Be a good little atheist...

Skeptic Ginger said:
You are complaining an opinion blog doesn't have enough facts for you?

Which facts are missing you think should be there?
Click to expand...
I expect that when something is presented as a fact (She's a Good Atheist -- Good Atheists don't criticize religion) it should not be demonstrably false.
 
How many of you missed the Tim Minchin Video in The Good Atheists link?

Here it is for your delectation



Back to topic:
I'm classed as a militant atheist by many of my friends, most aren't devout (2 are actually) but all are either baptised or christened. The reason being is that I can't, not won't, sit in a conversation while someone says "We prayed for the Chilean Miners...!" As soon as it, or similar crapola comes out I then ask 'Why do you think your god did it to them in the first place?' or 'Which god did you pray to? 'cause Odin has let me down so many times I'm thinking of swapping sides.' etc, etc. Often to rolling eyes and that knowing, sideways look from my close friends.
◊◊◊◊ it. Why should I stay quiet? Why should they have the airspace. I never let it descend into a slanging match or a dick measuring competition, I like to think that I'm fairly comedic/quick witted and can quickly turn it into a joke if needed. But, they will not get away with it in my company. Why should they?
 
Gawdzilla said:
Have you shown it to be demonstrably not true? No.
Click to expand...
So you don't consider
Over centuries of Islamic marauding, the goal of holy war wasn't to conquer land or exterminate nonbelievers; it was to swell Islamic numbers.

Yes, Christians did it, too - converted people at the point of a sword, or killed them.
Click to expand...
to be a criticism of religion. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Greta Christina has an interesting take on that

Why Religious Believers Are So Desperate for the Atheist Seal of Approval
Many religious believers are intent on getting atheists' approval for their beliefs. If you're hoping for that -- don't hold your breath.
November 26, 2010 |


If you hang around the online atheist world long enough, you'll notice an interesting pattern. Many religious and spiritual believers who engage with atheists seem very intent on getting atheists' approval for their beliefs.

Typically, these believers acknowledge that many religions are profoundly troubling. They share atheists' revulsion against religious hatreds and sectarian wars. They share our repugnance with religious fraud, the charlatans who abuse people's trust to swindle them out of money and sex and more. They share our disgust with willful religious ignorance, the flat denials of overwhelming scientific evidence that contradicts people's beliefs. They can totally see why many atheists are so incredulous, even outraged, about the world of religion.

But they think their religion is an exception. They think their religion is harmless, a kinder, gentler faith. They think their religion is philosophically consistent, supported by reason and evidence -- or at least, not flatly contradicted by it.

And they want atheists to agree.

They really, really want atheists to agree. They want atheists to say, "No, of course, your beliefs aren't like all those others -- those other beliefs are crazy, but yours make sense." Or they want atheists to say, "Wow, I hadn't heard that one before -- how fascinating and well thought-out!" Of course they understand why atheists object to all those other bad religions. They just don't understand why we object to theirs. They get very hurt when we object to theirs. And they will spend a significant amount of time and energy trying to persuade us to stop objecting.

Why?

Why do they care what atheists think?

I've been getting into these debates with religious believers for many years now. I've seen how they start out, and where they end up. I've seen many, many theists desperately try to get the Atheist Seal of Approval for their religion. And I've reached two conclusions about why they're doing it. They think atheists have higher standards than most believers, so our approval will mean more. And they don't want to think their religion has anything in common with those other sucky religions... and getting atheists' approval would let them keep on thinking that.

The Gold Standard

Believers seeking the Atheist Seal of Approval for their beliefs seem to see atheists as the gold standard. They know that most atheists have rejected religion for a reason: they know we take religion seriously, and that we've examined it carefully and thoughtfully before rejecting it. They know that we're more familiar with the tenets and traditions of religion than most believers: that we not only know more about religion in general than most believers do, but that we know more about specific religious beliefs than the people who actually adhere to those beliefs. They see that, as Julia Sweeney so eloquently put it, we take religion too seriously to believe in it. They see how passionately we value the truth -- and they respect that.

So if they can get us to give their religion a thumbs-up... that would really mean something. They understand that religious believers -- other believers, that is, not themselves of course -- often don't have very good reasons for their beliefs. They sincerely care about the truth, I think (this is definitely not the case for all believers, but it is for these folks), and they want to test their faith against the harshest critics they can think of. They want their cognitive dissonance resolved -- the tension between the religious faith they hold to be true, and the evidence and arguments showing that the case for their faith is crap -- and they understand enough about the communal reinforcement and other cognitive errors to know that Other People Who Already Agree With Them isn't the most rigorous way to resolve that dissonance. If they could get some atheists to tell them their belief is okay, that would resolve that annoying dissonance in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...


the rest is here:

It gets even better
http://www.alternet.org/belief/1489...o_desperate_for_the_atheist_seal_of_approval/
 
Gawdzilla said:
FTFY.

That's the problem for atheists. Believers are better with other believers, and threatened by people who don't believe. Seems you have be deluded to fit in on this planet.
Click to expand...


Hear, hear that chap!
 
Gawdzilla said:
Demonstrably.

A few odd contra posts don't make a balance. Even if balance was achieved it wouldn't address the problems with her.
Click to expand...
PZ didn't say "Good Atheists don't criticize religion as much as they criticize atheists" or hint that the problem was one of balance. He made the blanket statements "She is A - A doesn't do B". Since I showed that she DOES B, PZ's assertions were shown to be demonstrably false.

But backpedaling noted.
 
Cainkane1 said:
S.E. Cupp is being absurd if this is true. Believers raise cane at atheists all the time. Atheists are bullied in school, fired from jobs, kicked out of their apartments and sometimes treated like pariahs. If we appear a bit arrogant at times well maybe its just payback on our parts.
Click to expand...

Man, where the hell do you live?

I think you need to move :D
 
Yes, Christians did it, too - converted people at the point of a sword, or killed them. That's just the way it was done then.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they are still doing it today, not at the point of a sword, but by denying the poor and uneducated the chance of seeing the point of a syringe. Killing far more every day than Osama killed or will kill in his lifetime.

I was going to end this post with a quick "Praise jeebus my arse."

But no way, the lies that the different faiths force on the poor and uneducated is far to shameful to let them get away with it.
Using condoms spread aids.
Raping toddlers can cure aids

Man, you guys know the drill, why am I trying to convert the converted. It's late, too late.
 
bokonon said:
PZ didn't say "Good Atheists don't criticize religion as much as they criticize atheists" or hint that the problem was one of balance. He made the blanket statements "She is A - A doesn't do B". Since I showed that she DOES B, PZ's assertions were shown to be demonstrably false.

But backpedaling noted.
Click to expand...

It has never been my impression that PZ intends his statements to be taken as boolean logic. What he said about her seems to be essentially true, a few instances of Christian approved Muslim bashing notwithstanding. If you hear someone say the sky is blue, do you publicly eviscerate them on a stone slab for daring to utter such lies when it is clearly black, white, grey, red, orange, and green at times as well, or is there some particular reason you've singled PZ out for such pedantry?
 
I think I must be a good atheist. Not because I'm a closet Christian, but because I see religion as largely inert and because, over time, I've become immune to the emotional infections -- I no longer feel the need to respond with outrage to the outrageous.
 
MG1962 said:
Then it should not be too hard to throw up a couple of examples
Click to expand...

Smallowski family (atheist girl punished for not participating in religious activity, family objects and is harassed, obviously fake charges brought against father, dog killed, basically the sort of thing one expects from "good Christians")
 
Irony said:
Smallowski family (atheist girl punished for not participating in religious activity, family objects and is harassed, obviously fake charges brought against father, dog killed, basically the sort of thing one expects from "good Christians")
Click to expand...

So we now condem 2.1 Billion people to stereo type through the actions of 277 people in a 10th rate town in a fifth rate fly over state of the USA

Thats gotta be some sort of record
 
marplots said:
I think I must be a good atheist. Not because I'm a closet Christian, but because I see religion as largely inert and because, over time, I've become immune to the emotional infections -- I no longer feel the need to respond with outrage to the outrageous.
Click to expand...

I think organized religion is generally harmful, but the way I see most liberal Christians approach their religion (ie. "if a given Bible passage conflicts with science, then the passage must be metaphorical"), I might be tempted to agree. I'd still say in the case of most liberal Christians, it tilts on the side of being harmful, but not heavily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom