Is it just because of some people trying to be anti-evolution? Because in the past, people had no problem with being religious and seeing Darwin’s idea as part of God’s plan.

but theology and science will always be at odds. One requires determination of fact, the other blind belief in which ever version of “faith” that particular person is trying to foist on the rest of us.

are the ones who have the biggest claim to being anti-dogmatic. In science and empiricism, there are lots of dogmas, many which end up being found incorrect or incomplete.

The difference between agnostics and atheists, in my view, is that the former won’t pay much attention to this article, or view it more philosophically while the latter will be offended and try to refute it. That doesn’t mean an agnostic will sit back and let creationism be taught in science classes, they just recognize that arguing empiricism and theology is fruitless as the two are different and serve different purposes.

Isn’t the belief that the only reality that exists is what we can “measure” pretty dogmatic? It’s a philosophical and theological argument just as much as the existence of G-d is.

I rarely see people of the Jewish faith trying to convert me. Not all Christians are on conversion crusades nor are all Muslims. Nor are all people of “faith” doing so blindly, even if many are. But I’ve talked to ardent atheists who really can’t describe some of the strongest arguments for evolution or understand phylogentic analysis. I would call that blind faith as well. Same with physics. There are very few people in the world with a solid understanding of high energy physics and cosmology, yet most people take the big bang concept on “faith” as they haven’t evaluated the mathematics for themselves.

“I don’t believe in very much, because believing gets in the way of learning.”

(Lazarus Long, AKA Woodrow Wilson Smith, Theodore Bronson, Robert Anson Heinlein)

————————————————————————
“Just say NO! to Kool-aid.”

when they’re not supportable is pretty anti-dogmatic isn’t it?

If one pretends that atheism means certainty that there is nothing in the universe we don’t know about, which has properties we don’t currently understand, then atheists are dogmatic.

But for all practical purposes, atheists are those who disbelieve in all supernatural claims that have been put to them to date. Even Dawkins says he’s some big number ever-so-slightly south of 100% sure there is no god.

we dissuade people even when they come wanting to convert to Judaism, and it’s a very very long and hard process by design.

I think ignorance of evolution is not the same as blind faith by any means tho—i don’t really “get” how such heavy things like planes fly, but i take them willingly and believe they’ll do what they’re supposed to anyway. We live in a very complex world and can’t understand everything — even if we wanted to — nor do we have to prove that we do to function successfully.

…they’ve done more to create mistrust and sew divisions between believers and non-believers than anyone else and they do so because a strong anti-theism reaction benefits them. Aside from Dawkins or Hitchens, you don’t see atheists and agnostics in Europe doing much more than rolling their eyes when fundies of any stripe do something stupid but here the hard Christian right (more political than it is religious) is actively baiting everyone else (fellow christians, people of other faiths, and non-believers etc.) into a fight.

Unfortunately, people are giving them WAAAAAY too much credence and credibility. People that grew up in mainline churches in the south will remember that these idiots have always been around and regular baptists (yes, baptists along with everyone else) used to roll their eyes at them. That kept them ghettoized but once they started getting media attention they got power. Falling for their manufactured wars, keeps their fundraising levels up and unifies their movement, and when atheists or others hit too hard at them other branches that would otherwise disdain them will come to their defense.

It’s just such a ridiculous set up and insults everyone right off the bat. (Though as an agnostic who grew up Catholic, which is a religion that accepts the big bang AND evolution, I didn’t feel personally insulted. Side not: you should hear my super conservative parents go off about the yahoos who take the bible literally.)

Go Hillary or Go Green!

not in the sense that atheists all have a single dogma, but rather that they’re inflexible in their views, whatever they happen to be. There’s actually very little in the interview about atheists; the scientist guy does far more bashing of fundies than of atheists.

Q: What is it about our culture that has led to creationism’s popularity?

A: In short, intellectual laziness. We’re not prepared to do the hard work to make our culture more sophisticated.

Thus the Fundie-Plutocrat coalition to destroy public education; an informed, sophisticated population is not good for them.

I actually find these kinds of articles, in fact all religion-driven discussion of science, encouraging. If religious people were secure in their delusion, they wouldn’t need to engage with secularists at all or participate in political discussions; that they do, and that steadily more of them are drawn to the idea that they can reconcile religion and science, is for me evidence that they lack assuredness.

This guy’s interpretation of god as some essence that allows him to believe that somebody somewhere is somehow in charge - versus the (actually) terrifying prospect that we’re out here all on our own - will if nothing else remove the worst dogmatic aspects of contemporaray religion. This is religion I can tolerate, because it is one we can safely ignore.

It sometimes scares me how much atheists can act like the fundies that they are supposedly 180 degrees from. Intolerance of anyone who believes in god, etc, etc. They are just as bad as the crazy fundy mouth pieces who tell me I’m going to hell for X reason(s). (There’s a new sign every week.) Intolerance is intolerance whether you are hiding it behind faith or “the truth.” (And that whole “the truth” thing makes me snort as well. Little presumptuous, eh? No one knows so stop acting like you’re better then everyone else.)

Go Hillary or Go Green!

“Atheists are just as bad as fundies”… huh, no. We have nothing in common with fundies.

And by the way, questioning people’s beliefs (especially in a society where all things religious get a pass and special rights, as Sarah’s posts on FLDS show) is not intolerance. At worst, it’s disrespect. And you know what, no one is entitled to respect, we don’t have to respect you. We need only tolerate you. And we do that.

But because religiosity is so protected here, the slightest questioning of religion is interpreted as intolerance. And yeah, if you believe in an old book and refer to it as your guideline for behavior… then, sorry, but yeah, I’m better than you. If you believe (that is, w/o proof whatsoever… remember, the burden of evidence is on you, not me, the atheist) in a sky-god… well, you get the idea.

Is that dogmatic? In whichever sense of dogmatic you choose to interpret it? No. I hold on to no rigid belief system passed down from ages ago. And if you can show me empirical proof, measurable, falsifiable and what not, then show me. I’m open to reviewing the evidence.

But don’t expect me to show deference or reverence to your own particular brand of superstition. Again, all you can expect from me is tolerance. Nothing more, nothing less. But if people want to bring their religious beliefs into the discussion, then, it’s fair game and they can’t come whining afterwards that we were mean or intolerant.

Like I said, it’s a distortion of discourse brought about by the extreme latitude and lack of questioning that religious people enjoy here which also allows Christianists to portray themselves as an oppressed minority because they can no longer shove their beliefs down our throats institutionally.

Gimme a break. Vigorous questioning and lack of respect are not the same as intolerance.

I don’t see how a disbelief in a man in a flowing white beard, sitting on a cumulus nimbus cloud, making a list, checking it twice, micro-assessing my every thought, word and deed, translates into dogma. It may be a rejection of many widely-held belief systems, but it is not, in and of itself, a codified belief system. And I’m not preaching or trying to convert anyone.

I don’t see why I have to know and understand everything about the physical world to justify my disbelief. It seems to me that religions have developed throughout human history for the express purpose of making people comfortable with what they don’t know and understand.

The seasonally ballyhooed “War on Christianity” may boil down to a realization that, as we gain knowledge and understanding of our physical world, blind faith diminishes, thereby threatening the viability of a vested societal control system. And disbelief does threaten control, both patriarchal and institutional.

Disbelievers belong to the “question authority” crowd. They cede their power to no one, real or imagined. That’s as much a threat to political and corporate bodies as it is to the entire spectrum of religious entities.

I said some. Key word there. Hell I’m agnostic. I agree with you, except I don’t think I’m better then anyone else based solely on what they believe (i.e. books to base their behaviour on) and where you missed my point. There are atheists who aren’t vigorously questioning, they’re being dogmatic assholes.

The people who spew nothing but hate and intolerance towards anyone who believes in any sort of god like thing *is* in my book just as bad as anyone who spews nothing but hate and intolerance for not believing in their god type thing. Same fucking thing, they’re both fundies just one religious and one atheist. And I get in fights with them all the time on Ravelry in the atheists and agnostics forum.

Go Hillary or Go Green!

I agree; anyone who thinks it’s their right to tell another what to believe is not invited to my table either. That said, I’m the only atheist I know! The reaction around here, when I acknowledge I’m a non-believer, is “BUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUTTTTT You’re a good person?!?!?!?!??????????”, like atheism and morality are mutually exclusive! I then carefully explain that, since there is no possibility of forgiveness from any “higher being”, I have to act in ways I can live with. That usually ends the discussion.

We act morally in the absence of otherworldly rewards, not because we expect daddy upstairs to hold us to account for our actions. I would argue that this is a morally superior position.

And yes, the conflation of religion and morality is especially annoying (considering evidence to the contrary)… or, as our favorite nominee puts it, the conflation between “faith and values”.

All I said was that the Salon writer wasn’t claiming atheists had “a dogma,” a codified belief system. I think VastLeft and others here are inadvertently attacking a straw man.

What the writer meant was that the physicist guy thought atheists were obstinate in their own views (except the physicist guy didn’t say that either!). It was just a poorly composed introduction to the interview, which I thought was pretty interesting.

In my observation, atheists are dogmatic in about the same proportion as believers (believers in the broadest sense, not just fundies).

but really, what;s the use beating believers over the head, unless they’re your relatives and its over beer, turkey & wild turkey on Thanksgiving? If there are no gods or goddesses then an argument about them is an argument about nothing. While an argument about nothing can be fun, how important is it, really. Time is better spent finding out what you can actually work with the Good People on in this world, while reminding them every now and then that yes, you’re still godless. That really fucks with their heads.

Bruce Dixon
www.blackagendareport.com

if you believe in an old book and refer to it as your guideline for behavior… then, sorry, but yeah, I’m better than you.

…as guidelines for my behavior say pretty emphatically that for me to think I’m better than someone else is a really, really bad idea.

“In my observation, atheists are dogmatic in about the same proportion as believers (believers in the broadest sense, not just fundies).”

And yet, objective evidence is never offered for it. It only shows a basic inability to grasp what atheism really is. All it shows is an inability to think beyond religious categories.

We act morally in the absence of otherworldly rewards, not because we expect daddy upstairs to hold us to account for our actions. I would argue that this is a morally superior position.

…then I suppose this makes sense. However, it doesn’t really make you “morally superior” to all that many people.

In general, the atheists I’ve encountered tend to be fairly—sometimes appallingly—ignorant about the varieties of religious faith. Some of them seem to have only one model for it, the fundie daddy-upstairs model, which they (quite reasonably IMHO) reject out of hand.

But there are a whole lotta ways to be religious, many if not most of them far more sophisticated and nuanced and abstract. I’m not saying they’d have any appeal to atheists, but the arguments against them need to be equally sophisticated and nuanced and abstract if they’re to make any sense.

“We act morally in the absence of otherworldly rewards, not because we expect daddy upstairs to hold us to account for our actions. I would argue that this is a morally superior position.”

As I indicated in my original comment, this is a retort to the argument that religion = morality. The expression “holier than thou” was not invented nor is it used by atheists.

As for the “nuanced view”, Richard Dawkins disposed of that argument in The God Delusion.

I agree on the differences. I admit, I love the Quakers. (Not fundie Quakers.) The meetings I’ve been to I’ve never once seen a bible, but then I only am familiar with the non-conservative ones (goes with my friends.) They are anything but your standard religious group. And they were leading the pro-choice protests at the 2000 RNC.

Go Hillary or Go Green!

In the first place, I said “in my observation.” Obviously that’s not the kind of statement that requires “objective evidence.”

And you’re still thinking “dogmatic” means adherence to a specific dogma, which, as I explained earlier, is not what it means in this context at all.

It’s actually thinking in human categories. Dogmatism is a human trait, not a religious trait or an atheistic trait. You can have dogmatism in all categories of atheism and all categories of religiosity; it’s not limited to one or the other.

The expression “holier than thou” was not invented nor is it used by atheists.

No, you used “morally superior to thou.” Sorry, but I don’t see any significant difference.

As I indicated in my original comment, this is a retort to the argument that religion = morality.

It may have been, but you couched it in terms of a particular type of belief as if it were the only one you needed to argue against.

As for the “nuanced view”, Richard Dawkins disposed of that argument in The God Delusion.

Ah, no, he didn’t, sorry.

(I’m not a religionist, BTW.)

…regarding this.

“O Allah! If I worship You for fear of Hell, burn me in Hell,
and if I worship You in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise.
But if I worship You for Your Own sake,
grudge me not Your everlasting Beauty.”

“Holier than thou” is not a strictly religious perspective, and equally obnoxious whoever the source.

It also hints that the basis of religious faith for some may not be adherence to dogma but direct personal experience of something perceived to be transcendent to the self, whatever it may be called or however it may be described.

“Religion” means to “link back” and that attempt at linking is done, at least in terms of world religions, through myths and rituals. Those myths and rituals have had different appearances at different times—we’ve been stuck with the dominant version of the literal dying and resurrected god for the past two millenia. The basic ingredients appear over and over, and reflect our physiological states as well as our mental ones. We have keys but don’t know where the locks are anymore.

For atheists to argue about god and refer to such a god as “the man upstairs” cedes the field to monotheists, as if the very concept of the ineffable has some agreed upon form. Ridiculous. Let’s start with a different supposition: let’s suppose that everything that is manifested is of the same basic stuff. One can look at that stuff through poetry and art, and one can look at that stuff through science and math, etc. Particles and waves, yes?

We are fishing for minnows while standing on a whale.

Joseph Campbell

When it comes to religious jargon, cede nothing, including the possibility that we are more and less than we seem to be.

++++

The peyote ritual is complex, and very long (in some traditions lasting for days); entrance into the oneness can only be approached with a clear mind and an open heart, cleansed in body and soul. The time of transcendence must be entirely unbounded by prescribed form or structured anticipation, and this is only possible with measured and deliberate preparation.

There is much to be said for ritual, so long as it facilitates and does not constrain. Our little vortices need to breathe in freedom, not in chains.

[hey mjs; how’s portland?]

And we could do worse than look to the Quakers for organizing models. They’ve gotten a lot of things right on a lot of issues out front of anyone else, and been effective advocates. Plus a home-grown model of non-violence.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

It has many charms, nearby and right in town.

I’ll put together a more detailed/photo-invested post about the Waterfront Blues Festival and send you a link…

Science can describe the chord structures of the Blues, but it cannot boogie!

++++

“that which silence cannot speak of, it should remain silent on”, or some such?

Science can refute certain literal claims in mythology, it cannot refute the existence of God and those who think it can understand neither science nor theology. American atheists who read the bible or other sacred documents literally are as tiresome and, yes, dogmatic, as the fundamentalists who do the same.

Theism is a positive claim. Atheism is a negative claim.

Agnosticism is a “don’t know”.

And hard core materialism reminds me of the foolishness of mid-century behaviouralism.

There’s only one of the three that isn’t dogmatic

Take the more “certain” sounding position (as opposed to the wishy-washy “agnostic”) to stand firm against all the countless charlatans who are certain of this or other foundationless claim.

I’ve yet to meet the atheist who thinks s/he has knowledge of all the universe’s phenomena. Whereas theists generally believe they know the One True Answer to the source and meaning of life.

most Christians are not in agreement with the fundies and other hateful loudmouths who are all about making their faith our laws, and our school curriculums, etc— why don’t they speak up? why do anti-gay amendments pass in almost every single state they’re proposed in?

where are the millions and millions of Christians against the loud haters who hurt me and mine?

where are the millions and millions of Christians who don’t want “bible studies” in public schools? or Christmas things only in town squares? …

where are the millions and millions of Christians who are supposed to not be for all this horrible shit?

or are they ok with it after all since it’s their religion, and it doesn’t hit them like it hits us Jews and Muslims and Hindus and non-religious? it doesn’t make the majority of Americans feel like others or less-than, and it seems the majority don’t care, after all.

I, as a non-Christian, desperately need the majority not to allow this stuff, and they never step up for the most part.

An agnostic does not pretend to knowledge he or she does not possess. This is wishy-washy? Perhaps if such a person cries “bullshit” when believers or non-believers wish them to then someone other than themselves will be somehow satisfied as to their being neither wishy nor washy? To what purpose, exactly?

Personally, I cry bullshit to the reification of ineffable abstractions, but not to the “ineffable” itself: there the eye goes not, nor the ear nor the touch nor the word nor the thought.

“Don’t Know” is a very honest and rational response. Perhaps that is why it is so easily dismissed by some.

++++

Because it pretends or forces or allows itself to respect the baseless and outlandish claims of organized religion. It doesn’t say, “prove it, and until then this all sounds as fishy as a Christianist’s bumper ornament.”

If you play the game that Russell’s Teapot is reasonably likely to be out in space because someone says it is, you’re being wishy washy.

The “ineffable” is ineffable, until and unless we can verify it. The universe is full of wonders and mysteries, and when people f-ing claim to have a handle on that which they don’t, it f-ing f’s up the ineffable.

Atheists, and scientific minds in general, are the first to admit “don’t know” and to seek to know. But in the face of the holy “I know, I know, just ’cause” they push back bluntly, because they’ve seen that movie too many times, “no, you don’t.”

Re agnosticism: stating that “I don’t know” in any way implies that “it pretends or forces or allows itself to respect the baseless and outlandish claims of organized religion” is hooey. How and when did it become the job of agnostics to vet religious inanities? It’s as if by not crying foul their non-involvement became an albatross around their neck, because you say so:

Billy is an idiot.

I don’t know Billy.

Sure you do. He’s an idiot. Say he’s an idiot.

Why is it my job to say he’s an idiot?

Because Billy is an idiot, and you know it, and you need to say it.

Well, he may be an idiot or he may be something smarter, but I’m not going to prove your point for you. If it’s important to you that he is an idiot, well, have at it.

You are wishy-washy.

One can believe that Billy is an idiot or not, but it doesn’t change Billy in the least.

++++

We can agree that the behaviors of many fundamentalists are hypocritical, hyperventilating, contrary, reactionary, ill-thought and on and on, but forcing people to “take sides” begs the questions of the meaning of sides. Yes, no? No, yes? Either you believe in nonsense or you do not? If you allow for the possibility of nonsense by not protesting when it is uttered you are a fool! VL: are you this strident in your daily life? Are there now perfect ways to live in this imperfect world? Are you the judge and jury?

Quick story: when telescopes were invented and then improved upon, the heavens ran away from humanity until the Universe receded further and further from our grasp (and Catholics began to tremble). When microscopes were made so powerful as to see all the way into the atom itself the Universe once again ran away, until matter itself largely vanished, and all that was left were fields of relationships, matter dancing madly around in nothingness. The Universe runs away from us all the time, but when we sit still it reveals itself to be exactly where it always was: within you and without you. Trying to codify this can be laughable, but I don’t believe that the attempt is pathetic. If you think religion is only the domain of knuckle-dragging extremists then that is what you will see when you think of these things. As soon as we name something we kill it: so too with the ineffable.

Can we die to our egos, our ideas of ourselves, to be reborn as something that participates consciously in eternity in the here and now? Science can be poetic but it cannot prove poetry (how does one scientifically prove allegorical meaning?). Maybe agnostics just don’t want the headache of long discussions about unprovable assertions, in which case I must cease my ramblings if I am to remain in their un-organized good stead.

++++

“VL: are you this strident in your daily life? Are there now perfect ways to live in this imperfect world? Are you the judge and jury?”

If you’re looking for a judge and jury, a mirror might come in handy.

Some people are idiots. If someone says Billy is an idiot, he may or may not be.

When held to a light of rational scrutiny, claims of the supernatural reliably fall to the ground. If someone says Billy created the universe, A rational person says, in some fashion or other, “prove it.” The person who thinks Billy very well may be the creator of the universe is, I’m taking a wild guess here, a little gullible or overly deferential. Or Billy totally rulz!

Oh, and none of what I’m saying suggests I or other atheists have a God-like knowledge of the whole universe or an expectation that I or my species will ever get one, or that the universe and humanity aren’t full wonders.

Made you look!

++++