...the option I think will piss off the most people, or the option that will piss off the fewest people.

Since I can't make up my mind whether I'm in the mood to feel fulfilled by pissing people off, or by NOT pissing people off, I'll pass today.

Interesting options, though.

BTW, you forgot the mandatory "Robb is a dingbat" option.

helpfully,
Bright

I agree with more than half the statements.

I'm usually not that agreeable.

though I still might be persuaded by Lady Cottington's Pressed Fairy Book.

The definition of atheist is one who does not believe there are gods. So there cannot be -- by definition -- an atheist who believes in God.

The whole thing is very silly and invites one to play rhetoric games. I prefer to take words at their standard definitions and not play those games.

I am an atheist, which does not mean that I am 100% sure that there are no gods, only that I find the evidence far from compelling. Like Richard Dawkins -- sorry Dawkins haters -- that might make me an agnostic atheist. But since I know of no atheist who ascribes to the straw man absolute surety, I suspect that all atheists are pretty much agnostic to some extent.

Words have meanings. Atheism means one does not accept the existence of gods. Agnostic means lack of knowledge. No matter what people say, all theists are agnostic about the gods they believe in. Try nailing them down some day. What will inevitably happen is that they will play the transcendent God card, "He works in mysterious ways." Once one does that, why don't they drop the other shoe and admit their agnosticism. That's right... There's Hell to pay for that.

So, I reject the redefinition of atheist to include god believers. But that's what some religious people have attempted to do basically forever. Consider all the made up atheist death bed confessions. They are all wrong. Why would a believer who holds the Decalogue so dear bear false witness like that? That's why I do not take such exercises seriously, let alone claims that such and such an atheist believes in gods.

Sorry for the rant, my friends.

No vote from me.

and accurate view of the world, seem often to become terrifying ideologues: there remains for them nothing to challenge their confidence in their views; they cannot be dissuaded of any error -- for Behold! It all fits together perfectly! How could it be wrong?

The reality, of course, is that no one has the time to check it all

We all construct our understandings of the world as patchworks of little local charts, which we hope fit together but which (in fact) do so only approximately

The experts in physics, for example, seem to think relativity theory inconsistent with quantum mechanics. One does not abandon either relativity theory or quantum mechanics as a result of the conflict, nor does one adopt the view that one must be true and the other false: instead, one recognizes that the theories arose to solve different sorts of problems and that both are successful in their original domains; and then one hopes people to try to improve such situations, though no one will work on such a reconciliation without believing it to be possible. There is no reason to think the end of such works is within our sight: many late Victorian physicists, some great geniuses of their time, of course, thought all physics had been done, but they were soon shown wrong, which should be a lesson to us, as we (who stand today so proudly on their achievements) are really no smarter than they were

The English law came to terms with the problem of consistency in a purely practical way: rather than searching for long syllogistic chains leading to the desired conclusions, the courts demanded that arguments remain closely tethered to decisions for related cases and so stay on-point.

This emphasizes the local character of the reasoning: it is somewhat parallel to the view (say) of physicists that a calculation, no matter how beautiful or brilliant it might be, should be filed in the wastebasket if it fails to predict experimental results correctly

And for similar reasons, physicists do not currently seek to predict astronomical phenomena by observing zebra entrails: their theories have prescribed domains, beyond which one expects their usefulness to cease -- a good theory is about something, and if it pretends to be about everything then it is most likely about nothing at all

In any case, as a matter of pure logic, consistency appears now to be beyond us, except in the very simplest matters. There are limits on how powerful a theory can be, before proof of its consistency cannot be obtained except by appealing to a more powerful theory -- which might seem merely a species of begging the question

Why then should I have contempt for someone who says, In these situations I use this scheme, and in those situations I use that scheme -- even if we both know the schemes are incompatible? Should I have contempt for a physicist (say) who today does a quantum mechanical calculation to solve one problem and who tomorrow does a relativistic calculation to solve a different problem? It may be the best one can do under the circumstances

But at least quantum theory is resolved with relativity in quantum field theory. I see no resolution for one who claims both atheism and belief in god other than cognitive dissonance. However, there are plenty of examples of such things in human behavior. Indeed, cognitive dissonance seems to be somewhat of a specialty for humans.

only partially reconciles relativity with quantum mechanics

Of course, "atheism" and "belief in god" are by definition inconsistent -- but that doesn't mean that one and the same person might not behave as an "atheist" for some purposes in some circumstances and as a "believer in god" for other purposes in other circumstances

Consider the situation of a physicist, whose professional task is to develop physics further. Now, the object of physics to provide usable explanations of certain "natural phenomena" in terms of "natural laws." Here "usable explanation" means something like "a conceptual scheme leading to computational methods that produce correct predictions of experimental results." Physics involves predictions we can make on the basis of conditions we can control. Notions about all-powerful personalities outside space and time cannot be helpful for progress in physics: beyond the obvious fact that we ourselves do everything in space and time, any all-powerful personalities would always be able to defeat our ability to make correct predictions about experiments. So when one looks for computational methods leading to correct predictions, there's absolutely no reason to attempt to take into account any possible all-powerful personalities, since there is absolutely no way we could take them into account. It doesn't matter whether the physicist thinks some god might exist, or doesn't know whether or not some god exists, or thinks it unlikely some god exists -- the issue simply won't appear in any professional paper detailing the work the physicist does

But I don't see how that prevents the physicist from holding certain religious views or from believing in some god. It's a separate matter.

Non-overlapping magisteria.

Well, I am conflicted about that concept mainly because I do not see them as non-overlapping. The extent to which religious make claims against -- that's right against -- science is the extent to which the magisteria are non-overlapping. This is something which they do all the time. Whether that be for political or religious reasons it really does not matter if the effect is the same. Those who do make claims against science certainly claim to be doing so in the name of their religion, at least when they speak with their fellow travelers, but often out in the open.

It is my personal view that science can make statements which falsify many of claims of fact made by the most elements of the religions. I know that many will disagree with this.

The only god I believe science does not falsify is something like a deist god, which is certainly not much of a god to worship.

That is not the origin of my atheism, but it certainly where it resides now. At any rate, one sees no gods in nature no matter how deeply one looks. IMHO, the existence of gods is not a parsimonious hypothesis.

These are the reasons why I reject NOMA in practice.

Thank you for your very thoughtful responses. I understand your position and those who make NOMA claims. I just don't see them as separate or separable.

Best regards.

that completely different methods of thinking are appropriate in different circumstances

The physicist, for example, does not construct theories of physics in which electrons or planets have a consciousness and are able to choose how to react in experimental situations: it is an instrumentalist theory, according to which particular circumstances produce results that are, in one sense or another, calculable

On the other hand, most people object to being treated as if they were automata having calculable reactions in given circumstances, and most ethical systems will therefore regard it as improper to treat humans as automata. So moral social interactions proceed on an entirely different basis than physics

Many physicists seem to be able to bridge this divide without difficulty, doing one sort of thinking for the development of physics and an entirely different sort of thinking for social purposes. That is not a matter of tolerating cognitive dissonance: it is a matter of realizing that advancing physics and getting along with other people are two rather different enterprises

And your social interaction model is a good one.

But science also tells me that there is no ghost in the machine, so no afterlife, which kind of undermines much of the purpose of religions. The mind is what the brain does.

and any theory about people developed by a physicist would probably be flawed. For that we consult a psychologist, the branch of science that studies human behavior, the field that can accurately predict human behavior. Also the branch that has religions dedicated to denouncing it's worth.

Physicists I've met usually DO deal with people

NT

Physics doesn't deal with people, you can kinda apply the principals of physics to systems of people, but it falls short because in physics, like you've mentioned above, you don't deal with beings that have their own consciousnesses, so any cross discipline you come across will be lacking in fundamental ways.

Step 1: Assume the human body is a sphere.

this is a matter of a definition.

There are things that complicated, and then there are things that are simple. This is simple. An atheist does not believe in god(s) by definition.

to at least say that one particular view is more accurate than another.

http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

Mr. Schaeffer, Please consider and describe yourself in the way you are most honestly comfortable with.

I find much to agree with in your opinion, and little difference from simple advice I received so many years ago.
" If we look for a God with our intellect we shall never find him. Look for God with your heart.."
Thanks for posting the link struggle4progress

the definition.

Theism/atheism is about belief.
Gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowledge.

Derp.

Acknowledging the truth in scientific research doesn't make anyone an atheist. Believing in the "god of the gaps" doesn't make anyone an atheist.

It seems Schaeffer needs some more time to recover from extreme fundamentalism. He's still not thinking completely clearly.

This fucker claims that atheists can't even grieve properly, he's a fucking anti-atheist bigot.

Hark, when the night is falling,
Hear, hear the pipes are calling......

it seems he still attends an Orthodox church, but has adopted a form of Process Theology that doesn't necessarily identify the underlying spiritual force in the universe as divine but does see it as benevolent. He also appears to regard Jesus as a human reflection of that spiritual force. He can't be forced into the oversimplified formula that's considered atheist orthodoxy by many posters here. Ergo, he can't be an atheist.

It doesn't have grey areas for him to camp in. There are terms, that carry no negative connotation or label-shaming whatsoever, that accurately describe his position on a continuum of faith/nonfaith. 'Atheist' isn't it.


If I come in here and say 'I'm a democrat, but I kinda want to ban abortion, exempt people making 110k+/year from paying social security, really want a war with Iran, want to shrink the government till it happens to fit in a bathtub for no particular purpose whatsoever I assure you, want to keep same sex marriage illegal, want to break up unions, want to build a 2000 mile long Maginot line/castle greyskull fortification across the border to Mexico, defund the EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc...

You'd probably be right to suggest I was something other than a democrat.

that without spirituality of some sort, we wouldn't sense loss or grief.

This is a man who misrepresents what he is, insults atheists, and claims that we are the ones full of hubris!

ON EDIT: To put it bluntly, this man tries to bend reality to fit his worldview, and fails at it. He misrepresents science, he misrepresents atheists, hell he even misrepresents Christians. To me, he seems to be an opportunist who found a cash cow.

Every time someone posts an essay by an atheist criticizing some subset of his fellow unbelievers--especially Dawkins or other anti-theists-- we get the same screams of outrage about how the guy's not really an atheist. I suppose that's easier than considering that the criticism might have some merit.

I know you LOVE disparaging the atheists here, why not put up or shut up?

In addition, we are saying this guy isn't an atheist because he ADMITS to believing in a god, which is, definitely NOT an atheist. Indeed, he thinks the creator is Jesus, his words, he is NOT an atheist, despite his misuse of the word.

The guy isn't an atheist because he admits he believes in a god. That's all.

It's NOT because he has some horrible "criticism" of atheists, whatever that is.

If you want to behave better and improve relations in this group, let's start with some honesty. Please.

okasha, you really need to read up on it to stop embarrassing yourself.

He claims everyone lives a spiritual life, he erects strawman atheists to knock down, falsely compares them to right wing evangelicals. He insults and belittles atheists while, at the same time, falsely claiming to be one.

Frankly I didn't know this guy existed until I saw your thread on him, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218130224

And frankly, when I read his posts, and subsequent ones, they are VERY offensive.

So perhaps you are wrong on this one as well.

But if you are offended, you are offended.

You seem to like your atheists cowed and silent. You outright hate the ones who aren't.

I like my atheists in lots of different ways, including very vocal and assertive. But I don't like atheists who are bigoted against believers and attack those who hold different views. Hate never comes into it.

You attack people for comparing gods to other myths, while giving people like Frank Schaeffer a pass when he says shit like this:

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]If there were no spiritual side to us, there would be no sense of loss when the material universe intrudes on our happiness. We’d just accept the evolutionary method. “Death leads to life—so quit complaining!” we’d say.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2014/05/one-reason-atheism-doesnt-really-answer-anything/

This guy can go fuck himself, I still have a sense of loss, thank you very fucking much, and it has NOTHING to do with spiritualism.

I will say that he makes a lot of factually wrong statements about evolution and science in general, whether its willful ignorance or not, he shouldn't write about it without researching it first:

Examples here:

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Most people don’t really want to live only according to narrowly defined material facts. Most of us try to direct our human primate evolutionary process along ethical non-material lines. We impose standards that do not come from nature. Nature is cruel, yet we try not to be. We prosecute people for war crimes that are no more destructive than what happens every day in the churning cauldron of life where everything is eaten and where death is the only incubator of life. We call murder wrong although it’s the most natural thing on earth.

We’ve decided to let an imagined utopian ideal, a future Eden if you will, rule our present despite this being a spiritual non-material-universe-based choice that flies in the face of natural selection. We impose ethics that exist only in our heads upon the material universe. We are part of nature yet we have decided to be nicer than nature. There would be no war crimes trials unless our ethically evolved selves questioned the method of evolution itself.

He seems to not be aware that we are a complex social species, the bolded parts are the most egregious of his ignorance about evolution. The italics is for an opinion he seems rife with, assuming spirituality where none need exist, I guess he thinks atheists and/or materialists are mythical?

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"] We need to accept the fact our brains did not evolve to do theology or philosophy! We evolved to find patterns in reality to survive. This isn’t truth. Less certainty, more humility. A spiritual non-material-based way of life turns out to be the actual way we live no matter what we say we believe. We live by ethics not found in nature and we enrich our lives with art. That says something to me. Maybe a purely material view of the universe and of ourselves is not in fact a fact.

This is a man who complains about the hubris of atheists, then comes up with this gem(bolded, again). He wants constructive dialog with atheists? Then don't insult us with your confirmation bias, don't project your insecurities and your beliefs onto us, is that too fucking much to ask?

He claims to be an atheist, yet posts this:

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]I do not always believe, let alone know, if God exists. I do not always know he, she, or it does not exist either, though there are long patches in my life when it seems God never did exist. What I know is that I see the Creator in Jesus or nowhere. What I know is that I see Jesus in my children and grandchildren’s love. What I know is that I rediscover hope again and again through my wife Genie’s love. What I know is that Mother Maria loved unto death. What I know is that sometimes something too good to be true, is true.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2014/05/the-sojo-review-of-why-i-am-an-atheist-who-believes-in-god/

Should I also mention he posts on the Progressive Christian channel of patheos?

My problem with him, and you cbayer, is you both have a problem, you don't like atheists, oh, you claim you do, but deep down you think of us as empty shells to project your issues onto. I'm frankly sick of it. I made the mistake of going to Sojourner's website(liberal Christian website), and searching for articles pertaining to atheism. It was a mistake in that all it did was piss me off, all I saw were articles upon articles of Christians talking about how they should tolerate atheists while at the same time belittling or insulting them. They even go so far, and this is Christian Piatt I'm talking about, to saying that guys like Daniel Dennet or Richard Dawkins would rather insult someone than help them if they are in need. Why the fuck should I give such bigoted people one iota of consideration?

A couple points

1. As someone who has spent decades observing, photographing., and reading and writing about nature, I agree wholeheartedly with Scheaffer's observations. Civilization attempts, frequently unsuccessfully, to rehabilitste a species that developed as an apex territorial predator. Being a "complex social" species is irrelevant. We are still apex territorial predators, as our sorry history of personal violence and collective war demonstrates. Wolves and elephants also have complex social structures, and by most human ethical systems, are generally better behaved than we are. You're arguing here for a "special creation" for H. sapiens, even if you attribute it to evolution rather than to a deity.

2 People who "hate atheists" don't usually marry one. Your whole post, including this personal attack, is out of control.

evolutionary scientist, do you have any evidence or studies supporting your conclusions? Or are you just stating an opinion that can be readily dismissed?

As to your second point, I call them like I see them and I fully expect he delineated between "bad" atheists and "good" atheists, and he married one of the good ones.

NT

Are you an evolutionary scientist, btw? Because I wasn't really interested in debating your critique of this writer's take on evolution, but I have some advanced education in the field and share some of his views that you outlined and objected to.

As to "bad" and "good" atheists, you are once again making assumptions about me, even going as far as deciding why I married who I married. That's pretty ridiculous.

No, I'm not an evolutionary scientist, but I do read studies on it, and I do know when things are factually wrong and run contrary to current consensus.

Indeed, the current consensus is that natural selection has favored altruism in Homo Sapiens to a great degree. We are a social species and to survive we have to share resources and get along, so, for example, murder is not a behavior that would be natural for our species, being antisocial and able to break social cohesion. Explains nicely why prohibitions on it are universal in all human societies. Details still get fuzzy sometimes though.

that you are more knowledgable in the field than someone else?

There are many behaviors and practices among humans that present a great challenge to strict evolutionary theory.

Although I think there is most likely an evolutionary explanation for all of it, some has yet to be adequately explained, at least to me.

FWIW, I don't think we are the top of the food chain in terms of evolutionary development in this universe. I think it's quite unlikely that there is not something more highly evolved than us. Whether that is some people's god or not, I have no idea, but I don't dismiss it.

Frank Schaeffer is one of them, he flat out misstates what the science says to support his own assumptions about how the world works, and they are a decidedly Christian worldview, I might add. Its the gods of the gaps argument projected on behavior.

Also, terms like "highly evolved" mean little to the actual science, you are either well adapted to your environment(you survive), or you are not(you're extinct), to claim there are "levels" and such in evolution is mistaking it for a game of Pokemon. I blame Hollywood and Video Games for this misinformation.

Let's say we meet a technologically advanced species from another planet, they have had world peace for millennia, and they travel the galaxy spreading knowledge and free love. Call them the space hippies. But, their bodies require Hydrogen Sulfide instead of Oxygen for respiration. On Earth, who would be more "highly evolved" them or us? Remember, they can't exist on Earth without wearing at least a respirator, maybe even a full space suit.

To be honest, if you want to get science fictiony for a minute, but I would imagine the most advanced intelligences of the universe would have been manufactured rather than evolved, machine intelligence, or A.I. Though I would imagine artificial intelligences, if they exist, would take umbrage at that term, there is nothing artificial about their intelligence after all. I can also easily imagine cargo cults developing around such entities.

But speculating or hypothesizing is not just pretending to know the answers. I think assuming things about other people and how they think, feel and are going to behave is equivalent to pretending to know the answer as well, and it's why I object to your doing it when it comes to me.

I don't think your arguments with this guy are invalid. In fact, some of them make sense and I can clearly see why you find some offensive.

In terms of there most likely having been (and continuing to be) parallel evolutionary paths in this universe, I would have to agree that it would be difficult to define what is more highly evolved. But what if evolution on this planet took other steps that we are just not yet aware of?

Did you see "Her"? If so, what did you think of it? I bring this up because I think it is relevant to your last paragraph here.

I find them mostly cliched and overwrought, this one seems interesting though.

I think, when you talk of "parallel evolutionary paths" that you are basically talking about convergent evolution. Its something that happens all the time on Earth, and I would imagine its being repeated many times throughout the universe. As far as how wide the diversity of life is in the universe, there really is no limit, is there. All things, confined by physics, of course, are possible.

To give an example, I would expect any alien species we encounter that evolved in an environment that has a source of light, will have some type of eye, whether as simple as an eyespot or as complicated as a squid eye, or even more complicated, like in a Mantis Shrimp. Eyes evolved independently on Earth at least 20 different times, because they are so damned useful for survival. The only exceptions would be environments such as caves, ocean floors, etc. I doubt there are any species living in the oceans of Europa that have eyes, for example, but they probably have excellent ears.

There are a few assumptions scientists do make about life, one is that life requires water in liquid form, at least in the initial stages of development, water is the best soluble liquid in the universe, its the place where the most interesting chemical reactions take place. Free oxygen may or may not be necessary for complex, multi-celluar animal life, it was required here, hence the Cambrian explosion, however, I will say that if we do discover life, particularly in the next few years, it will have oxygen as part of its respiration cycle, whether as a waste product or intake product.

I try to avoid terms like "highly evolved" because being well adapted is completely dependent on your environment, so there is no particular objective standard to follow. We humans, along with a few other species, evolved to help shape the environment to be better suited to us. If you are wondering about the others, I'm talking mostly about termites and ants, so not exactly high on the intelligence scale. We can even adapt the environment of space to be suitable to live in, for at least short bursts. In the future, we will probably be able to survive and thrive in even that environment, thanks to our technology.

It's not really much of a love story.

I would use the term "more highly evolved" when it comes to what we are aware of on earth. There is distinct jump towards self awareness that no other species even comes close to. We have few predators and have been able to successfully quell those that have tried. I don't think there are any other species that applies to. So, I would take the position that we are the most highly evolved.

Even speculating about what we don't know boggles my mind, but it drives me crazy when people make assumptions about our basic building blocks of life being necessary for life elsewhere. I'm not saying you are doing that, but I think there are things we can't even imagine at this point.

I've only seen one episode of the new Cosmos, but I loved the timeline bit. We are so very small and so very recent.

we know they are basic building blocks on at least one planet, Earth, and the laws of chemistry and physics work the same everywhere in the universe, so we would assume that there are plenty of places where, when the conditions are right, life with similar, though not necessarily exact, biochemistry, has evolved. It also helps that we find things like amino acids and other organic molecules literally floating in space in molecular clouds that condense to form stars and planets.

Indeed, its likely that the first chemicals on Earth that were the precursors to life, amino acids, RNA, etc. were frozen in asteroids that condensed out of our planetary disc/molecular cloud, and arrived here soon after the crust cooled and liquid water was becoming common on the surface in the form of asteroid strikes. Our oceans came from space after the planet formed, so why not our biochemicals? Given that they were much less likely to survive the conditions that formed the planet in the first place, it was, quite literally, hot enough to melt rock at that point.

We do have a big type of confirmation bias, only one planet as an example of life, and that can be artificially limiting as you say, but it is, right now, the best starting off point we have.

an evolutionary scientist, either, and that you're unfamiliar with the full range of literature.

Get thee to a library. Then get out into the field and observe.

But you overstep your bounds when you think you can determine who I do and don't like and what I think of other people. You want to talk about projection? What you are doing here is the epitome of projection.

The hostility is yours, not mine.

Give whoever you want consideration or not, but you have no right to call others bigoted just because they don't share your outrage.

I don't expect you to change your opinion about me. You have defined me in your own mind. But understand this, my not liking or respecting you as an individual does not mean that I feel the same about atheists in general. You don't represent anyone but yourself. Not even close.

are religious or not. And that's what you do. Atheists have to be perfect to you to be acceptable, while religious people are given a much wider berth in their words and activity. You are much more likely to give religious people the benefit of the doubt, something that doesn't exist for atheists.

You are wrong.

I do support believers and I do so with vigor at times, particularly when I think they are being only being attacked because they believe. I am also highly critical of believers who are bigots and try to force their personal beliefs on others.

There are some people who post here that I give no berth to, but it's not because they are atheists. It's because they are rabidly anti-theist. I think that's a divisive and destructive position.

But most of the atheists who I do have discussions with here, I have a great deal of respect for, even when we rather vehemently disagree on something. Very often, I completely embrace what they are saying and agree more often than not.

They don't make it personal. You make it personal and, even worse, feel you have the right to tell me what I think or feel.

If Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris or PZ Meyers projected or made assumptions about Theists or Christians in a way that Francis Schaeffer did, you would be calling them the foulest of the foul, yet when he does it, crickets are heard. You say nothing, and in fact, post OPs with those very projections in them to promote him or without comment.

What assumption am I supposed to make?

I've never called any of these people "the foulest of the foul", though I have criticized and disagreed with them.

As you know, I'm not a fan of Dawkins, though I acknowledge that he performed a very valuable service in kicking down the door for non-believers and is in large part responsible for the changing tide when it comes to acceptance and understanding of atheists. At this point, however, I think he is an impediment to further progress because of his militant anti-theism. And before anyone goes getting all outraged, those are the very terms he uses to describe himself.

Here's an idea. Don't make any assumptions. Just ask.

he's opposing beliefs, not people, there is a big difference there. As a scientist, as a human being, he thinks faith is a bad idea, and he's right, it is.

I will say that, like I said before, my more recent hostility has manifest itself because I made the mistake of looking at liberal Christian blogs and websites, as a result of the OP you posted about Frank Schaeffer. I went down the rabbit hole, as it were, and frankly it was a mix of both disgust and, actually, a lack of surprise.

It seems there's a huge undercurrent of denial of humanity for atheists and other non-Christians. When we act contrary to their prejudices, we act "like Christ" as if our actions aren't our own, but that of their God. They deny our identity, they deny our humanity, and these are supposed to be our allies?

Even worse is the condescension, seriously, when an atheist acts like a decent human being, many of these Christians will be happy to praise it, but its almost like they are praising a dog who is doing this for treats, its disgusting. Some of them even go so far, like Frank Schaeffer, of, more or less, claiming we go through life as if we were Christians, which is complete bullshit.

when she hands out Excellent Post! ® awards to atheists (and others) who are suitably deferential and obsequious in their responses to her, and who help her promote her agenda. She and many others don't mind atheists and anti-theists as long as we're properly respectful and mind our place. When we're unapologetic about condemning religion's crimes, when we don't acknowledge the deep wisdom and legitimacy of religion, or when we just won't agree every time that "it's complex", then we need to STFU.

Actively crusading against our opinions being allowed is another. Declaring us enemies of the Democratic Party, "carrying water" for Republicans, and on and on. Our crimes are numerous - all because we dare to speak a contrary opinion.

Another of her favorite accusations. And she seems to take great pride and delight in sitting back and watching others label atheists as bigots, even though they don't have a shred of justification for it. Guess that's not so "complex".

they aren't telling you what you think, they are describing how you act, and it is true.

Here's a question, what, to you, is a militant anti-atheist?

(side note: if Dawkins is a militant atheist to you, then you reveal your bias. He writes books about evolution and points out the harm being done by these power structures and maybe we should do more to curb their power. Militant theists, meanwhile, are currently overrunning Iraq and forcing half a million people out of their homes and into an already war-torn, overrun with refugees country (and that's just the latest militant theist escapade)).

And there is a ton of confirmation bias going on here which is reinforced by the group you most closely identify with.

A militant anti-atheist would be someone who believes that atheists are amoral, evil, soulless and that atheism should be eliminated or punished. A militant anti-atheist would hold all atheists responsible for the behavior of some of them and call them apologists or worse.

Dawkins describes himself as a militant anti-theist. Did you not now that? I didn't choose those words, and, FWIW, I don't find him particularly militant. But he is clearly an anti-theist. He wears t-shirts that say "Religion - Together We Can Find a Cure". Would it be ok if someone wore a t-shirt saying "Atheism - Together We Can Find a Cure".

You have shown repeatedly that have decided what I am without really ever engaging with me in a meaningful way. I don't expect that to change, as it would disrupt your narrative.

I have never disputed that fact that their are religious militants who cause great harm and fully recognize that what they do is much worse than any militant anti-theist. But I'm not really interested in who is worse.

The fact is that there are a significant number of anti-theists who frequent this site, but very, very few anti-atheists. It is not an accurate representation of our society as a whole or the liberal/progressive population in general, but that's the way it is.

those whom you have (in some cases) force-labeled "anti-theists", you view as enemies. Of the Democratic Party, religious believers, and given your repeated nasty commentary about them, apparently of the human race itself.

Meanwhile, the "anti-theists" don't see you (or religious believers) as an enemy, they just think you're wrong.

Who's the extremist again?

But I'm ok with that. Because it's for me to express, when it arises. Not for him to judge.

to a vegetarian who eats meat every day. You can all trade delusions.

to the Doctor, her connection interfered with that, so she was pregnant the whole time, just not aware of it because the ones who held her made sure of that.

Those that insist on strict labeling, and particularly those that insist that one must be either a theist or atheist, seem only interested in picking teams.

They seem to miss all the nuance and subtle undertones of an individuals personal take on the whole issue.

I understand that there are some who are decidedly theist and some that are decidedly atheist, but for so many, it's not that clear cut. And for many, there is the belief that there is something, but they just don't know what to call it.

And then, despite the wailing the protestations of some of the team captains, there are those who just don't know whether they believe or not - the agnostics.

Quit using such divisive language. Quit attacking those who merely have different opinions than you. No one is required to accept your opinion.

Its simply not definitionally possible. You can be a gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or agnostic atheist. Those are the four categories possible. If you aren't sure, and/or don't know, you fall under agnostic something, if you are sure or do know, you fall under gnostic something. Its not much more complicated than that.

go back and forth and that agnosticism can be a category unto itself.

I know you disagree about that and I have had this semantic discussion over and over.

Although some people agree with your position, many others do not.

You make it simple, but I think it's complex. We shall just have to agree to disagree.

That's the bloody point.

As an atheist, I personally do not believe there are "gods". It is totally immaterial what others think about the subject, since there is no hard evidence, just a staggering amount of verbiage.
And, hey! maybe there is a god/gods - my disbelief does not alter anything. That's what puzzles me about reactions from theists - why care about what I think? Need validation?

What I do resent is having religion affect the laws that affect me. And, of course, the rather pitiful belief by some that only religion can make someone moral. That is really really sad.

I am not on a team - I don't see the reason for one based on atheism, except perhaps to counteract religion-based laws and customs that affect atheists adversely.

The needing validation part, rings like a bell.

'a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.'

Good enough for me. I 'believe' in nature.

Those that insist that one must be a theist or atheist alienate a lot of people who just don't agree with that.

that is inherently self-contradictory. Why am I not surprised that cbayer thinks it's wonderful, just because it supports her agenda here?

Claiming that the nature of "god" is unknowable IS claiming knowledge about the nature of god. Many Christians believe that their god CAN be known and understood, at least to some extent, and that they understand what god thinks and feels, and how he behaves and is likely to behave. Your "definition" states that god is not like that, presuming knowledge that it claims at the same time to be impossible.

That title is like saying "Look at this square... that has 3 sides"

Other excerpts from his new book :

so, meet someone without god who believes in god.

It's not a grey area, the word doesn't have some wiggle room about maybe sometimes believes in god, it means without god, it's that simple. It covers no other statements but that. You can have a religion that is atheistic (Unless he's claiming Buddhists believe in a god?) but the thread title is a paradox, can't exist.

may even have reasons for not attempting to extirpate them

This is a case of the latter.

If you believe in any god, you are not an atheist.

That makes him a liar and a whore.

Whatever it takes to sell those books, Frankie.

How have you been?

My little blue island in an ocean of red appears to be sinking.

I hope you and yours are well, I missed you.

Actual self identifying atheists weigh in and explain why the author of the article does not qualify as an atheist. They use objective evidence such as this objective definition, or this definition, or this definition, or this definition, or even this definition. It also violates every single definition given by atheists in the AA forum.

People who are not atheist try to dispute with a incorrect understanding of what a No True Scotsman fallacy actually is, and nothing but subjective opinions to back up their claims. Many of which use offensive religious terminology which can not, again by definition, can not apply to us.

To be clear, to be a NTS the demarcation can not be an objective rule, rather it is redefining the term to exclude people who normally fall under it by the objective rule....saying a German is not a Scott is not a NTS for example.

No, the author does not qualify as an atheist under ANY definition except his own. If everyone starts redefining every word to suit their own whims, no one would would know what anyone meant by any word and no one would understand anyone else and it would be chaos. A single person, on their own, cannot just redefine a word.

Words have meaning, and under no definition does the articles author count as an atheist.

Thank you.

I don't like atheist because I don't tend to like any term that starts with a prefix meaning without. I am without a whole lot of things. I am without a belief that the world will end on a date that I can identify in other words it's a long long way away. I am without a belief in elves, leprechauns on the other hand probably exist. I am without a belief in tea leaf reading, palm reading, and those stones that some people read. So you could call me an aclairvoyantist. It would be more inclusive and more accurate.

That being said I would like to vote for all the above.