"Why are all you atheists so angry?"

[Keep The Reason]

I want to point out that when a child is molested it hurts everyone, not just atheists. Atheists are not the only people who are aware of and angry about injustices done in the name of religion.

Atheists are not the only Americans whose lives changed on 9/11. Statistics would probably back me up when I say that on that day far more Christians than atheists were murdered.

Implying that Christians aren't just as outraged as atheists are over 9/11 or child molestation by priests or people who murder abortion doctors is to dehumanize Christians, making it easier for them to be perceived as an enemy to be angry at.

Not ONCE did I do this, or even hint at it.

What is the point of this accusation? Indeed, my every post was couched in terms of "We're angry at this theists -- AREN'T YOU ANGRY TOO?" -- Clearly, my context is YES -- EVERYONE is angry. But from where I sit, theists make excuses about the root cause of the acts themselves:

"That's not how twue <insert religious sect here> acts"
"It's not the religion, it's politics!"
"These fanatics stole our religion!"

And when atheists say

"Things like this are clearly driven by the religious belief itself, and we're angry about that!"

We're marginalized, and dismissed, and tagged with "Angry" as if it's inappropriate to be such (which is why I ask "aren't you angry too? How is it inappropriate then?") -- hell, even you defend theists using the tactic, and use it yourself, and you're not even a theist! OR, we're categorized as "obnoxious" like mitchell does.

What we aren't given is the respect to be told, "Hey, you're right. I'm angry about this too and want to do something about it." Now -- what to do about it is clearly a different discussion, but the whole point of this thread, and what has actually been demonstrated multiple times -- is that rather than joining in on appropriate reasons to be angry, the business-as-usual litany of excuses were made, expectations that those who are rightfully angry need to be civil (we have been-- when is it your turn?), and the purposeful dismissal of the response itself (mitchell does it most glaringly because he claims to "ignore me" -- but he can't help intellectual defecation when the urge strikes him) -- is the order of the day. So far, Moonwood and yjoeyh have been the only theist to understand the issue.

You won't agree with me on this, and there's no doubt about that, but I'm convinced that these and any and all other atrocities would be committed even if there was no such thing as religion. Blaming religion for these sorts of horrors can only be the result of looking at life through a filter. There's just simply more to it than that, there's much, much more to it than that.

I don't disagree at all. Humans can be cruel to others for a variety of reasons. But you don't get the argument if you think this explanation is valid enough to be a primary one. A brief story to illustrate:

I was a 2-pack-a-day smoker for most of my adult life. And I'd often want to quit, and all my friends were smokers and they all agreed that quitting was the thing to do, but at the same time, as Los Angeles residents, they would say things like "Hell, I breathe worse shit than cigarette smoke every time I go out." Well, that's not exactly true, but the logic behind the argument is obviously broken.

So what if you breathe worse things just by going out? Does that justify doing yet another bad thing to yourself? Does quitting smoking increase my risk for lung cancer, or decrease it? And what about all the other effects of smoking, that have nothing to do with breathing, like heart issues due to the chemicals. The point is, smoking is bad even if the air isn't so great, or there are other ways I can get cancer, and that doesn't justify smoking or somehow magically change smoking into something beneficial.

So I quit -- 11 years ago this month in fact.

I view religion in much the same way. So what that politics might drive a war or an act of cruelty? Or that the loss of religion will not make child abuse or criminality disappear. Atheism is not a panacea to right the world's wrongs, it's merely the transition to the inevitable maturation process of the human being. Atheism removes the obstacles that divert human attention away from humanity, things like Heaven and Hell, and "salvation". People who believe that a god will come out of the clouds to save the day like some comic book hero -- and make no mistake -- the vast majority of people who are religious believe that a key benefit to having god is that "he will make things right in the end" -- are not going to be inclined to make things right in the end.

Is Catholicism to blame for child abuse? No. The doctrine itself doesn't state "go thee forth and rape thy altar boys". But the religious institution harms sexual psyche, invents a devastating culture of males (who happen to have evolved into highly sexually-driven creatures) and secrecy, and heaps massive amounts of guilt on people from birth going forward. This is both wrong and dangerous -- and believe me, if there were a secular entity that did the same (not that such would be allowed to exist in pursuit of its agenda for even a second) I would be just as angry at it. As it happens, there's an organization called NAMBLA that "exists" to promote some deviancy called "man-boy love"; it champions child abuse, and it make me angry that it even exists (they are not permitted to do much of anything but say they champion man-boy love). I won't link to them in any manner but a quick Wiki read will show they are for the most part defunct and have no national meetings or even local ones.

The difference is, everyone would instantly agree with me that an entity like NAMBLA is an immoral nightmare of pedophilia, and we can all join hands and "kumbaya" in agreement that our anger is justified. Not so with any religious organization. not only is the religious organization far bigger in sweep, with massive amounts of abuse dating back centuries, and not only does it specifically attract such pedophiles particularly because of its entrenched structuring, and not only has it purposely protected these deviants by moving them around, but it hires legions of lawyers to figure out ways to exonerate itself... and I'm the intolerant asshole for being angry at this.

Tell me, what other institution has been permitted to operate under such incredible abuses? Are you going to say "totalitarian regimes that give not a shit about human rights"? Well yes, but do we make excuses for such regimes? In some cases, we arm ourselves and go there to blow the fuck out of such regimes because they are bad and we are really pissed off at them. But what we don't do is make excuses for them, or protect them, or pretend as if the every ideology itself isn't to blame for the actions that ensure from the ideology itself.

And this is just to take issue with one element of what religion has fostered in humanity -- for instance, tyo continue to pick on Catholicism, it is the DOCTRINE of Catholicism that has led to the refusal to embrace safe sex procedures-- they are obsessed agianst "Onanism" -- which is a rleigious belief that "Wasted sperm is a sin to god" -- and this drives their endless prohibityions agianst condom use. This has a direct effect on the lives and safety of millions -- but to say "Religion drives this irresponsible practice" -- is to be dismissed. Let's say it again: The Catholic RELIGION should be held accountyable for MURDER (Negligent Homiscide) in its claims that condom use is A) A sin, and B) lies that condoms might promote AIDS infection. And that is a RELIGOUS tenet of Catholicism -- whether you interpret "onanism" as something else is not relevant. That's how they interpret it, and from where any dispassionate third party sits, neither your interpretation or theirs holds any dominance-- they are both equally invalid or valid.

("Your" = "general your", so I don't get accused of assigning these beliefs to humanguy).

The thing is, we don't NEED religion for these positive affects anymore. We may have needed them (or it) in the past, but we do not need them (or it) now.

My atheism stems from "religion's time as a needed human dynamic has drawn to a close". This means I don't dismiss its past positive effects, and am the first to admit that it has done a lot to inform and develop our culture. But that doesn't mean it's time isn't over with. We don't need it for law, we don't need it for morality, we don't need it for charity, we don't need it for justice, we don't need it for comfort, we don't need it for power, we don't need it for governance and we don't need it to explain a single thing in where we are, what we are, or who we can be. and the only thing that can "save" us ... is us.

Now to thank Moonwood for being the one who seems to actually get it.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Keep the Reason - you say

But before you toddle back off, let's apply your standards to... slavery. Child labor. Women's sufferage. Civil rights. Yes, I'm sure all those angry people were merely being intolerant and "obnoxious". Damn those obnoxious freedom fighters who were angry at the treatment of blacks in the 50s and 60s! How ludicrous to consider their anger and their repsonse to it!

Surely the difference here is that these angry people were concerned about the issues at hand; they were not trying to apportion blame to something as generalised as religion and hinting that the various social problems could be solved or lessened by opposing religion. This meant that they could draw together people of diverse worldviews. So if you take slavery for example the first group to consistently oppose this were the Roman Catholics, followed by the Quakers, after this the Protestant Churches (or some of them) and the enlightenment humanists (or some of them) came on board. It would certainly be possible to argue that the return of slavery (it had been effectively abolished in Christendom since about the seventh century) was caused by the emergence of Protestantism (Protestants were not as clearly opposed as the Catholic Church was) but that would have been an home goal since once they did come on board the evangelical Protestants in the UK (the so called Clapham Sect) were the most fervent opponents of slavery. What clinched it of course was getting the British government with its gun boats on board and that was possible because the people opposed to slavery were able to put together a broad coalition of people holding diverse beliefs. The same kind of thing happened with the other issues you mentioned.

So we don't get our wires crossed I wrote the above before reading the immediately preceding post.

[humanguy]

I want to point out that when a child is molested it hurts everyone, not just atheists. Atheists are not the only people who are aware of and angry about injustices done in the name of religion.

Atheists are not the only Americans whose lives changed on 9/11. Statistics would probably back me up when I say that on that day far more Christians than atheists were murdered.

Implying that Christians aren't just as outraged as atheists are over 9/11 or child molestation by priests or people who murder abortion doctors is to dehumanize Christians, making it easier for them to be perceived as an enemy to be angry at.

Not ONCE did I do this, or even hint at it.

I'm angry at 9/11. At Christian intransigence and intolerance of gays. At the attempts to legislate morality. At the games played to marginalize people who believe differently. At the institutionalized sexual abuse of children and the subsequent coverups.

How are these "incoherent arguments"? They aren't arguments, they are emotional responses to events of injustice. Again I ask you-- and you refuse to answer I might add -- are you NOT outraged at any of these things? I get it you want to turn it all into a discussion of "valid moral grounding" but before we get there, are you not outraged by some of these things or not?

.......

The idea that you can't see past anything but an "argument" is both pathetic and sad, and it is a core reason why there won't be civility. People who are upset about ills who get your type of response will say it clearly: Fuck you. Try applying this to your spouse when he or she is angry with you for some ill. Watch how magnificently will grow the resentment.

[Keep The Reason]

@ Moonwood:

First, thanks for "getting it". And thanks for pointing out the overlapping posting phenomenon; for the record, I was not actually saying "fuck you" to you for it, but I was saying that in such a dynamic, the response of "fuck you" would have been appropriate. If that went misunderstood, I apologize.

To your points:

However she did list a load of stuff that would upset a lot of people whatever their belief systems.

This is true. Now-- the question is, why is it that a theist who expresses anger over these things are applauded, but when an atheist does the same, they are vilified or dismissed?

The difference, if I may answer my own question -- is that the atheist is willing to lay the blame where it belongs-- on the religion itself. This instantly pisses people off, because, as mitchell explains the mechanism in another thread (and I reference it in this one as well): "You can't attack Christianity without attacking the people themselves."

And it is that particular belief -which by the way, I agree is extant -- that precludes any possibility of the civility we all want to see. Christianity is to be considered above this kind of critique, so sayeth the Christians. The moment I critique Christianity, it's perceived as me attacking the person themselves -- hence, I'm immediately consigned to being the "uncivil" one, and therefore a ripe target for the righteous indignation of the Christian.

To which I say, Bullshit. I have valid issues with Christianity itself. Deep ones. I consider it harmful in many ways-- ways that far out shadow its positives. Given that a mass of people believe precisely what mitchell has expressed, that "Attack my Christianity, you attack me!!" the options are two" Either I get to STFU and live with a world destined to be driven by what I can demonstrate is a harmful ideology, or I take a stand against it and reap calumny. So, guess which one I opt to do?

This thread is not about how atheists are right or wrong to be angry (nor was the speech). The anger is justified. What this thread is about is the marginalization tactic of theists (and their defenders and apologists, of whom I include humanguy), and how if any of you were angry about injustices, and were dismissed for it with a tactic of contemptuousness, you'd be howling like wounded puppies at it. As it happens, your anger is embraced by billions, and you aren't ad hominened for it.

I agree though that there is more to it than trying to blame something called religion even for everything that has been done in the name of some religion or other.

There is more to it, but religion exacerbates the problem. And yes, let's try being honest here-- some religions DO SPECIFICALLY DRIVE THE BAD BEHAVIOR. It's coded into their texts for chrissake. This is most evident with Islam, but almost every religion has this inherent flaw. That's because the main ones were cobbled into paradigms in a more brutal time, the bronze age (hence, "bronze age beliefs and superstitions) and they have survived (under their own form of natural selection of competition and cooperation, in fact. Irony indeed).

I'll tell you, if you want to find a compromise here between theism and atheism, then all I would ask for would be for all theists to adopt Jainism. In fact, become fanatical Jains without exception. The world would be idyllic under Jainism, and a lot of human problems would disappear (not all, but many).

Ultimately Keep the Reason would say that these issues stem from a lack of critical thinking, and he sees religion in general as entailing an uncritical attitude.

I see it as embracing a critical attitude to a certain point, and in the Abrahamic religions, abandoning it in favor of faith. This is the underlying message of Christianity itself, have faith and be redeemed, and I consider that foolhardy and dangerous. It's one slice of the pie (there are others), but that's the biggest slice. Or maybe it's the entire pie crust. Either metaphor will do.

I am convinced that the things that lead to horrific human behaviour do not stem from the rational part of us, and that the rational part is often helpless to apply the brakes.

It is not helpless inherently so. What happens is it's blinded by the beliefs adopted. Despite what others may say about me, I'm all about balance -- I recognize that there are opposing forces at play in the human psyche, often they are out of our direct control. My goal is to express these to give people an opportunity to consider things -- like I am not just an "atheist". I don't champion disbelief in gods because I have nothing more interesting to do with my time. In fact, my atheism is a by product of something I do champion, which is Reason (with a capital "R"). Yes, I know we can get into the flaws of Reason as well, but again, let's hold off on that. Because if we do not rely on our reason, then we are literally no different from any other animal-- our reason is the defining difference between us and every other animal we encounter. Should we encounter another reasoning species in the future, I think the seminal change in human beings will be to see how rational thought is played out in a completely alien species (terrestrial or otherwise-- I mean alien to humans).

I think it's the emotional part of humanity that blinds us to the brakes of rationality. Rationality is not helpless to apply the brakes, it's just the engine of emotions are much more powerful because they often offer instant gratification when they are in play. Slap me, I slap you back, I feel better now that your pain is like the pain you gave me. Somehow, this mechanism satisfies and I say it's because we are immature.

Consider the people who did that bombing of the school in Russia, or the theater in Moscow. They said that they had lost their children and wives and husbands, and now it was time to make others feel that pain. This is something we often see rooted in religious texts -- it's the "eye for an eye" mentality, which is diametrically opposed to the "Golden Rule" mentality. And while I admit that Christianity tried to remove that mechanism of vengeance (and did have some success by the way), it would have been better to try it without all the heaven and hell redemption nonsense that got played into it. But I don't want to digress further.

The various religious traditions have tried to work with the non-rational side of people and a lot of spiritual discipline is about bringing the rational and irrational aspects of a person into harmony with each other.

Philosophically, "rational" means of the natural realm" and "irrational" means outside of it -- so I think any attempt to bring the "spirit (which is by definition an "irrational") into the rational" is doomed from the start. That being said, at least the problem is recognized! That's a huge first step. Solutions can vary, but there are solutions that have a solid ROI, and others that do not. I think religion's time has been huge, and resulted primarily in failure. It's time for something else. Something that raises us to the next level of maturity in our human drama.

And like any other successful social movement, change is not likely to happen without a sense of outrage at injustice. That doesn't mean violence, as Gandhi (who adopted tenets of Jainism) or Martin Luther King Jr (who adopted the mechanisms of Gandhi) have shown us. Yes, we are angry. But no we are not violent. We just want to be heard, and we just want justice.

[Keep The Reason]

I'm angry at 9/11. At Christian intransigence and intolerance of gays. At the attempts to legislate morality. At the games played to marginalize people who believe differently. At the institutionalized sexual abuse of children and the subsequent coverups.

How are these "incoherent arguments"? They aren't arguments, they are emotional responses to events of injustice. Again I ask you-- and you refuse to answer I might add -- are you NOT outraged at any of these things? I get it you want to turn it all into a discussion of "valid moral grounding" but before we get there, are you not outraged by some of these things or not?

.......

The idea that you can't see past anything but an "argument" is both pathetic and sad, and it is a core reason why there won't be civility. People who are upset about ills who get your type of response will say it clearly: Fuck you. Try applying this to your spouse when he or she is angry with you for some ill. Watch how magnificently will grow the resentment.

Again-- where do I say that anyone is not angry at these same things? You do understand a rhetorical question, right? Given the context of each and every post, I'm trying to point out that there is anger from all sides at these things-- "isn't there???" You know, like, "ISN'T THERE????" Meaning-- of course there is. Meaning, try dismissing a spouse's anger and see what you get. Meaning, Why is MY anger just dismissed?

I think you're just not getting it.

[Keep The Reason]

Surely the difference here is that these angry people were concerned about the issues at hand; they were not trying to apportion blame to something as generalised as religion and hinting that the various social problems could be solved or lessened by opposing religion. This meant that they could draw together people of diverse worldviews. So if you take slavery for example the first group to consistently oppose this were the Roman Catholics, followed by the Quakers, after this the Protestant Churches (or some of them) and the enlightenment humanists (or some of them) came on board. It would certainly be possible to argue that the return of slavery (it had been effectively abolished in Christendom since about the seventh century) was caused by the emergence of Protestantism (Protestants were not as clearly opposed as the Catholic Church was) but that would have been an home goal since once they did come on board the evangelical Protestants in the UK (the so called Clapham Sect) were the most fervent opponents of slavery. What clinched it of course was getting the British government with its gun boats on board and that was possible because the people opposed to slavery were able to put together a broad coalition of people holding diverse beliefs. The same kind of thing happened with the other issues you mentioned.

So we don't get our wires crossed I wrote the above before reading the immediately preceding post.

Actually, there were people who blamed slavery (or justified it) on Christianity, and women's suffrage gave birth to a number of women who rightly assigned blame directly to patriarchal religious beliefs common to the day (and extant even now. Do we any of us believe that the wearing of a burka is not a religious decree, whether or not you disagree with the interpretations of the mullahs?)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton + 26 Authors wrote "The Woman's Bible" just for this reason.

Granted, you won't find a lot of atheists in the forefront of such movements, but that's another complaint I have -- theists have had thousands of years and literally global support at least as theists to spearhead many civil movements, whereas atheists have only had a real voice in maybe the last 50 years. Sure, there were a few throughout history, but never in any numbers large enough to effect much change -- or, if they were they pretended to be religious if only to avoid that little inconvenience of being burned at the stake! Hardly a thing to blame atheist to be "uninvolved" over. Now that we can't just be tortured and murdered, the voices are becoming louder and more cohesive; and I'm even seeing a greater structuring of athiests as a group. 10 years ago, there were deep concerns that getting athiests to cohere and work together amongst themselves was like herding cats. We wouldn't kill each other of course, but we would argue over triviliaties, and yeah, the anger part was overbearing. It was a matter of, "Okay, we're angry, let's do somehting about it". It wasn't unjustified anger that was the problem, it was the "not doing shit aobut it" that was a problem.

For the present day therist-- it's important to remember that the Romans hooted at the early Christians and dismissed them, and disenfranchised them, and rendered their social outrage as irrelevant, the Christians now hoot at the early atheists. Guess what happened?

[Rian]

Everyone that is rational thinks pedophiles are doing something wrong, and we should be angry about it. Where I disagree with KTR is this: he brings up horrific things and says that that's what atheists are angry about. If that's all it was, fine - I'd be complete agreement with the atheists that those things should stop. But for the subgroup that are "angry atheists", it doesn't stop there - it tends to continue on and include some or all of these things:

1) condescencion ("those stupid people that believe stone-age superstitions");

2) delusions of godhood ("God does NOT exist" - I mean, the only person that could say that in such a definite way would have to be a god!);

3) name-calling and whining, and

4) the wrong kind of anger (like a tantrum, or out of control, so that they're just flinging out words in anger)

I like how the Bible puts it - be angry, but don't sin. IOW, there's a good type of anger, and there are bad types. What I see in these discussions is that atheists are saying it's ok to be angry about, say, child abuse (and I agree - that's a good type of anger), and then when people complain about the other types of angry that they see coming from some atheists, the atheists say, hey, isn't it right to be angry about child abuse? Well, yes, that part's right - it's the other type of angers that people are complaining about, IMO.

And for the record, there are "angry theists" out there, too - like the Westboro folks.

[Rian]

From the "Americans - Undecided about God" thread - (because I think it fits better on this thread)

Baloney. In general, they're labelled angry when they act angry.

Baloney. In general, they're labelled angry when they act angry.

Sure, Rian. It's just completely made up. Like here, in USA Today:

Francis Collins decries 'angry atheists' in science

USA TODAY Updated 2011-07-28 2:18 PM Calling conflicts between religion and science "overstated," National Institutes of Health chief Francis Collins complained Tuesday that vocal atheists are giving the U.S. public a false impression of science.

The former head of the U.S. human genome program and an evangelical Christian, Collins founded the BioLogos Foundation dedicated to "the integration of science and Christian faith," before moving to NIH. His comments came at a USA TODAY editorial board meeting.

Asked about complaints from researchers such as Harvard's Steven Pinker, over an avowed Christian heading a scientific agency, Collins said, "angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head." He expressed concern that prominent researchers suggesting that one can't believe in evolution and believe in God, may be "causing a lot of people not familiar with science to change their assessments of it."

"A person's private beliefs should not keep him from a public position," Pinker wrote in 2009. "But Collins is an advocate of profoundly anti-scientific beliefs, and it is reasonable for the scientific community to ask him how these beliefs will affect his administration," he added. Collins later support for NIH human embryonic stem cell research later earned him more favorable reviews from scientists such as Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Link

Pinker's "anger"? He opines that someone who has anti-scientific beliefs (like Collins) shouldn't necessarily be in charge of scientific budgets and direction. How ANGRY Pinker is! Seething, frothing wrath drips from his every word, doesn't it?

Does the article say that Collins thinks that that particular statement from Pinker was angry? No. I think you're way off base here.

I've spend hundreds of hours in the science/religion debate realm, and there are a lot of angry atheists there - from the kind that are just screaming in caps and name-calling and just totally losing it, to the kind that are superior and condescending and think they know everything, and just continually get in these little angry digs. I think those are the types that Collins is talking about.

And also, Collins brings up an excellent point - most if not all of the angry atheists that I've seen say that science proves that God doesn't exist. Now, I think we can agree that that isn't right, and I think that Collins is right to bring that up - people that believe that will be believing a distorted view of science.

Or how about this from Newsweek?

Trying to Understand Angry Atheists

Rabbi Marc Gellman

Apr 25, 2006 I think I need to understand atheists better. I bear them no ill will. I don't think they need to be religious to be good, kind and charitable people, and I have no desire to debate or convert them. I do think they are wrong about the biggest question, “Are we alone?” and I will admit to occasionally viewing atheists with the kind of patient sympathy often shown to me by Christians who can't quite understand why the Good News of Jesus' death and resurrection has not reached me or my people. However, there is something I am missing about atheists: what I simply do not understand is why they are often so angry.

So we disagree about God. I'm sometimes at odds with Yankee fans, people who like rap music and people who don't like animals, but I try to be civil. I don't know many religious folk who wake up thinking of new ways to aggravate atheists, but many people who do not believe in God seem to find the religion of their neighbors terribly offensive or oppressive, particularly if the folks next door are evangelical Christians.

I just don't get it. This must sound condescending and a large generalization, and I don't mean it that way, but I am tempted to believe that behind atheist anger there are oftentimes uncomfortable personal histories. Perhaps their atheism was the result of the tragic death of a loved one, or an angry degrading sermon, or an insensitive eulogy, or an unfeeling castigation of lifestyle choices or perhaps something even worse. I would ask for forgiveness from the angry atheists who write to me if I thought it would help. Religion must remain an audacious, daring and, yes, uncomfortable assault on our desires to do what we want when we want to do it. All religions must teach a way to discipline our animal urges, to overcome racism and materialism, selfishness and arrogance and the sinful oppression of the most vulnerable and the most innocent among us. Some religious leaders obviously betray the teachings of the faith they claim to represent, but their sacred scriptures remain a critique of them and also of every thing we do to betray the better angels of our nature. But our world is better and kinder and more hopeful because of the daily sacrifice and witness of millions of pious people over thousands of years.

Link to Newsweek article

Of course. We merely disagree about the existence of god, but it must be due to some personality flaw-- some deep seated tragedy. The author -- Rabbi Gellman -- even admits it's condescending, and then does it anyway! It's impossible that we might have reached a conclusion that religion is to be rejected because it's nonsensical in and of itself. But no -- we're "angry".

Again, I think you're missing it - he's not saying that all atheists are angry, or became atheists because of some tragedy. He's saying that the angry atheists might have something painful in their backgrounds.

Not enough? Click Here for a Google Search of the term "Angry atheist" and see how many hits you get. 4.6 million. Because it's all just "baloney", so sayeth Rian, Who Doth Knowest All.

See, you're going into the angry atheist mode here - mocking and condescending. I didn't say "angry atheists" were baloney. I said that I think they get that name because they're angry in a wrong way, not just because they're atheists.

And as far as your "totally dismantled thread", the theist was the one that was polite - the atheists blew it up.

I didn't say who blew it up-- but I have no problem saying it was humanguy. You helped, but he's the primary source who derailed it. Your point?

My point was that you went into angry atheist mode there, to the point where one poster actually thought it was a pre-arranged joke.

[Keep The Reason]

Everyone that is rational thinks pedophiles are doing something wrong, and we should be angry about it. Where I disagree with KTR is this: he brings up horrific things and says that that's what atheists are angry about. If that's all it was, fine - I'd be complete agreement with the atheists that those things should stop. But for the subgroup that are "angry atheists", it doesn't stop there - it tends to continue on and include some or all of these things:

1) condescencion ("those stupid people that believe stone-age superstitions");

2) delusions of godhood ("God does NOT exist" - I mean, the only person that could say that in such a definite way would have to be a god!);

3) name-calling and whining, and

4) the wrong kind of anger (like a tantrum, or out of control, so that they're just flinging out words in anger)

I like how the Bible puts it - be angry, but don't sin. IOW, there's a good type of anger, and there are bad types. What I see in these discussions is that atheists are saying it's ok to be angry about, say, child abuse (and I agree - that's a good type of anger), and then when people complain about the other types of angry that they see coming from some atheists, the atheists say, hey, isn't it right to be angry about child abuse? Well, yes, that part's right - it's the other type of angers that people are complaining about, IMO.

And for the record, there are "angry theists" out there, too - like the Westboro folks.

Excuse me, but who are you to define others anger for them? The Greta speech and the article itself does none of the above, nor have my comments about it done the same but you don't bother with anything like investigating it-- you first shoot off your mouth, and then have to justify your position.

And to equate reasoned, erudite atheists with Westboro LUNATICS-- wow, you are not only off the deep end on that one-- you've sunk to the depths of the chasm. I know of no atheist groups anywhere near CLOSE to the Westboro lunatics. None.

So let's take them one-by one:

Child Abuse: The Quran justifies marrying and the consummating of such marriages of men to women as young as 9. Like Mohamed did with Aisha. And so, in modern times, there are child brides as young as 9 being made the wives of men 3, 4, and even more times their age. This is directly relatable to the doctrine of the religion. Do you defend the practice as someone's religious right, or are you against it as a matter of moral principle. For the record, this is an extremely easy issue for me. It's wrong. Period. The End. What say you (or will you try to avoid it)?

1. In this very thread I have often cited that I recognize the importance religion had (past tense) on human development, and so I am NOT condescending about it -- but that goes unheeded. But you've already offered your view on this -- "Baloney. Angry atheists are just angry people". Remember? You justify their anger by saying "baloney". But... atheists condescending and you're not!

So this is what I believe of your beliefs, and you can call it "condescending" if you want, but that to me is also merely a red herring tactic that tries to avoid the key issues. I believe you do believe in bronze age superstitions (not "stone age") but that's because your religious scriptures that you claim are to be lauded includes things like talking donkeys, talking snakes, people living inside fish for 3 days, people being taken into the sky by flaming chariots, people walking on water, people rising from the dead, people born from virgins, various forms of magic, witchcraft, demons possessing pigs, and so on -- and it was born during the bronze age. I have utterly nothing to do with any of those elements-- the onus for that resides with the theists and the time line itself, both of which are completely out of my personal control and responsibility. If you don't like being labeled as someone who believes in a bronze age mythology, then... don't believe in one! But stop blaming me for pointing out that you do believe in one, because it's just a matter of fact.

2. My conclusion is that there are no gods. I am a #6 Atheist, and have stated this time and time again. I personally know of only one #7 atheist, and I consider his position to be wrong. No atheist I know of --either directly or indirectly -- who have a rational perspective, including Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer (who identifies as a "skeptic") and Christopher Hitchens, as well as countless individual non-famous atheists who post hither and yon -- identify as a #7 atheists. None of us claim with any alleged "divine authority" that we KNOW there is no god -- we merely conclude there's no reason for one, no evidence for one, and that having one creates more insurmountable problems than it answers. So this is a strawman argument that will get called out every time you drag it out of the buried coffin of "Here Lies Bullshit Theist Arguments".

Now, that bullshit strawman argument wouldn't be so LOL bad if it wasn't a fact that theists are, by far #1 THEISTS!

You INSIST gods exist, and you claim you KNOW it, and further you claim to be utterly WITHOUT CORE DOUBT of it. Oh, you'll occasionally pay lip service to "Well, sometimes I doubt" -- but then right on the tail of that comes the nearly terrified follow up, "But that only makes my faith stronger!" which is absurdity of the highest order.

So let's put this one away, shall we? Or, keep bringing it up and I will keep knocking it down as the bad strawman nonsense it is, and turn it right around on you and charge you with the true arrogance of the theist's "KNOWING" something they don't have a clue is actually "known". Your choice.

3. There is no name calling in the speech itself. you can inform yourself, or you can mouth inanities. I posted the link to both the video and the text of it. If you choose to pontificate out of ignorance, you may do so -- and I may have the pleasure of exposing that you are pontificating out of ignorance.

While I will not take abuse from people like mitchell and will give as good as I get, you do not define what is "whining". I recall in the 1960s people saying things like, "That Martin Luther King fellow -- what a rabble-rousing whiner." If you want to cast yourself among such people, then so be it.

4. And for your 4th "point" -- again, this is the arrogance of the theist trying to disenfranchise those who don't accept your beliefs, and stand toe-to-toe with you and are willing to say, "Enough.". And again, you're missing the entire point. This is not the "wrong kind of anger"; it's valid and demonstrated by actual events and applicable to specific religious views -- you have to start accepting that whether you want to or not. Because it's the facts.

[Keep The Reason]

Does the article say that Collins thinks that that particular statement from Pinker was angry? No. I think you're way off base here.

Yes Rian -- it was in direct response to Pinker saying he felt Collins believes in antithetical views regrading science. The very article states it:

Asked about complaints from researchers such as Harvard's Steven Pinker, over an avowed Christian heading a scientific agency, Collins said, "angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head." He expressed concern that prominent researchers suggesting that one can't believe in evolution and believe in God, may be "causing a lot of people not familiar with science to change their assessments of it."

I've spend hundreds of hours in the science/religion debate realm, and there are a lot of angry atheists there - from the kind that are just screaming in caps and name-calling and just totally losing it, to the kind that are superior and condescending and think they know everything, and just continually get in these little angry digs. I think those are the types that Collins is talking about.

What are you talking about? Collins is on "Forums" discovering "angry atheists" who are "screaming in caps"?

What a crock this is. The use of "angry atheists" by Collins is in direct response to Pinker's not wanting him in the position of a National Advisory, and has nothing to do with the occasional screaming atheist you come across on your "internet posting forums". I mean shit, you're on one right here and none of the atheists fit that mold-- not even me, and I'm one of the most vocal atheists on this board. So I admit I'll throw down with you theists as much as you throw down with me-- and with the non-theists too, but your closest example-- this forum -- calls you out on bullshit. So do you run across some douchebag poster every so often>? Yes, but so what?

And also, Collins brings up an excellent point - most if not all of the angry atheists that I've seen say that science proves that God doesn't exist. Now, I think we can agree that that isn't right, and I think that Collins is right to bring that up - people that believe that will be believing a distorted view of science.

Collins is wrong about this because science DOESN'T state this-- and a scientist like Collins should know it. He probably does, but there's an agenda here. Furthermore, again-- your closest example is right here and not a single atheist on this board has EVER stated that "science has proven gods don't exist" -- if they did, they'd be laughed at unilaterally.

I'd like to hear from the other atheists here-- how many of you say "Science has proven god doesn't exist" and how many of you would testify that atheists -- angry or otherwise -- would state this in any compelling numbers?

I'll tell you what-- if the atheists on this site claim they believe this, then you'll be free of me for good. I'll leave because this forum would be nothing more than a den of digital nicompoopery. So here's your chance to get rid of me once and for all, atheists -- tell me you think science has proven god doesn't exist, or tell you you even think atheists in any general sense state this at all, and KTR will HTR (Hit the Road).

Again, I think you're missing it - he's not saying that all atheists are angry, or became atheists because of some tragedy. He's saying that the angry atheists might have something painful in their backgrounds.

You really just don't get it either. Maybe someone else can explain it to you. It is the THEISTS USE of "angry atheists" as if we have no RIGHT to be angry that's the problem for chrissake.

Some are angry, some are not, some are involved, and some are not. I'd argue that disinterest and apathy are the worst things any atheist could adopt, but being angry isn't invalid. What's invalid is THEISTS SAYING IT'S INVALID -- or, like Gellman -- asserting that it's anger born of some "psychological bitterness". What is so hard to grasp here? It's anger not out of psychological bitterness that "we had a hard time growing up" -- it's anger out of "Theism is causing a SHITLOAD of torment and it needs to stop!". Call it moral outrage. But it's neither some psychological fracture, nor is it invalid. What is so hard to get here?

My point was that you went into angry atheist mode there, to the point where one poster actually thought it was a pre-arranged joke.

Indeed. When atheists get angry-- the first thing to come to mind is, "It must be a joke!"

Point proven.

[Moonwood the Hare]

@ Moonwood:

First, thanks for "getting it". And thanks for pointing out the overlapping posting phenomenon; for the record, I was not actually saying "fuck you" to you for it, but I was saying that in such a dynamic, the response of "fuck you" would have been appropriate. If that went misunderstood, I apologize.

Thank you.

the question is, why is it that a theist who expresses anger over these things are applauded, but when an atheist does the same, they are vilified or dismissed?

The difference, if I may answer my own question -- is that the atheist is willing to lay the blame where it belongs-- on the religion itself.

But if the blame is being misplaced then I have an issue with that. For example you blame acts of paedophilia committed by Catholic Priests on their religion and its attitude to sexuality. If that were so then surely paedophilia would be more common among these priests than among the rest of the population rather than less so.

This instantly pisses people off, because, as mitchell explains the mechanism in another thread (and I reference it in this one as well): "You can't attack Christianity without attacking the people themselves."

Well, it's a difficult one because people often feel that they are being attacked when their ideas are attacked. I think that cuts both ways. But in the long run I think any view can benefit from criticism. The thing I find hard to take is when I feel atheists are implying that Christians must be stupid or held hostage by their emotions to believe what they believe. And I think this stems from the common atheist conviction that reason is the only thing that should play a part in belief forming and that it does play the sole part in their belief forming so that anyone who disagrees must be irrational and therefore inferior.

And it is that particular belief -which by the way, I agree is extant -- that precludes any possibility of the civility we all want to see. Christianity is to be considered above this kind of critique, so sayeth the Christians. The moment I critique Christianity, it's perceived as me attacking the person themselves -- hence, I'm immediately consigned to being the "uncivil" one, and therefore a ripe target for the righteous indignation of the Christian.

I think it is possible to be critical without being uncivil. Over the years there have been some excellent criticisms of Christianity. Nor do I think a little gentle mockery is out of place.

To which I say, Bullshit. I have valid issues with Christianity itself. Deep ones. I consider it harmful in many ways-- ways that far out shadow its positives. Given that a mass of people believe precisely what mitchell has expressed, that "Attack my Christianity, you attack me!!" the options are two" Either I get to STFU and live with a world destined to be driven by what I can demonstrate is a harmful ideology, or I take a stand against it and reap calumny. So, guess which one I opt to do?

Well, I'm prepared to man up and face the arguments. My issue has always been that I don't think your arguments hold up and you are reluctant to express your points clearly.

This thread is not about how atheists are right or wrong to be angry (nor was the speech). The anger is justified. What this thread is about is the marginalization tactic of theists (and their defenders and apologists, of whom I include humanguy), and how if any of you were angry about injustices, and were dismissed for it with a tactic of contemptuousness, you'd be howling like wounded puppies at it. As it happens, your anger is embraced by billions, and you aren't ad hominened for it.

If a Christian raises any of these social issues and then says 'and the real problem is unbelief' then yes atheists will jump on that and howl them down.

I agree though that there is more to it than trying to blame something called religion even for everything that has been done in the name of some religion or other.

There is more to it, but religion exacerbates the problem. And yes, let's try being honest here-- some religions DO SPECIFICALLY DRIVE THE BAD BEHAVIOR. It's coded into their texts for chrissake. This is most evident with Islam, but almost every religion has this inherent flaw. That's because the main ones were cobbled into paradigms in a more brutal time, the bronze age (hence, "bronze age beliefs and superstitions) and they have survived (under their own form of natural selection of competition and cooperation, in fact. Irony indeed).

Well the roots certainly go back to the bronze age (or a little more recently in the case of Islam) but things have also developed over the years and the overall tenure of Islam is not recklessly violent. Muhammed was a revolutionary but also a great compromiser and peace seeker. Early next year I am trying to arrange for a Muslim to come and speak to a group of 17-18 year olds on the theme of why people misunderstand Muslims. I'll keep you posted.

I see it as embracing a critical attitude to a certain point, and in the Abrahamic religions, abandoning it in favor of faith. This is the underlying message of Christianity itself, have faith and be redeemed, and I consider that foolhardy and dangerous. It's one slice of the pie (there are others), but that's the biggest slice. Or maybe it's the entire pie crust. Either metaphor will do.

or faith and reason can stand side by side. Reason tells me the bridge is secure faith drives me to walk across.

I am convinced that the things that lead to horrific human behaviour do not stem from the rational part of us, and that the rational part is often helpless to apply the brakes.

It is not helpless inherently so. What happens is it's blinded by the beliefs adopted. Despite what others may say about me, I'm all about balance -- I recognize that there are opposing forces at play in the human psyche, often they are out of our direct control. My goal is to express these to give people an opportunity to consider things -- like I am not just an "atheist". I don't champion disbelief in gods because I have nothing more interesting to do with my time. In fact, my atheism is a by product of something I do champion, which is Reason (with a capital "R"). Yes, I know we can get into the flaws of Reason as well, but again, let's hold off on that. Because if we do not rely on our reason, then we are literally no different from any other animal-- our reason is the defining difference between us and every other animal we encounter. Should we encounter another reasoning species in the future, I think the seminal change in human beings will be to see how rational thought is played out in a completely alien species (terrestrial or otherwise-- I mean alien to humans).

The thought that floats on another blood as Lewis put it. It is reason itself that keeps pointing to the limits of reason. Reason rests on the unknown and reaches into the unknown or as Os Guinness once put it 'There is more to knowing than knowing will ever know.'

I think it's the emotional part of humanity that blinds us to the brakes of rationality. Rationality is not helpless to apply the brakes, it's just the engine of emotions are much more powerful because they often offer instant gratification when they are in play. Slap me, I slap you back, I feel better now that your pain is like the pain you gave me. Somehow, this mechanism satisfies and I say it's because we are immature.

I think it is more complex than that. Pascal illustrates it by imagining the world's greatest philosophers walking a plank over a deep gorge, even though the plank is wide enough the depth of the gorge will play on their imaginations. I sincerely do not believe that people can persuade themselves into maturity.

Consider the people who did that bombing of the school in Russia, or the theater in Moscow. They said that they had lost their children and wives and husbands, and now it was time to make others feel that pain. This is something we often see rooted in religious texts -- it's the "eye for an eye" mentality, which is diametrically opposed to the "Golden Rule" mentality. And while I admit that Christianity tried to remove that mechanism of vengeance (and did have some success by the way), it would have been better to try it without all the heaven and hell redemption nonsense that got played into it. But I don't want to digress further.

Well as you must know the point of the eye for eye business was to limit revenge seeking at a time when justice was in the hands of the extended family rather than the state. But I'm reminded very much of that passage in Huck Finn where the family feud is going on and the preacher does his great sermon on preforedestination and then they all go on shooting each other.

Philosophically, "rational" means of the natural realm" and "irrational" means outside of it -- so I think any attempt to bring the "spirit (which is by definition an "irrational") into the rational" is doomed from the start. That being said, at least the problem is recognized! That's a huge first step.

Not sure whose philosophy this is. But let me give you some examples of psychologists who have looked at the role of the irrational in human behaviour. First off is Freud, a convinced atheist, who stressed the role of the irrational unconscious mind in human behaviour. Second is Jung, who sees the unconscious self as purposive and the need for the totally of the self and the rational ego to move into wholeness. Third is Rogers who sees human beings as an organismic totality with he conscious self as one part of a valuing process of the totality which is distorted when it moves out of alignment with that totality. For me this kind of thinking seems deeper and truer than the enlightenment idea (rooted in the old Greek thinking) where the rational ego must try to rule the animal or irrational self. Just yesterday I read a really good account by Aldous Huxley of the various non selves that constitute the human totality but it's too long to quote here. Anyway it seems to me that the great masters of Christian Spirituality (and those in other religions) such as Mother Julian, Ignatius or John of the Cross were exploring and working with these irrational forces.

Solutions can vary, but there are solutions that have a solid ROI, and others that do not. I think religion's time has been huge, and resulted primarily in failure. It's time for something else. Something that raises us to the next level of maturity in our human drama.

Well this seems a bit historicist to me but time will tell. There are a fascinating couple of quotes from Peter Berger one from the sixties predicting the decline of religion by the year 2000 and the other from that year saying that secularization theory got it wrong.

[Keep The Reason]

But if the blame is being misplaced then I have an issue with that. For example you blame acts of paedophilia committed by Catholic Priests on their religion and its attitude to sexuality. If that were so then surely paedophilia would be more common among these priests than among the rest of the population rather than less so.

So what you're saying is, if an institution allows something harmful to breed, but less so than other entities, then what--? We can just walk away from the entity that is breeding it? The Catholic doctrine of Jesus doesn't foster child abuse directly, as I've noted, but the institution of the religion itself does. And yes, moreso than in other places.

Well, it's a difficult one because people often feel that they are being attacked when their ideas are attacked. I think that cuts both ways.

My experience is that atheists get into the debate on the level of the debate and while they may be emotional at times, there is nothing in their worldview that leads people to or away from "eternal doom and destruction". However, this is not the same for most religions, and therein lies a huge difference. The theist -- particularly those who have eternal dispensations -- are far more reactive in their response to their ideas being attacked than are atheists, because theists believe the attack itself is an attack not only on the person, but on their object of worship.

If you were to call Dawkins a "dipshit moron", I would be defensive of him and argue otherwise, but I wouldn't think you are adopting some position of deep disrespect to some supreme being. If I call Jesus a "douchebag zombie" (and note, Jesus isn't even alive to hear me call him that and Dawkins can hear insults), then people become literally enraged at my disrespecting their GOD. The sword does not cut both ways. It cuts far harder one way than it does the other.

But in the long run I think any view can benefit from criticism. The thing I find hard to take is when I feel atheists are implying that Christians must be stupid or held hostage by their emotions to believe what they believe.

And while I see this countless times being directed as an argument against atheism, one can not do it at all and get the same response regardless. Look, I view Christianity as in the exact same category as the stories of Odin. I consider them mythology. Now, if I am going to be honest (and, I'm going to be honest) -- then I am going to admit to you what I think of the religious view point. I don't say, "You're an imbecile who believes in a myth!" -- I say, "You believe in a myth." But what theists hear is precisely what they think they'd say to others if other said they believe in Odin. Theists themselves would sputter and say, "Wha'? You believe in Odin for chrissake? What for??" In short, people who believe in myths as real are often categorized as delusional and / or stupid-- even by other people who believe in myths as real.

Well, I cannot help that. Until the theist can adequately demonstrate to my satisfaction that what they believe in is a valid, real, and grounded worldview, I cannot help but consider it something other than a valid, real, and grounded worldview. And that means they believe in a myth. And hell, I don't even argue it's bad to believe in myths, at least, in them to the degree that they serve as inspiration for human struggles to be more than they are. I think that myths are important for that, and part of human psychology (hence our endless fascination and outright addiction with movies and novels and plays).

And I think this stems from the common atheist conviction that reason is the only thing that should play a part in belief forming and that it does play the sole part in their belief forming so that anyone who disagrees must be irrational and therefore inferior.

You're misconstruing the terms. The problem is people thinking that beliefs can only come from logic, not reason. Reason has to include human emotions, because human emotions are real and demonstrable, and are inherent in how we develop beliefs. That is why I am a "Reasonist" and not a "Logicist". And this is a commonly held erroneous view-- that "reason" = "Logic Alone", when it doesn't.

And it's not about disagreeing with the conviction, it's about floating assertions that are, by definition, irrational. We could spend years debating the physical evidence for the mind and not come to any conclusions; perhaps the mind is not predicated on matter, perhaps it is. So it's not like atheists are such strict materialists that they argue that it's impossible for something to exist outside of matter (we might consider it likely or probable, but also not impossible). But when assertions of heavens, hells, angels, demons, saviors, et al get thrown around, all without any evidence, all strikingly & precisely the same as claims from mythologies of our earlier less enlightened ancestors, yeah, those beliefs are actually inferior to the ones we have today. Creationism as an explanation to biological life is inferior to evolution as any meaningful understanding of the diversity of life. And yeah, simplistic heaven and hell scenarios of justice are inferior to modern jurisprudence, with the ideal of rehabilitation in place (when we're not socked over with vengeance desires). Yeah, understanding the cycles of the seasons is superior to assigning them to the weeping of Demeter for the loss of Persephone.

I am not sorry that these new found truths are superior and demonstrable and have placed the previous understandings into a place relegated to the childhood of humanity. It happens all the time; and insisting we must hold dear old beliefs that are not legitimate or divert us from truth is not a good enough reason to keep them.

I have no problem with them being kept as inspirations though. Again-- something I say over and over here-- that to keep these incredibly important metaphors in our culture is important, providing we keep them in their proper perspective. Redemption as a goal to make a better human being is great, but belief that if one doesn't accept the savior in Jesus one can't be redeemed is horrific.

And it is that particular belief -which by the way, I agree is extant -- that precludes any possibility of the civility we all want to see. Christianity is to be considered above this kind of critique, so sayeth the Christians. The moment I critique Christianity, it's perceived as me attacking the person themselves -- hence, I'm immediately consigned to being the "uncivil" one, and therefore a ripe target for the righteous indignation of the Christian.

I think it is possible to be critical without being uncivil. Over the years there have been some excellent criticisms of Christianity. Nor do I think a little gentle mockery is out of place.

How can you be even distantly gently or lightly critical of Christianity to a Christian who views any and all criticism of Christianity to be a blasphemy?

You can't. It's like those Islamicists who hold up signs saying, "Behead all those who say Islam is a violent religion!"

Well, I'm prepared to man up and face the arguments. My issue has always been that I don't think your arguments hold up and you are reluctant to express your points clearly.

Ok. Well, start threads that challenge me and we'll go from there.

If a Christian raises any of these social issues and then says 'and the real problem is unbelief' then yes atheists will jump on that and howl them down.

I won't say this never happens, but my experience is that the "howling down" comes in the form of -- "Wait-- which belief? Why your belief, and not, say, that of the Hindus?" And theists cannot argue why their belief system gets special dispensation other than to say, "Because." or "The Bible". Or "Because."

Note that I'm not saying Christians-- I'm saying theists -- because all theists do it. The fact is, no theist can adequately explain why their belief system should be held over any of the competitors other than their own personal bias for that belief system. And when you drag in god-- who remains steadfastly silent on these issues -- as all theists do in such arguments, then suddenly you have the ALMIGHTY SUPPORT that no one else has... except everyone else makes the same claim so everyone thinks they DO have it.

Well the roots certainly go back to the bronze age (or a little more recently in the case of Islam) but things have also developed over the years and the overall tenure of Islam is not recklessly violent. Muhammad was a revolutionary but also a great compromiser and peace seeker. Early next year I am trying to arrange for a Muslim to come and speak to a group of 17-18 year olds on the theme of why people misunderstand Muslims. I'll keep you posted.

I disagree about your assessment of Mohamed. If anything, he was very much like Luther. As he got older, he got far more violent and less tolerant.

or faith and reason can stand side by side. Reason tells me the bridge is secure faith drives me to walk across.

What if reason tells you the bridge is insecure? Where is faith needed then?

The thought that floats on another blood as Lewis put it. It is reason itself that keeps pointing to the limits of reason. Reason rests on the unknown and reaches into the unknown or as Os Guinness once put it 'There is more to knowing than knowing will ever know.'

And both of them came to these conclusions by using the very thing they claim is limited. I find it to be an untenable, unsustainable position. The more time you spend trying to work out the paradox, the more you dismantle the paradox.

I think it is more complex than that. Pascal illustrates it by imagining the world's greatest philosophers walking a plank over a deep gorge, even though the plank is wide enough the depth of the gorge will play on their imaginations. I sincerely do not believe that people can persuade themselves into maturity.

Sure they can. People do it all the time. It takes a certain amount of courage, but I have known many many people who recognized something about themselves that was not in their best interests, and they needed to bootstrap it and grow the hell up. I did it with smoking, and I see people doing it with the course their lives take, or with booze, or with drugs, or in any number of ways in relationships. I apparently have a more positive view of humanity than do you.

Well as you must know the point of the eye for eye business was to limit revenge seeking at a time when justice was in the hands of the extended family rather than the state. But I'm reminded very much of that passage in Huck Finn where the family feud is going on and the preacher does his great sermon on preforedestination and then they all go on shooting each other.

And I'm pointing out to you that humans take "eye for an eye" literally, and its consequence has been exactly the opposite of "limiting" and rather drives "unlimited". The "divine word" backfired.

Not sure whose philosophy this is. But let me give you some examples of psychologists who have looked at the role of the irrational in human behaviour. First off is Freud, a convinced atheist, who stressed the role of the irrational unconscious mind in human behaviour.

Second is Jung, who sees the unconscious self as purposive and the need for the totally of the self and the rational ego to move into wholeness. Third is Rogers who sees human beings as an organismic totality with he conscious self as one part of a valuing process of the totality which is distorted when it moves out of alignment with that totality. For me this kind of thinking seems deeper and truer than the enlightenment idea (rooted in the old Greek thinking) where the rational ego must try to rule the animal or irrational self. Just yesterday I read a really good account by Aldous Huxley of the various non selves that constitute the human totality but it's too long to quote here. Anyway it seems to me that the great masters of Christian Spirituality (and those in other religions) such as Mother Julian, Ignatius or John of the Cross were exploring and working with these irrational forces.

And in every case cited, what is required is the controlling "hand" of the rational; reason.

Well this seems a bit historicist to me but time will tell. There are a fascinating couple of quotes from Peter Berger one from the sixties predicting the decline of religion by the year 2000 and the other from that year saying that secularization theory got it wrong.

I think we can agree that by the mid 20th century atheism itself was a nationally recognized phenomenon in communist countries (and yes, those countries were not good and in humanity's best interests, but that doesn't mean that atheism didn't come into its own); also, Europe, once held completely by the grip of theism is now far more secular than even the USA, which was born out of a blend of theistic and secularist principles; and now you find more and more people adopting a position of rejecting theistic paradigms as the internet has shown them there are others of the same mind. To deny these changes would be absurd.

[gary_s]

Collins is wrong about this because science DOESN'T state this-- and a scientist like Collins should know it. He probably does, but there's an agenda here. Furthermore, again-- your closest example is right here and not a single atheist on this board has EVER stated that "science has proven gods don't exist" -- if they did, they'd be laughed at unilaterally.

I'd like to hear from the other atheists here-- how many of you say "Science has proven god doesn't exist" and how many of you would testify that atheists -- angry or otherwise -- would state this in any compelling numbers?

I'll tell you what-- if the atheists on this site claim they believe this, then you'll be free of me for good. I'll leave because this forum would be nothing more than a den of digital nicompoopery. So here's your chance to get rid of me once and for all, atheists -- tell me you think science has proven god doesn't exist, or tell you you even think atheists in any general sense state this at all, and KTR will HTR (Hit the Road).

When the conversation drifts into this realm, there seems to be nothing to gain by continuing it. The diversity of opinion of any philosophical bent is so wide, just about any criticism can yield some positive traction. So a debate over the likelihood that "some" people of ideology "X" believe this or that seems destined to stalemate at best with entrenchment on both sides. One of the reasons I decided to venture into forums was to communicate on a personal and individual basis what my opinions and beliefs are so that others who didn't understand my position would at least know one particular point of view very well. I'd like to say that I could speak for the masses, but that's just not possible. So any time someone states that they know anything of what a larger group of people believes, I'm very skeptical.

So, in that spirit, I can definitively say that nothing I've seen of Scientific knowledge tells me that the question of god's existence is in any way verifiable by current means. However, a great many of the claims of theists about what god does can and have been tested and found to be non-existent. Yet the two are not the same thing and it's up to the individual to determine what that means.

Yet there are very intelligent scientists who hold the personal opinion that we know enough about the universe to conclude that no god is necessary for its existence. I don't claim to fully understand all the physics involved, but their arguments are certainly compelling and anyone, atheist or theist, would be well advised to educate themselves about this and consider it. To do otherwise is just being willfully ignorant. I will also state that after hearing/reading hundreds of explanations and arguments about why god must exist or is demonstrated to exist, I remain completely unconvinced. In some cases, I think the arguments are well constructed and offer some valid things to consider while not being convincing. Just as often, the arguments are little more than childish fantasy. But I find one thing in particular to be interesting. As KTR noted, you rarely hear or see a non-believer who is willing to argue specific scientific facts that demonstrate the non-existence of god(s). Most often the long winded opinion is "I don't know" or at the strongest, "I don't believe it exists, but I'm open minded about it". It should also be noted that I see a significant difference between the argument of a credentialed expert and that of your average forum poster. Those who are well educated in the fields of science and those of religion have arguments constructed of much more information than the average person you'll meet on any given forum and thus, their arguments should be evaluated differently.

Yet I have to agree with KTR and say that generally, my encounters with non-believers on forums tends to reveal the same open-minded conclusions about god and not an adamant position of non-existence. There are exceptions, of course, and it's quite a bit of fun to encounter a rabid atheist who seems to think he knows everything, but that's rare and I can think of many occasions where such people have very personal and painful reasons behind their "anger". I would be happy to share an example if anyone is interested. In such cases, I think their "anger" is actually quite justified. My personal opinion of why you don't see more people of this kind lies in the process that most commonly leads one to agnosticism or atheism in the first place. In short, the process is one of shedding what one believes he "knows" through repeated revelations of ignorance and education. That process tends to humble you and lessen your determination to make broad conclusions about existence. Yet when it comes to theists, I've been confronted by a fair share of absolute believers, adamantly insistent on the existence of their particular understanding of god. Even when asked about all the inconsistencies and lack of any repeatable, objective evidence that we would expect to explain just about any other phenomenon, there's often this absolute sense of "knowing" they are right and god does exist, despite an acknowledged inability to explain it or demonstrate it to anyone else. This dichotomy, I think, is what creates such a distinct chasm between the believers and the non-believers. One side being to open-minded about believing but seeing no honest and realistic reason to believe. The other side knowing with such absolution, but being wholly unable to demonstrate why.

Now, on the question of angry forum posters, I think that no group is innocent and there's little to gain by either side by claiming a position of virtue. For one thing, none of us control everyone who subscribes to ideologies that agree with ours and none of us are culpable for the actions of others who do. I certainly don't agree with all non-believers and am often insulted by them as often as I'm insulted by Primitive Baptists. Things that make some people angry simply rolls off the back of others, even when they are of the same philosophical group. Yes, there are some real bozos out there, of just about any flavor. I've read forum posts that have pealed my eye balls. And check out YouTube sometime; lots of it is not for the squeamish. If I were a Christian, I would find much to be appalled by, just as I am appalled by plenty of Christians who post videos of themselves haughtily and piously explaining the scripture as though any idiot could see how foolhardy we non-believers are. Anyone who presents themself in this way is not worth my time or anger, regardless of their ideology.

[Keep The Reason]

When the conversation drifts into this realm, there seems to be nothing to gain by continuing it. The diversity of opinion of any philosophical bent is so wide, just about any criticism can yield some positive traction. So a debate over the likelihood that "some" people of ideology "X" believe this or that seems destined to stalemate at best with entrenchment on both sides.

No doubt, but then this charge has to be confronted forecefully whenever it's wielded. Some theists adopt techniques to "thwart" atheists arguments that are like this one (that "Atheists claim science disproves gods") in an attempt to obscure the actual argument, and for any atheist to not stand head to head against it is to allow it to flourish. We've long been the victim of such intellectual gamesmanship (and often in a dishonest way), and we need to be vigilant in fighting it whenever it comes up. The charge is an outright lie, and it's born of bias and bigotry at its worst, or outright ignorance at the best. In either instance, it should not be permitted to stand unchallenged.

One of the reasons I decided to venture into forums was to communicate on a personal and individual basis what my opinions and beliefs are so that others who didn't understand my position would at least know one particular point of view very well. I'd like to say that I could speak for the masses, but that's just not possible. So any time someone states that they know anything of what a larger group of people believes, I'm very skeptical.

It is (or was) my goal initially as well and while my intentions are a bit broader, the challenge I have to deal with is the intransigent refusal to admit fallacy on the part of theists. Now, I know they will accuse me of the same, but if you let the posts do the talking, you'll see that I have a lot of respect for the impact of religion on human culture and do not for an instant shy away from admitting that it had a necessary function. I presently believe that function is no longer extant, and argue persuaively for a transition away from it, but I do not see compromise on the part of many thiests. In my recent confrontation with Rian, her use of these very weak and fallacious tactics sparked a defense mechanism that I think is wholly appropriate (just on the basis of not letitng it stand unchallenged). But I do not expect her to surrender the weapon used even if it has no point.

I just wanted to note that about your comments; the rest I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to hear, I am in agreement with. Thanks for stepping up.

[humanguy]

When the conversation drifts into this realm, there seems to be nothing to gain by continuing it. The diversity of opinion of any philosophical bent is so wide, just about any criticism can yield some positive traction. So a debate over the likelihood that "some" people of ideology "X" believe this or that seems destined to stalemate at best with entrenchment on both sides.

No doubt, but then this charge has to be confronted forecefully whenever it's wielded. Some theists adopt techniques to "thwart" atheists arguments that are like this one (that "Atheists claim science disproves gods") in an attempt to obscure the actual argument, and for any atheist to not stand head to head against it is to allow it to flourish. We've long been the victim of such intellectual gamesmanship (and often in a dishonest way), and we need to be vigilant in fighting it whenever it comes up. The charge is an outright lie, and it's born of bias and bigotry at its worst, or outright ignorance at the best. In either instance, it should not be permitted to stand unchallenged.

Who is this "we" that is being victimized by theists? What you're describing when you speak of standing up to and going head-to-head against thus and so, it sounds somewhat fantastical to me, certainly it's beyond anything I myself have experienced. Are you perhaps talking about activism, organized atheist activism?