep telling me to drop the Vox project will shut up.  As to the length--I know it's taking absurdly long and I still have 13 chapters to go. I just wanted to do a critique that was so detailed that nobody would need to read the book to know what it says. I may have to go with the more concise plan, though, so I can finish this sometime, oh....before I die.

Vox Day seems to have a proclivity towards using odd anecdotal evidence gleaned from the writings of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens in order to formulate his arguments against atheism, and he continues in the same vein in chapter three. In short order, we discover that “New Atheists” harbor outright hatred for religion and that we “science fetishists” believe that science “dictates” human behavior, rather than merely describing or explaining it.

It is humorous to see Vox attempt to argue that science, not religion, has outlived its usefulness to humanity—a reference to Daniel Dennett's theory in Breaking the Spell. There are thousands of phenomena that have yet to be explained thoroughly, countless cures for illnesses, and an innumerable amount of problems that can only be solved through the use of science. Ironically, Vox practically contradicts his personal beliefs by claiming that humanity has survived “millenia of religious belief,” but due to things like over-population and global warming, as well as the aforementioned development of WMDs, we may not survive a mere four centuries of science. (Four? He later claims it's really 60 years.) Considering that the overwhelming majority of scientific advancements have been positive and improved our quality of life, and there is still much work to be done, this argument is not tenable in any way, not to mention that Vox doesn't even believe that global warming is occurring. (nb: He does attempt to semi-dodge by adding the disclaimer, “If the prophets of...are correct,” but I find that to be borderline dishonesty considering his personal opinion on the matter. Vox is spinning this with centrifugal force.)

To illustrate his point, he opens up the chapter with a quote from Sam Harris that seems to acknowledge the danger posed by some of these scientific advancements insofar as it gives those with no fear of death (ie—the religious folks who believe that this is merely the prequel to their “real” life in heaven) the ability to destroy all of humanity to fulfill their destiny, whatever they feel that may be. Mutually assured destruction is merely hastening the grand finale of god's plan for our existence and leaves our supernatural dictator to sort the wheat from the chaff. From that perspective, it almost seems like a good idea.

I have no idea what this has to do with Harris' “Enlightenment utopianism” or the argument that religions have never created an atomic bomb or a carbon-producing, petroleum-guzzling automobile. Religion has also never created a defibrillator or an antibiotic. Why would it? It has absolutely nothing to say about technology of any sort, other than when it is referred to as being evil in some way. It seems that Vox is really grasping at straws here. It's as if he has created a false dichotomy of the vilification of science and the justification of religion. They are, and should be, completely separate issues. One of the biggest issues that atheists have with religion is the refusal to butt out of science. Science is not the opposite of religion, nor is it a religion. It is a method of explaining facts and observations and the world in which we live—at least to the best of our ability given our limited knowledge at any one point. (Think Descartes in Meditations regarding action without perfect knowledge.) Of course, it's not as if the five major religions listed by Vox, which oddly excludes Judaism, have not had weapons—the stone and the machete are still popular in some Middle Eastern countries, and that is certainly more painful and torturous than being shot or nuked.

His ultimate conclusion here is that the real danger is science, not faith. He misses the point that religious belief provides the impetus to use that technology. Not to sound like an NRA spokesman, but weapons don't kill people: People kill people. Overpopulation, pollution, and advanced weaponry are caused in part by science, but not in the nefarious way that Vox seems to imply. The detrimental effects seen in the post-Industrial Revolution era were both created by science and discovered by science. Hopefully, they will also be solved or at least diminished by science. Abandoning science is certainly not the solution, not to mention the fact that I don't think anybody, Vox included, wants to go back to the era of plagues, premature mortality, and endless manual labor just to survive. If you do, have fun eating tree bark.

Vox attributes the “responsibility” for the development of advanced weapons to science. How can science be responsible for anything at all? It is a method, a discipline with no agenda and no ability to do anything for which it could be held responsible. Would it not be the specific people who utilized science in order to formulate the things that Vox considers detrimental? What he does here would be akin to blaming highways for the criminals who use them to escape from police, despite the fact that the vast majority of drivers are on their way to some mundane job. I assert that Vox either misunderstands the meaning of the word “cause” or is just padding his argument with spurious claims.

He does attempt to rebut the impending criticisms, some of which are used here, but I find that his analogies are inaccurate. Cigarettes don't cause cancer if you don't smoke them, so once again, the onus of responsibility lies with the person making the choice to smoke. Inanimate objects, material or immaterial, cannot cogitate and are only tools used by people. Some people may use pencils to stab people—is the pencil responsible? We can even flip this argument around and say that since religion causes or has caused some negative events, then religion itself is responsible and no amount of good makes up for those atrocities. Vox will argue here that the real danger lies in mutually assured destruction, which no amount of faith is going to cause. That's true enough on the surface, but what if that faith is the motivation to use such a weapon? Belief in an afterlife of perfection and bliss doesn't tend to make one prize their, or anybody else's, time here on earth. If science is responsible for the negative repercussions of technology, then religion should be held to the same scrutiny, and thus his argument that religion doesn't cause violence is moot.

Vox argues that adherents of a religion should not be blamed for the actions of other, more radical, believers if we insist that all scientists should not be held accountable for the actions of a fringe minority. Again, this seems to make sense, but the fundamental difference between science and religion is that a scientific worldview does not endorse any particular activities—it is not a set of proscriptions and laws upon which your eternal soul depends. His assertion that individual believers are held accountable for the actions of other believers is inaccurate—it's not the other believers, it's the belief system. There are no threats of hell or promises of heaven for certain behaviors inherent in science—only the temporal consequences of the justice system. The only way that religion can be viewed as not directly inciting violence is by claiming that the texts upon which a religion is based are allegorical or outdated. All throughout the bible and the koran, violence is encouraged and even demanded. The whole basis for christianity is that god has some kind of bloodlust because of the evil system which he designed that required first animal sacrifice, and finally human sacrifice. We are all deserving of death from the moment of our births (maybe even conception since their argument is that blastocysts are human beings) and without Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice, we would all go to hell to be tormented for eternity. Sounds like good wholesome family values.

If the scriptures of any religion are inaccurate or outdated, then one must admit that their god is not omnipotent or omniscient. One of them has to go. Either he couldn't ensure their transmission without error, or he was just wrong about what was going to happen. If they are outdated, then god cannot be eternally existent as there would be no moment at which his commands or desires would expire. The bible recounts many examples of god changing his mind, (think Abraham and Lot, for example) but such behavior would be impossible for a being that exists outside of time and is unchanging, which leads us right back to omnipotence and omniscience. The whole anthropomorphized omnimax creator being is a concept so absurd that even those who believe in it cannot explain it or agree upon its foundational attributes. That should be a clue as to its veracity.

That makes it extremely ironic that soon after the aforementioned defense, Vox claims that it is better in some instances for humans to remain ignorant of certain things to prevent the damage they may cause. He says, “I am merely pointing out that the evidence suggests that in some circumstances, ignorance may be preferable to knowledge, especially partial knowledge imperfectly understood and enthusiastically embraced too soon.” (p. 50) A better description of religious belief is rarely uttered, although his intent was to disparage science. We would be much better off without the so-called “knowledge” of religion and imaginary sky-daddys.

Certainly, the words of Feynman and Dawkins on pages fifty-two to fifty-three are indeed true—science gives one the power to do good and evil. What one chooses to do with it is not the fault of the method by which it was developed. The designers of the first automobile didn't know about carbon dioxide and pollution resulting in potentially catastrophic global warming. Should they be blamed? Even Henry Ford, who made the mass production of automobiles possible, had no idea what the impact would be. Unfortunately, we just can't see into the future. It's like pharmaceutical development—a small percentage of people may have adverse effects, but if it is beneficial to most, then the risk is worth taking. If it is no more effective than a placebo but still has adverse effects, then there is nothing redeeming about it and it should be eliminated.

Vox returns to the Harris argument that science and faith produce a toxic concoction which may eradicate humanity and claims that Harris' logic is flawed because the real danger is science itself. I think that Vox is missing the point that both components are necessary and the removal of one eliminates, or at least reduces, the danger of the other. Again, if religion is the impetus behind the use of a weapon, even if only insofar as the person who is utilizing it feels assured that a better life awaits in eternity, like a suicide bomber, then religion is to blame for the unjustified use of that which was scientifically developed. Given that science has, in a very short time period, done more good for humanity than religion has in thousands of years, and that the negative effects do not outweigh the positive, we can conclude that it is a worthy endeavor. Religion, on the other hand, has done what? There are a few soup kitchens and homeless shelters, and that's great, but atheists do that as well. A recent study showed that non-religious physicians were more likely to treat the under-served and impoverished than their christian counterparts. There are missions in other countries, but what good is building a church in Guatemala when people are starving? Is proselytizing to an African woman going to save her child from Kwashiorkor's disease (a malnutrition related and fatal ailment)? Meanwhile, we have killing in the name of religion, child molestation due to the repressed sexuality forced upon Catholic priests, suicide bombers killing people everyday, and catastrophic events such as 9/11 which kill thousands. Oh, wait, that must have been the fault of the Wright brothers and others who laid the foundation for modern airplanes. One must conclude that an individual's personal comfort derived from religion is not enough benefit to make up for all of the detrimental effects. Religion should be recalled.

Vox has a few examples of how religion supposedly doesn't subvert science, which we all know is untrue. Just the idea that believing things based on faith without knowledge is virtuous is an abhorrent concept that is taught to children all over the world. He does the stem-cell bit, which I'm not even touching because this would be another three pages if I did. Interestingly, he claims that science forms the basis for a system of ethics, which is absolutely ridiculous. A scientist could be a utilitarian, a hedonist, a determinist, a humanist, an anything-ist—science has no fundamental ethical or philosophical worldview. Science is a methodology. Yes, it can influence people and the decisions they make, but that doesn't make it a religion. Vox Day also doesn't seem to realize that statistics are meaningless out of their context, and the reason why the US (which is NOT a christian nation) produces more scientific output than France, which he claims as the most atheistic country, but I don't know where he's getting that data from, is because we have more money. Shocking, I know. I wonder how much of that scientific output is from his brothers in christ as they develop more sophisticated weaponry.

Science has at times been slow to adopt new theories. Vox uses the example of antibiotics, and there are more, such as hand-washing preventing childbed fever, which killed thousands of women after giving birth soon after that process was institutionalized. Generally, this is because the new idea or product must be proven to work. We have antibiotics now and we know all about germs and hand-washing, so it is apparent that the scientific community relented. Meanwhile, some religions still cling to creationism, whether literally or loosely interpreted, and they have historically balked at every scientific discovery since heliocentrism until it is so well established that they look silly. Then they just re-interpret their obscure ancient myths to fit the new data and make ludicrous claims like Mohammed knew about atoms. The push to clothe creation in science and insert it in schools is a travesty. It's bad enough that people choose to teach their children fairy tales and to claim certainty where there is none. Religion has, and will continue to, dumb us down, as it makes us complacent participants in some grand play in which we are all just marionettes anyway.

Hey folks, this is Sapient.  Just wanted to get a copy of some segments we recorded of a recent interview Kelly did.

Feel free to comment right here.

ETA: The link to hear the entire interview is here.

Gah--this is taking so much longer than I thought. I’m going to attempt to keep this brief and only address major points so that I can move on to chapter 3. I already have people bitching that I should just “ignore Vox,” but I have no intentions of doing so. His fan-boys would only claim victory, so plod along with me here. (Pretty please?)

I’ll concede that you may be correct that I may have assigned motive where there was none. I guess that’s just the nature of only being able to see things from my perspective and not yours. As far as the chapter by chapter thing goes—I already addressed that and will correct whatever warrants it as I come upon it. I don’t think that there is any way I could have done a thorough examination with the entire book to ruminate upon.

So then, you only wanted to compare atheists, specifically D,H, and H, to the Jim Rose troupe? I think either way, the comparison was made in order to draw a correlation in the readers mind to something freaky and odd; whether it was atheists or science is kind of irrelevant.

I didn’t find it necessary to speak of meta-studies at all as I am focusing on the experimentation aspect of science that correlates to something being objectively demonstrable. A meta-study is data collection from previous experiments. As much as you may dislike them, studies are pretty necessary and if the studies are properly conducted and reproducible, then there is credence in the phrase “studies show.” Unfortunately, the average person has no clue how to analyze such a study and just mimics whatever they have heard on Oprah, which may or may not have any validity.

I get that. I have repeatedly pointed out (not necessarily to you, but publicly elsewhere—like Nightline) that science is constantly changing in light of new evidence and we are working with the knowledge that we have now.

I do seem to recall including falsification as a determining factor—not the entirety of science. I don’t see how it demonstrates weakness or my oppositional defiance.

An experiment on that subject would not be difficult—it would be impossible. Maybe I’m being too literal and you are using some analogous language, but first, one would have to provide evidence that the event even occurred, of which there is none, and then try to compile enough data to make a determination. That’s not non-scientific logic. That’s an historical issue as well as a scientific one. Given that god doesn’t talk to us measly humans anymore, I don’t see any studies forthcoming, either.

A modern day Aristophanes? Whether you personally like the dialogue or not, it is designed to make you think. Socrates comes to no conclusion and as in most of his dialectic, he does appear disingenuous at times, but the ultimate goal is to get a person to examine his/her beliefs in a non-threatening manner. It did, and still does, appear to me that you don’t get the bigger picture. Then again, I’m a fan of Socrates and may be biased.

This being an ideological battle, not a scientific one, I will have to be content to let you continue thinking that ID is anything more than an agenda machinated to repackage creationism in pseudo-science. If people can’t see that science will not and cannot infer a “designer” in the supernatural sense, then I can’t help.

That’s an argument you should take up with the vast majority of historians who disagree with you. I cannot prove that the Dark Ages occurred any more than you can prove they didn’t. EB doesn’t seal the deal.

This is not at all true. It was once thought to have been, but there have been inscriptions found from the reign of Tiberius and later that indicate that it did in fact exist at least until the First Century, and the most likely dates of its destruction are now either the Third Century attack of Aurelian or following the 391 decree of Theodosius to destroy all pagan temples, and carried out by Theophilus. It may also have been partially destroyed in the first instance and completely destroyed in the second. There is some debate about that.

I think that the perspective of a biologist varies greatly from that of an economist or astrophysicist, particularly with regards to ID. I am quite confident that Dawkins would claim that science is his primary concern, but to him, science is more of a worldview consisting of using evidence and reason in as much of your life as possible.

I never made an absolute statement about atheism and its correlation with rationalism/empiricism such as ALL atheists believe x. It is not a necessary contingent—I wish more atheists were rational. It does not change my definition of atheism as a simple lack of god-belief at all—it merely correlates rationalism and empiricism with the proclivity to be atheist.

I didn’t disagree with your usage of Myers’ definition. Natural phenomena are studied by science—regardless of the ultimate cause. No amount of science will ever show anything other than “We don’t know” when it comes to determining supernatural causation. We could be spinning like a basketball on the finger of god—but science can’t examine that. It could only describe the spinning.

<a href="http://blogshares.com/blogs.php?blog=http://kelly.rationalresponders.com/&user=56601"><img src="http://blogshares.com/images/blogshares.jpg" alt="Listed on BlogShares" width="117" height="23"/></a>

I am honored to be hosting the 89th Carnival of the Godless, but before we begin, I need to tell the readers something.

All of the following people are bad representatives of atheism.

At least in somebody's opinion. Every person here adheres to a particular viewpoint, methodology, or philosophy with which some other atheist disagrees. Every single one of them. Yet, here they are, spewing their ideas all over the internet with impunity. The horror! What kind of arrogance would compel these people to voice their ill-informed opinions as if they speak for all atheists? You know, they're doing more harm than good.

At least, that's what we're told. That's what "they" (cue spooky music) want us to believe. But how much truth lies in those accusations? Are those statements not also an opinion that may offend somebody else, likely the person at whom they are directed? Might not that also be perceived as detrimental to "the cause?"

The strength, and weakness, ironically, of atheism is found somewhere in the cacophony of voices boisterously discussing, debating, even arguing, about the multitude of differing opinions on absolutely any subject. There is no official arbiter to whom we defer--there is no dogmatic adherence to a code of any sort. And while I do not know whether there is a right or wrong side in this matter, I do know that it takes all sorts of people to get anything done--the outspoken, the introverted, the contemplative, the determined, the educated, the uneducated, the friendly, the angry. No one person is a good representative of the diversity and differences of the atheist community.

Almost one year ago, Brian and I appeared on Nightline with the Banana Boys, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. It was an experience about which I still can't decide how I feel, so I vacillate between wishing it had never happened (although there would be no crocoduck...) and wishing I could do it again. The deluge of criticisms poured in, and continue to this day. Some constructive; some not so. But, despite all the people telling us that we had done irreparable damage to "atheism" by our amateur performance, not everybody felt that way. I received this email today:
   
    "I have officially stopped being a Christian since watching your awesome
    debate against Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Mr. Brian and Ms. Kelly, you
    rock. You defended your beliefs well and kicked arse. I just wanted to
    thank RRS for freeing my mind. If you have any, ANY, info, please send it
    my way!!!"-A.A.

In my mind, even if this was the only email of this nature (which it isn't), it was worth it. And you can take from that whatever you choose.

I am officially announcing that the next Carnival of the Godless will be hosted here, on my blog, beginning April 13. Be on the lookout for that. I have gotten a bunch of good submissions already.

The following is a "response" from a Vox Day fan. It is relatively devoid of anything intelligent, but I address it because everybody cries if I don't.

No, correlation does not imply causation, and a hypothesis should be generated before any experimentation is undertaken. The hypothesis comes from pure observation, and is then proven or not by experimentation. Perhaps you should study the scientific method.

Seriously, have you ever studied statistics and research methods? If so, you should ask for a refund. A good study should not have flaws or major confounding factors, but even so, science requires it to also be reproducible, and the true test is proven over time by many experiments that result in the same conclusion. Correlation does not equal causation. Period. Ever. That is the first rule that you apparently never learned.

His “tally” was not presented as humorous. Nonetheless, I fail to see the relevance here. What “strong study” have I dismissed?

The word “naturalism” is inherent to concepts such as fact, knowledge, and systematic. No matter how strong your belief, these things are only observed within the natural world and the supernatural is a priori excluded.

Science is also tied to naturalism by definition. Any other definition is not science, but is an attempt to label nonsense as science. Science is by always a study of natural occurrences, not supernatural.

The very definition of science excludes those things. Get over it. I didn't invent the terminology.

Completely untrue. We have examples of airplanes being designed and manufactured; we have no such example for birds. It is not special pleading at all.

In some sense, yes. Once evidence is presented that demonstrates a particular cause, there should be no assertion as to what such cause may be.

And that has what to do with anything? If Pasteur believed it, it must be true? Please, pretend to be more rational, especially considering your own accusations of fallacious argumentation. That is called an argument from authority.

Oh, so the pre-christian Greeks contributed nothing to science and knowledge in general? And you accuse me of ignorance.

Do you just believe whatever somebody tells you? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn... The religious association is clear when one takes into account the chronology of the establishment of a state religion, ie christianity, and the resulting destruction of knowledge and subversion of science.

Obviously. Empiricism is a method of determining truth from falsity—a philosophical stance. But empiricism as a “movement” did in fact present itself during the Enlightenment.

But the determination that the cause is supernatural cannot be determined through scientific methodology. You really need to study some more before your next attempt. No offense, but this was pitiful.

 

Starting off chapter two, which is entitled “Defining Science,” is a brief description of the Jim Rose Circus Sideshow, unknown to most, but a troupe of traveling masochists (or so it seems) who represent his caricature of science. These little side stories can have more of an effect than the reader understands, though. Right off the bat, science is seen as either freakish or trivial due to the association with that particular experience of his. Because of this, I find it necessary to give you the actual definition of “science”: 

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation…

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. (from dictionary.com)

There are other, more precise definitions, but this is a decent general overview. Notice the emphasis and repetition of words like “systematic,” “knowledge,” and “facts.” Keep that in mind, ladies and gentlemen. 

Vox Day launches his tirade by attempting to confuse the reader and blur the line between scientific and non-scientific inquiry. He goes on to present the words “studies show” as some kind of atheist mantra or magic spell that automatically convinces our opposition of our veracity. The major flaw here is that when one is dealing with issues that can be studied with some measure of reliability, studies are of immeasurable worth in demonstrating the truth or falsity of a proposition. Experimentation is the foundation of science and without it, science is merely a naturalistic philosophy with no real answers or solutions. It is true that many in the media or general populus don’t understand the proper way to interpret these studies and may latch on to some obscure results prematurely, but that does nothing to discredit the practice or findings of scientific study. 

His next major criticism, after some attacks on Dawkins’ affection for science and implications of hallucinogenic drug use, is that many scientists today subscribe to the Popperian philosophy and rely on falsification as the determinant for a scientific versus non-scientific endeavor. He claims that this is outside the definition of science and is a flawed addition. What he fails to see when he makes his case by claiming that a hypothesis about the language of god is theoretically falsifiable is that by his own definition, provided from the Oxford English Dictionary, the language of god is excluded before we even get to Popper because it is not a physical, natural phenomenon that can be observed and tested. Thus, it fails to qualify as science per any definition, with or without Popperian philosophical baggage. 

Perhaps the most amusing aspect thus far is his total lack of comprehension regarding Euthyphro’s Dilemma, which dealt with the source of morality—not the existence of god(s). Beyond that, he practically asserts that some kind of resolution was reached in the dialogue and that, if applied to science, it could be extrapolated that science doesn’t exist. (This is the point at which I’m looking at my monitor with a look of amazement and confusion—what kind of thought process led him there?) No wonder he thinks that the execution of Socrates was a good thing, although he places it erroneously within the reign of the Council of Thirty, while Apologia clearly explains that it was a jury of 500 citizens who convicted him of impiety. That same document states an incident that Socrates had with the Council, and also that they had been ousted. It’s a common mistake given the proximity, so I guess we can cut him some slack there, likely never having read Socrates’ defense for himself. (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/) 

Alright, I was wrong earlier. The funniest part of this chapter is when Day makes this statement: “…[T]he very existence of the Intelligent Design movement is a testimony to a respect for scientific methodology…” (p. 33) Excuse me? Their attempt to redefine science to include supernatural explanations is “respect,” but Karl Popper’s falsifiability criterion was a useless distortion of science? Interesting. 

His rhetorical question about the hazard posed to science by religion and the resulting “hostility” betrays his lack of awareness of just how detrimental religion has been to science. He busts out this gem: “Some of history’s greatest scientists are known to have been men of great Christian faith.”(p. 34) Well, if I lived in a time period during which I could be tortured, killed, or otherwise persecuted for my lack of belief, I’d likely be a “christian” as well. 

As for Vox’s assertion that the Dark Ages were not caused by christianity, all I can say is that is highly debatable. I am not prone to vilifying the Catholic church for rejection of science, at least not since Vatican II. They are likely the most progressive church from a scientific perspective (or possibly Episcopalians, but we all know that they have the same origins thanks to Henry VIII). Nevertheless, Vox again attempts to mislead the reader with his quote from Philip Jenkins (p. 35). The Dark Ages were brought on largely by the destruction of a large part of the knowledge base that had been acquired, like the library at Alexandria. Most documentation contrary to christian ideology was destroyed or interpolated. The average person has no idea that prior to that time period, the earth wasn’t thought of as flat, and even the concepts of evolution and atomic particles had already been postulated. The “monolithic church” was one that varied from country to country or region to region—nobody I know of ever asserted that one church had power over the entire known world. The fact remains that religious motivations and prohibitions caused most of what was essentially a millennium-long scientific void. Pointing out the various sects of christianity does nothing to disprove that. 

In his defense of the Dark Ages, Day mentions that an Italian Christian actually “coined” the term, so to speak, and that its meaning has been perverted by those who assign an anti-religious bias to it. I don’t know that there is a fallacy specific enough here, but it would seem to be similar to an etymological fallacy in that he is using a definition that has no support or relevance in modern society. The term “Dark Ages” may or may not have been anti-Germanic in origin—it is not now. 

He briefly touches on the French Enlightenment philosophers, just enough to hold them accountable for the French Revolution (again) for “weakening the social and judicial pressure” (p. 37) that had previously kept the proletariat silent. What a horrible thing to do! As I stated in my previous blog post, this will be dealt with in more depth later. 

One of Vox Day’s hobbies appears to be analyzing the order in which people place things conversationally so as to draw conclusions as to his/her motivations to do so. He spends some time on Dawkins, claiming that it is not science that he wishes to defend, but mostly his Enlightenment ideals. Mostly based upon the fact that Dawkins says that the “Enlightenment is in danger” and then lists science fourth in a list of other endangered ideologies. If that doesn’t leap off the page and scream “Non sequitor,” I don’t know what will. 

He finishes off the chapter with more seemingly unrelated arguments concerning the (apparently) evil Enlightenment, never realizing that the reason why modern atheists seem to share so much with them is because that was essentially the birth of rationalism and empiricism, not some kind of ancient idol worship. As far as science in Iran goes, why exactly does he think science is booming there? Nuclear weapons, anybody? ICBMs? I am far from an alarmist, but let’s be realistic here. This was a pathetic attempt to, once again, vilify atheists and declare us guilty by association (through philosophical similarities) with people who may or may not have done terrible things, such as the killers of Lavoisier—somebody who one would think would have been well-received. 

I must say, his tactic is ingenious. Plant little seeds in your minds—make connections and correlations to atrocities which had nothing at all to do with me or the fact that there’s no proof for the existence of god and science just doesn’t apply to the supernatural—in order to have you nodding your head in agreement when he casts us as immoral baby killers (as he will shortly—we’ll get to it.) Very subversive; under the radar, but ultimately superficial. All you need to do is take a quarter and scrape off the silver lining to see the words “Better Luck Next Time.” 

I’m sure I’ll see you on the rebuttal and/or chapter 3 for more fun with Vox Day!

Alright - I had posted this as a comment under my previous blog post, but it's too damn long to not make it separate. So, without further ado...my response to his response to my response to The Irrational Atheist.

I prefer your more subdued form of proselytization, but I think that the bible clearly indicates that as one of the “elect,” you should in fact feel sorrow for the fate of our heathen souls. People like Paul even wept for the lost. At any rate, this is a trivial point that is not written out plainly as a command, so I won’t press it further.

First of all, the US is not a pure democracy, and the majority does not necessarily get their way. The government was founded upon secular principles and the absolute separation of church and state was the foundation upon which they were constructed. I also find your addition of the word “God” following “Creator” to border on dishonesty, as I’m sure you are aware that the god of the founding fathers was not the god of christianity and the creator to which they refer could very well be the universe or the deistic god in whom most of them believed. The states also cannot have laws that violate any constitutional principles and are given the power to rule only within those boundaries.

I see that some people have a hard time appreciating facetious sarcasm.

I disagree here for multiple reasons, some of which may boil down to theological differences. First of all, your belief affects me because it compels you to a) write books on the subject, b) consider yourself vastly superior to those who don’t find your god’s existence axiomatic, and c) engage in the same psychological terrorism which I previously mentioned. Secondly, the bible is quite clear that my salvation is not dependent upon my actions, but rather is a gift from god to those whom he has chosen. If you believe that the bible is at least remotely accurate, then you must accept that I am walking down the path that was made for me by your god who created me specifically for the purpose of going to hell. After all, it was all planned from before the foundations of the universe. Is that not what is written?

As far as personal beliefs and behaviors are concerned, I have already stated that I do not care what an individual person believes as long as it stays personal. Attempts to proselytize, subversion of scientific research, the desire to control uteri worldwide, do I really need to go on? Legislating morality based on your god belief immediately removes it from the personal level and places it firmly within the public sphere.

I believe that is an issue of some dispute within academia. The structure in the French government was very much feudalistic and also had similarities to caste systems as advancement through the three “levels” was difficult, if not impossible. If anything was the impetus for the revolution, it would have been the fact that the established hierarchy was oppressive and not the fault of the philosophers who pointed it out.

I don’t recall ever making a statement about any particular ethnic group. Regardless of that point, the pre-revolutionary France was very much like a caste system. I feel that the analogy is appropriate.

I never stated that the concept itself was new, only that the right to express it, even in opposition to the government, was. And just for the record, I don’t believe in absolute free will, either. I believe that people will make certain decisions, seemingly of their own volition, based on genetic and environmental variances. The nature versus nurture debate will likely never end, but a critical examination of the studies will show that things as trivial as your vehicle preference are correlated to genetic similarity. If free will exists as you claim it does, then how is it that I have control over my own destiny which according to the bible was determined before I was even conceived?

There was a form of democracy in Greece, true. I think that there are some benefits to an Athenian style democracy, personally, but the system itself was still not as sophisticated as what we have currently.

Your assumption that I am unfamiliar with Aquinas, Augustine, or enlightenment philosophers in general is patently absurd. Not to drag “formal” education into the debate, but I did study theology and philosophy at a Jesuit university for 2 years, and have read many of the works of all of the aforementioned. “Free will” as a concept was present in christianity, but my remark was related to governments and the legal right to exercise our autonomy. I could, perhaps, chalk this up to a semantic or contextual misunderstanding, but it is also likely that you just purposely interpreted what I said in such a way that you could accuse me of ignorance of those subjects.

The idea that we are arguing over atrocities committed by “atheists” during that time period is ludicrous. I asserted that the philosophers did not advocate violence, which is true, and furthermore, there is no evidence that all or even most participants in the actual fighting were atheists. This is an assumption made by you, presumably to further your own agenda of vilifying atheists.

Finally, killing for a specific purpose (ie in a revolution—were there no deaths in the American Revolution? That’s news to me.) would not be inherently irrational, but killing for the sake of killing would be.

Check the Oxford English Dictionary—an atheist is one who disbelieves in or denies the existence of god. Period. I disbelieve in god based on my lack of, and in my opinion, inability to acquire, knowledge of such a being. End of story. Therefore, the only necessary commonality between myself and other atheists is that we lack belief in god.

Reading the personal opinions of atheists past or present doesn’t change the fact that atheism only entails lack of belief in god. Those who conflate atheism with some larger philosophy are simply incorrect. Christopher Hitchens is politically conservative; I’m not, but we’re both atheists. I disagree with atheists who believe that one can prove that ANY supernatural being doesn’t exist (which sounds extraordinarily silly to a logical positivist), but we’re both still atheists. Get it?

You have to be joking about Osama bin Laden, but we won’t delve into conspiracy theorist accusations.

I desire no “new” morality, society, dictatorship, or global domination. I have no desire to make god-belief illegal or in any way restrict your right to practice your religion, but I do feel that it is hazardous to humanity and would hope to have others abandon religion of their own volition. As previously stated, as long as religion stays out of schools and governments, I’m fine with whatever you choose to believe. (There’s more to this line of thinking, but I will address it in more detail when I get to the appropriate part of the book.)

What is the definition of christian in your mind? If it is solely church affiliation, then I guess I’m an Episcopalian since I never officially renounced my baptism and am included in the numbers somewhere. If a christian is someone who personally accepts the main tenets of the Nicene Creed, then I think you’ll find that the numbers based on church affiliation are artificially inflated. (I want to note here that I’m not making the No-True Scotsman fallacy as I’m not arguing that those who would self-identify as christian are not christian based upon behavior or some other characteristic. I do, however, feel that many christians are the nominal sort who haven’t examined their beliefs and may not even believe Jesus rose from the dead after his propitiatory sacrifice, thereby providing an example of the type of improper group affiliation that Vox references.) If you don’t find that nugget of info compelling, why include it? Was the point not to imply that there are less atheists than even the polls report due to incorrect self-identification?

I don’t expect people, particularly the complacent and apathetic who seem so prevalent in society, to do or believe anything. If they attempt to argue a position or make a claim, then I will expect them to logically and rationally support that. If you cannot refer to a dictionary to settle a definitional dispute, to what should we refer? I understand the nuance and connotations that can be left out of dictionaries, but there must be some final arbiter within language.

I don’t “practice” atheism and wouldn’t even know how to go about doing so. You may be able to correlate certain characteristics with atheism, but let’s not forget that correlation does not equal causation. Furthermore, many of such observations are biased and stereotypical. Many people will read more into a particular action than is actually there based upon the kinds of memes that have spread about atheists, so their analysis would be tainted by such a predisposition. For example, some people claim that atheists live a life of total debauchery and just want to have sex with everything in sight. Well, so do some christians, muslims, or hindus. Some atheists are celibate by choice. The sexual behavior of atheists and even the mores regarding sex are likely not that different from those of the religious. We just don’t need to feel guilty because Jesus just watched us masturbate.

I also feel that your group of “Low Church Atheists” was over-generalized to include a group of people whose religious affiliation is merely in question or not known. The conclusions that you made based upon their inclusion are invalid, and in my opinion, a dishonest attempt to bolster your argument.

I do yoga; does that make me Hindu? Harris is an example of an atheist with whom I have some variance of opinion. We’ve spoken on some of these differences with no assertion on either side of correctness. We’re still both atheists.

Atheism is sometimes defined differently, and oftentimes incorrectly. I would have to re-read the referenced sections of their work to analyze their intent with using those particular definitions, but just for the record, I also disagree with the American Atheists’ description of what an atheist “is.” Many of those tenets I agree with in principle, but not as a corollary to atheism that is fundamentally necessary.

Buddhism does in fact have many sects and branches that practice their religion differently. For example, the Japanese form of Buddhism is a Shinto fusion as far as popular belief is concerned. Mahayana, Theraveda, and Zen Buddhists also have differing beliefs and mythologies. That doesn’t change the fundamental aspect of Buddhism as a path by which one can attain peace or enlightenment without a necessary god of worship. It is a religion by definition, though, with a prescribed set of ritualistic behaviors, but practicing meditation does not make one Buddhist.

You implied some type of statistical correlation between Asperger’s and atheism; I merely pointed out that you had insufficient data to make such a correlation from a statistical standpoint. I have never personally seen Harris, Myers, or Dawkins defend the notion that all people with no specific religious affiliation or all who consider themselves secularists (which really only applies to religious intrusion into government, not personal beliefs) are de facto atheists. As far as your admitting that I “may not conflate” these differences, how exactly am I doing a “typical atheist dance routine?”

Regarding your first point, I would not label that group of people as atheists since it is merely unknown. One can have “no religion” and still believe in god or wood nymphs or anything else. As far as the HCAs go, I would dispute your characterization of them, and don’t feel that your dichotomy has an appropriate “church” for people like me. The ivory tower elitist atheists are out there, and they don’t even like me, mostly for the penury of letters behind my name.

This is a perfect example of the bait-and-switch you like to pull—you claim to only be referring to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens every time your arguments are critiqued, but then make the same claims for all of atheism and all atheists. Which is it? It would be much easier to respond if I knew your target. Unless, of course, obscuring it was intentional and the RD, SH, CH attacks are merely a rhetorical ploy meant to distract so you can surreptitiously generalize arguments against specific people and apply them to all atheists.

See you next time. Sorry this is taking me so long—I’ve been working a lot lately so I don’t have much free time.

Vox has published his criticisms of my critique here. It's possible that I may need to clarify some of the points to which he objected, so I'll get to that and then we'll get ready for round 2!

ETA: Here is Vox's response in its entirety. He didn't seem to mind in the comments on his blog, so here ya go.

I think I’ve been postponing this project long enough, and since other people on our forums are starting to talk about this book, I should probably stop playing Rock Band and get my butt in gear. So, welcome to the first in a series of posts discussing Vox Day’s The Irrational Atheist. 

I am going to be going through this book one chapter at a time in order to keep the posts relatively short and still allow for a detailed analysis. I mentioned that plan to Vox Day, who kindly provided me with a complimentary copy of this book, and his suggestion was to read the entire book first before beginning. After getting about half-way through it, I didn’t see anything that necessitated that, but just as an FYI, if any of my points of contention are dealt with in later chapters, I’ll note that in later posts. 

The first thing I noticed about this book is that Day’s writing style is quite humorous, and if I may, even endearing. This is troublesome as many readers will fall into the trap of getting caught up in the seemingly personable style and disregarding critical inquiry of the content. Day comes off as the friendly but mischievous antagonist in what he terms “an intellectual deathmatch” (p. 3) between himself and the “Unholy Trinity” of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. I must also note a point of agreement before I continue into the actual substance of the book: I appreciate Day’s regard for the autodidactic learner and his insistence that one not be swayed by degrees and credentials as they don’t necessarily make one’s arguments more or less valid. (p. 3) This is a point far too often missed by the pseudo-intellectual crowd who seem to desire a type of hegemonious rule over knowledge itself with authority to speak on a subject deemed only by universities. (I won’t go into the bass-ackwards logic at play there…at least not here.) 

So, on to the good stuff. Day starts out by letting the reader know that he doesn’t care if we go to hell, which would seem to be against the mandate of his deity who commands his followers not only to care, but to grieve for the lost souls in the world and try their damnedest to convert us. At any rate, all you atheists can put your guard down because this guy doesn’t want to convert you and doesn’t even care if you go to hell. Nice try. He even goes as far as claiming that he is tolerant of, and even likes, the variety of beliefs and one-way entries to heaven, but that it is the atheists (embodied by Dawkins, et al.) who don’t. I can only speak for myself here when I emphatically state that I do not care what anybody believes—just keep it out of my government and out of my face. If it wasn’t for the intrusion of religion into public policy and the stubborn insistence to continually remind us of our future in hell, I wouldn’t even waste my time correcting them. 

Day asks a series of questions regarding the tolerance of religious beliefs and I would like to briefly address them. Does your “insanity” affect me? Yes, for the aforementioned reasons among others. Last time I checked, people didn’t condemn others to hell or kill people over the Minnesota Vikings making it to the Super Bowl, so I don’t find that analogy compelling. To put a little spin on your plea for tolerance, all I ask, and all the vast majority of atheists ask, is to be left alone to disbelieve what we choose to disbelieve and to live how we decide to live. It’s very gratuitous of you to want to allow all of the “insane” people freedom to believe whatever they like, although labeling all of humanity as insane is a bit of a stretch, but once one realizes that the patients are running the asylum, what should be done? 

Day starts his list of the evils of atheism by blaming the philosophers of the Enlightenment era for paving the way for “the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and dozens of other massacres in the name of human progress,” which I find to be amusing given that were it not for such revolutions, we would still be living in feudal societies and caste systems quite antithetical to his own libertarian ideals. I wonder where he got those ideas regarding man’s free will and right to exercise it. Could it be…the Enlightenment? The irony is almost overwhelming. This is a point he brings up often. The philosophers of the time certainly did affect the populace, but not by advocating war or revolution. Senseless killing is certainly not rational, nor is being swept away in nationalistic fervor. If waking people up to the reality of their circumstance by giving them a vision of hope for a better tomorrow is a crime, it is one that should be committed more often. The people of the Enlightenment era were simply alerted to the fact that, to paraphrase Rousseau, despite being born free, they were “everywhere in chains.” The people reacted to this knowledge with revolution, and violence is an unfortunate byproduct of the overthrow of established regimes. If these things had not taken place, there would be no United States of America, no democracy, and certainly no libertarianism. Vox Day himself could be similarly vilified by the benefactors of his philosophy for espousing such views, assuming we lived in a world where the Enlightenment had never occurred. 

Day goes on to criticize atheism, which he oddly traces back to The Apology of Socrates, which only reveals the etymological roots and certainly not the birth of the lack of belief in god, for not having changed over the years. This is an obscure point. How would the lack of belief in something change exactly? Along with that, he tosses in a few jabs with comments as to the “ultimate destination” for atheists being “hot” and a little argumentum ad populum for good measure. Apparently our “godless jihad,” armed by “raging, red-letter infidels,” consists mainly of writing books and speaking out publicly about our lack of faith. We better be careful to keep the death toll from rising exponentially due to an increase in paper cuts. 

He makes the argument that atheism leaves a void in people which must be filled with some belief, no matter how silly or contradictory. He supports this by using a Barna poll about beliefs on life after death and a CNN exit poll to show that people improperly self-identify with certain groups. If his conclusion is accurate, how is it more damaging to atheism than it is to religion? Would it not also be the case that the “billions of individuals” who believe in Jesus are also incorrectly identifying themselves, rendering all such labels meaningless and simultaneously destroying his earlier appeal to popularity? Day claims that “the normal individual tends to put significantly more time into living his life instead of thinking about it and cataloging its abstract aspects.” I agree, and I think that is problematic. It’s akin to being criticized for engaging in introspection, which is not only healthy, but necessary. Somehow related to this is the definition of atheism from the three “representatives” of atheism and their nuances, but I haven’t figured out how it is related, seen as how most arguments centered around definitions tend to be promptly settled by a dictionary. 

The pinnacle of this segment is the fact that Sam Harris, leader of all atheists everywhere at all times, practices Buddhism. If anybody else is thinking, “Yeah, so?”--you’re not alone. Is this a criticism of atheism or Sam Harris’ personal beliefs? For all of his ranting about these Buddhist beliefs, he fails to take into account that there are many types of Buddhism, some of which involve no deities and focus instead on personal development. The entire point is irrelevant, though, as Sam Harris’ assertion that Buddhism is not a religion per se says nothing at all about atheism. At least he acknowledges that atheism is neither a religion nor a philosophy—right before he divides us into “churches.” 

What Day terms “High Church Atheists” (HCA) consist of the upper echelon of intellectual elitists who also have mental disorders and Asperger’s syndrome, along with being socially inept and never getting laid because they’re too busy destroying the beliefs of their prospective partners. Wow—we’re doomed. Except for the fact that all of those things are pure speculation on an arbitrarily assigned group of people. We also have the “Low Church Atheist,” (LCA) the backwater, inbred cousin that the former wants to hide from the public. The HCA is deemed autistic by one online poll which was answered by 59 people indicating that atheists have an average Asperger’s quotient of 27.9, slightly above normal, but not quite a pathology, along with Day’s own informal survey of 159 of his blog readers. This is not even close to a controlled study from which conclusions can be drawn. The LCA is characterized by their refusal to use the word “atheist”, but that shouldn’t matter since Day already proved that self-labeling is irrelevant. There is a method to his madness, though, because he is about to use this group to skew and obfuscate the prison population studies which show that atheists are less likely to be imprisoned. Earlier in the chapter, he admits that people who answer “no religion” on polls are not necessarily atheist, the validity of self-identification not withstanding, but then wants to lump them in with atheists to get his extra 31.6 percent of the British prison system and then declare that our “Low Church counterparts are nearly four times more likely to be convicted and jailed for committing a crime than a Christian.” (p. 20) Watch out—he’s a slippery one! 

These LCAs also live seven years less than the average religious person, are more likely to smoke, drink, be depressed, fat, unmarried, and not reproduce. Day then assumes that since so many of them are in jail, they must be less intelligent than average. Well, by using the same flawed data, many conclusions can be drawn about a population of unknown people who happened to check “no religion” when filling out the Inmate Information Survey. 

Day finishes off the chapter with the typical agnostic/atheist dichotomy, as if they are mutually exclusive, but Vox, what difference does it make? You already proved that labels are meaningless and that all people with no religion are atheists, so what’s your point? Congratulations, that was the most convoluted, contradictory mess of confabulated casuistry I have ever seen. Honestly, I am impressed. I like ya, though; it’s kind of cute to see you so clearly grasping for straws. Thanks for the book, too—it’s providing me with plenty of material. 

I’ll see those of you with shatter-resistant monitors next time for chapter two!

That's not me speaking, but I wanted to get your attention. the author of that quote is none other than the late purveyor of bigotry Jerry Falwell's son, Jonathan Falwell, at WorldNetDaily. I was perusing the site in preparation for my upcoming blog discussion with Vox Day, another columnist for WorldNetDaily and owner of the blog Vox Popoli. (It should be an exciting exchange--I'm currently reading his book The Irrational Atheist. Stay tuned.) Apparently, Falwell is still clinging to the "Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics" argument against Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights, but even more disturbing was another article I found at the same nefarious site authored by Bob Unruh, entitled "Planned Parenthood: Wanting fewer blacks 'understandable". 

The surfeit of spin on this story is making me nauseous, and the actual issue at hand is even worse. An undercover "investigation" of some sort occurred during which a man called Planned Parenthoods in seven states posing as a man inquiring about ways to donate. (There is a YouTube video containing recordings here.)  This investigating group has not been identified, to my knowledge, but I feel that it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that it was another attempt of those with an anti-reproductive rights agenda to demonize and defame the Planned Parenthood organization. We all know how horrible it is to offer under-privileged women access to contraception and, yes, even abortions. If the woman can't afford medical care or reliable methods of birth control, it's plainly obvious that having the child is the best course of action.

At any rate, the agent of this deception calls a PP clinic offering a donation. He moves on to ask if he can ask that it be allocated specifically to women of color. This is an accepted practice there as some may want to provide extra benefits to minority women who often aren't as financially secure or don't have health care. The person on the phone replies thus, and the fraudulent benefactor then replies that his intent is to reduce the number of black babies born due to his racist and stereotypical views. The conversations tended to become very awkward after that, and the PP employee's incredulity is often quite obvious. Like any other organization, though, there is a general agreement (as least from the available information) that the donation will be accepted. Their reasoning is completely obvious to anybody who has ever relied on donations for their ability to function, as they know how the money will be used regardless of the intent of the donor. If somebody offered us at the RRS a donation because he/she believed that we are detrimental to atheism and wants to promote us for that reason, we would likely still accept the money. Without money, any organization will die, and so long as there is no affiliation or partnership contingency, generally money from anybody will be accepted.

This has been painted in the aforementioned article, as well as others, as a gross injustice on the part of PP and cries of "racism" and "eugenics" are running rampant. Given the obvious dishonest intent and purposeful misrepresentation to the media, the people who should be harangued here are the so-called "investigators" themselves. Their biased agenda and dishonest trapping of these PP employees, whose names and office locations are published in the YouTube video, is despicable. The subsequent acceptance of this as evidence by anybody betrays the inability to utilize their collective cerebral cortices.

Is it possible that this person spoke to some employees with prejudices of their own? Of course, but that say nothing about the agency as a whole and their stance on such matters. It is relatively easy to paint people into a corner using dishonest tactics, particularly if it is completely unexpected by the victim of this fraudulent activity. The individuals writing about this matter in the vein of the aforementioned Bob Unruh have already bought the anti-abortion propaganda hook, line, and sinker, so to them, it must be quite a thrill to twist this unscrupulously gained information to suit their own purposes.

Beyond this immediate issue, I would just like to add that there is some evidence that Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics or "social Darwinism"--just like many people in the early twentieth century. Her personal beliefs have not necessarily impacted the organization she founded, particularly 80 years after the fact. The fact that more black women get abortions is not because Planned Parenthood operatives are forcing these women--it's because they have an extraordinarily high incidence of poverty and familial instability. Did Planned Parenthood cause that to happen as well? Maybe they initiated the slave trade preemptively to ensure it, too.

Overall, this latest batch of anti-abortion propaganda should be offensive to any person with critical thinking faculties, and I hope that some of you will also speak out to stop this insidious meme from spreading.

This is a response to a nagging little pest we've had around here lately, to whom I was essentially blackmailed into responding. The original thread is located here. You'll see in the thread that this lovely young man threatens to send one email per day until he is answered to his satisfaction, and then proceeds to post relentlessly to that end. In an attempt to end this idiocy, I've tried to answer all of his extremely lengthy posts at once; therefore, this is extraordinarily long, and for that, I apologize.

I had planned on not responding to you, seen as how I already opted out of this never-ending argument which ultimately comes down to fundamental philosophical differences, as well as arbitrary differences of opinion. Fortunate for the sake of your continued enjoyment, I feel compelled to respond since you've dragged me and practically everybody I know into this circle-jerk.

From a Bayesian probabilistic perspective, this holds true as well. Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence; therefore, one can be justified in the stance that the probability of the existence of any supernatural being is extraordinarily low.

This is from June of last year, but this is the first I've heard of it, so hopefully everybody isn't already familiar. A scientific experiment was conducted to determine the impact of anger on decision-making and rationality. It was concluded that anger actually improves your thought processes and helps you to make better decisions which you more strongly uphold. So, take that all of you nay-sayers who constantly criticize us for tossing away the facade of propriety and demeanor of respect for others' beliefs. We're actually better off precisely because we get angry.

Read Part One 

The Jewish Aphilosopher   (Yeah - the A was intentional - figure it out)
 

Conflating Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy, of which I am not a fan, with atheism before the actual article even begins is just the tip of the iceberg. His depiction of atheists is nothing short of bigoted and disgusting. He's "The Jewish Philosopher"? I can't even find the philosophy under the pile of steaming shit that he excreted onto his site. I'm telling you this up front only because you're going to need those hip-high waders and possibly protection for your monitor before reading further.

He starts off with the claim that we cannot define what we mean by god when we say we don't believe in one. I have yet to see a theist who can give a coherent definition of their god, and they do believe in it. Projection, anybody? He claims that we don't mind the concept of a creator (which we do, mainly because it has no basis in factual data), but that we're terrified by the ever-looming punishment awaiting us from his loving god, and so we just pretend he doesn't exist. Let's turn this around-I propose that it is you doing the pretending. There is not a shred of evidence to support your ridiculous beliefs in some anthropomorphic voyeur with sadistic tendencies, but you are so terrified of the fact that one day you and everyone you love will simply cease to be. So, you just imagine that you're immortal so you don't have face the truth about life-there is no higher purpose other than what you assign to your life; there is no afterlife and you'll never see grandma again; sometimes life just sucks so learn to deal with it.

Atheists are also "invariably highly selfish people" and it's "impossible to find a well-documented case of an atheist who was kind, honest, sober, and sexually responsible." Of course, he also tries to covertly pull out the communism card as well. Where the fuck does this guy get off? What kind of statistical data can you present for your claims, Stein? We are all mean, lying, drunken nymphomaniacs, right? Well, chew on this for a minute-you are a bigoted asshole who can only validate his own beliefs by caricaturing those of others. One would expect more from a descendent of a group that once faced the same kind of prejudiced rhetoric.

He believes that science has disproven atheism with quantum mechanics and the Big Bang. First of all, the only way to disprove atheism is to prove theism. That certainly didn't happen with either of those scientific endeavors. He says that we "apparently don't depend on any evidence." Again, can anybody see how theists tend to project the shortcomings of their belief onto us? We don't need evidence to suspend belief in the supernatural! It is up to you to present the evidence that proves the existence of your imaginary friend! Apparently, Stein is even worse with science than he is with philosophy, and that is impressive.

Stein should familiarize himself with a recent Barna study that I referenced in a previous blog post before he makes the claim that there is a "linkage between pornography and atheism" that is evident in demographic studies and the fact that "The expansion of the Internet has made pornography more widely available and at the same time atheism seems to be becoming more popular." The difference in porn consumption by christians (there are no studies to my knowledge that focus on Jews) is negligible at best. This is another survey on christians and pornography that refutes his point. The only linkage between atheism and pornography is that we don't need to pretend to not have sexual urges, and we don't need to repent after we watch it.

He reiterates his hypothesis about our denial of god in this way:

Many people, especially young males leading secure lives in developed countries, feel no need for the comfort of religion. Furthermore, they are attracted to a very selfish, self-indulgent way of life, an attraction perhaps encouraged by viewing pornography. Therefore, in order to remove any feelings of guilt, they simply deny the existence of any divine judgment or afterlife.

That's not a non sequitor or anything. (/sarcasm) The excoriation continues with the piece de resistance-my favorite quote in the whole article. I'll let you savor it.

Atheism is not a philosophy; it is a symptom of narcissism and hedonism. Calling atheism a religion is like calling alcoholism a religion. It's a bad choice, a moral failing, perhaps a disease.

Now, for all of the criticism that we take for making the claim that theism should be considered a mental disorder, at least in some cases, we make the exception for the average person with the disclaimer that belief in god is still delusional, it just may not be causing that person any hardship at the present time. Here, we have a blanket statement on the moral character of every atheist. Not only does he clearly have no evidence to support his claim, but his false analogy is fallacious nonsense. Not to mention ignorant, asinine, and absolutely disgusting. If his assertion is true, why are less atheists in prison than our population would warrant? Why are atheistic societies healthier and have less violence and crime? When was the last time you saw an atheist suicide bomber, Stein?

His bigoted moronicism leads him to the conclusion that we deny reality, science confirms religion, and for the icing on the cake-atheism is akin to an addiction. If this is the product of "loving homes of an Orthodox Jewish community," I'll pass. The "brutal violence going on in secular neighborhoods" is an assertion unsupported by any factual evidence and apparently just pulled out of his ass along with the rest of this post. Have you ever been to Israel, Stein? I hear it's really peaceful there.

I try to limit my responses to more intellectual criticism and avoid this type of argument. Even D'Souza has never elicited a response like this one, but these two men are the personification of ignorant bigotry. Their vitriolic rhetoric exemplifies the stigma that atheists in this society still face, but ultimately, it says much more about their character than it does ours. And yet, they wonder why we seem angry.

Everybody's monitors ok?

Subscribe (free) to our onsite feed :

Please support this project and make a widget to put Kelly's feed on your site (simple and sleek).

This piece is part of a year long series (ends Oct 31, 2008) that Kelly of the Rational Response Squad will be writing to address theist talking heads in the media. Kelly is a Psychology major, co-host of the RRS Radio show, and has been featured on ABC debating Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. All articles may be reprinted in any major media publication or any blog. All articles will be submitted by Kelly or an assistant to the major media outlet that initially published the story as well as to the author of the original piece(when possible). Reprints are encouraged in blogs and must link to source. Reprints in media will be thanked in our book, so please alert us if you repost any story. Media outlets may shorten articles if necessary without removing context. Upon completion, a book and documentary will be made about the year (ending Oct. 31, 2008) and our plight to have dishonest argumentation countered with rational and factual answers in the press. If you would like Kelly to address any major media story from a theist talking head, please post a link to the article in her blog. We welcome messages from leading atheists asking us to refute stories attacking them and their views. At the end of the year the writings will be given some bulk, some supporting citations, and edits from a publisher to be compiled in a book. The book will include a documentary DVD shot from Sapient's vantage point as he works alongside Kelly, asking her questions about the project as it moves along.

Kelly O'Connor
02/13/08

I don't find it surprising that the two writers I will be addressing here find atheists to be angry, selfish, and in one case, diseased. The patronizing attitudes of these men would drive the most timid among us into a fit. So, obviously, I nearly convulsed while reading these two articles-both full of condescension; spewing venomous rhetoric that does nothing more than add up to one giant attack on the character of everybody without a belief in their mythological friend.

Marty Fields, a pastor at a Presbyterian Church, and Jacob Stein, an orthodox Jew who has mistaken his skill in fallacious argumentation for philosophy: You two are winning the award for "Arrogant Deluded Fatuous Pricks of the Year." It's a coveted prize, and you were nearly overtaken by Dinesh D'Souza, but even he isn't this moronic.

Marty Fields, who will not be addressed as "Reverend" here as I have no reverence for him or his ilk, wrote an op-ed entitled "Angry Atheists". He starts out by accusing atheists of being philosophical dilettantes, using the "same old tired arguments that you heard in your freshman philosophy class." Ironic, coming from a proponent of a religion that hasn't come up with a new argument in 2000 years. I think that tops freshman year philosophy, eh?

He goes on to list the books of the "Four Horsemen", but his target here is mainly Christopher Hitchens. He passes over The End of Faith as being the first, and in his mind, the least offensive, tome published by the quartet. He must not have read it, because I have read all of the aforementioned, and Harris' The End of Faith is positively inauspicious in its relentless attack on religion. I guess it's in vogue these days to label Hitchens as the black sheep of the group, but in reality, Hitchens has stated that he has no desire to see the end of religion, in sharp contrast with the others. He uses Hitchens' God Is Not Great as the example of an increase in hostility from atheists, labeling his book "visceral and the angriest of all."

Hitchens is on the debate circuit quite frequently, and I have yet to see him be anything but mild-mannered and honest. The honesty is what is offensive to Fields. How dare you have an opinion that Mother Theresa or Jerry Falwell were anything but paragons of morality? In debates, Hitchens is respectful of his opponent, just as the example that he cited between Russell and Copleston. He has no obligation to be respectful of their beliefs or opinions, though, and neither do any of us.

Fields accuses us of being "intellectually inept," but with his clear lack of knowledge, one can only assume that he must be looking at his own internal mirror. Atheism is increasing worldwide, a fact easily proven by population studies and surveys. He calls us arrogant, and yet he is the one who claims to have the answer for every person on earth's search for meaning and value. Instead of "gasping for air", atheism is thriving, and it's not surprising to see the religious in denial-purposely pulling the wool over their eyes and pretending that their fairy tales have validity.

Of course, this shouldn't be shocking coming from people who base their lives on compartmentalization and self-deception. Speaking of dishonesty, I wonder what Fields would think of Jacob Stein's acerbic and unscrupulous diatribe titled "Why Atheism is Not a Religion." Trust me, that is the only thing upon which we agree.

To be continued...

There is a quote from Dr. Albert Ellis in which I find some solace: "By not caring too much about what people think, I'm able to think for myself and propagate ideas which are very often unpopular. And I succeed." For some reason, it makes me feel less alone in this quest to expose religion for the fraudulent and dangerous idealogy that it is. The fact is, though, that without our community of people behind us, we would never be able to continue doing this.

We've grown pretty thick skins over the past two years, but an endless stream of criticism and insults gets to you no matter who you are. In the end, our controversial approach has acheived exactly what we intended and more. We've had a ton of publicity: We've been in periodicals, tv shows, respectable radio shows, and magazines. Our website is currently the number one atheist website in the world according to Alexa, and has been number one in the US for quite some time. Of course, some of that traffic is people who hate us, but we have still managed to acheive more in the 2 years that we've been around than others have in 20. Even if you disagree with our tactics, you can't deny that we get people talking.

Now, I'm not trying to blow my own horn here, but just giving the readers some perspective. We aren't perfect--we're normal human beings who make mistakes and try to learn from them. Despite any of our successes or failures, it seems that no matter how hard we try to explain the "method behind the madness" to people, they just don't get it. That's why seeing this blog post today was refreshing and exhilirating. It's so rare that somebody, on their own, gets it.

So, here it is. This is from mindcore.blogspot.com, and he has a podcast at Podbean as well. I would like to publicly thank him for the warm, fuzzy feeling I've had all day as a result.

* This is a concept that we have been trying to elucidate since day one, but we have never done so as eloquently. That is precisely the intent. The content is hiding under a facade of ridicule--some of which is genuine, and also an effective tool against irrationality, in my opinion.

**I edited this sentence to reflect current status. The original was "currently to be found on the show phenomenon."