in all areas. Crazies all of them.

for not adhering to the same religion.

has driven people apart. The time is now to no longer tolerate the intolerant.

I assume you are not being intentionally ironic.

The point is whether any gods exist and whether there's any good reason why non-delusional people should believe in any of them. How various atheists get along with each other is utterly, idiotically irrelevant to that. Unless they start shooting and bombing each other...but so far the religionists have had a monopoly on that.

He agrees with you on the former and disagrees with you on the latter. I daresay he would challenge your premise on the latter.

If he wouldn't, I do.

It's divisive and gets us nowhere.

when you called creationists "a bunch of assholes", now weren't you? Your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze.

But I'm not gonna split hairs on the issue.

Good catch, though...she most certainly called them "a bunch of dumbasses"

Skepticscott now supports creationism as a possible truth, since he's attacking someone who thinks it's not.

Such a nice irony.

Strange world you live in.

But a typical example of both your logic and your honesty (or lack thereof). Come back when you have a glimmer of understanding of what I said and why.

"the world's great atheism problems"? Not a bit. So what the fuck do the atheists of the world have to learn from the religious in that regard? How not to shoot, bomb and otherwise slaughter each other over quibbles about god concepts? Sorry, got that down pat already.

Get people to stop identifying their life with guesses about an afterlife, or a supreme being written about in a book, but which they've never experienced. It's the people who think religion matters - especially those that hold it more important than anything else - who cause the problems. You don't get schools of philosophy bombing each other, because no-one sees it as more than an intellectual exercise, even if they fundamentally disagree on the nature of the universe.

The problem with Stedman is that he is encouraging people to take religion more seriously. What the world needs is widespread apathy about the claims of religion. "Interfaith engagement" leaves the basic problem - fantasies about the gods people would like, which are then force-fed to children - in place.

If you are to ignore religion you are ignoring a swath of human history and human thought. It's not going away, nor should it. Besides, it is rather hypocritical to urge apathy for religion while simultaneously attacking it. Seriously, all you do is throw gasoline on the matter.

A good starting point is to distinguish and disentangle religious thought from the political and economic thought that forms the rest of human history.

I much prefer the second. Yes, disentanglement is vital. That's why I want people to ignore what organised religions are trying to sell or impose. But how is telling people to pay no attention to those who want religion to be important 'throwing gasoline on the matter'?

The problem with the post is that what you say religion is trying to sell (belief) is not the same as what you say it's trying to impose (theocracy).

As long as you conflate the two you're selling tickets to a clusterfuck.

Because you're protecting all religion, without any consideration of the merits of the divergent claims, with a blanket "it shouldn't go away".

I did say "sell or impose" - it's not necessarily the same; but for many religions, it is (Catholicism and right-wing evangelicalism in the USA; most forms of Islam in countries where its the majority religion; religious nationalists like the BJP in India). I'd love for religions to not impose anything at all; but it's things like a humanist chaplaincy that encourages them (because that makes all religions demand their own chaplaincies, and gives them seats at tables of organisations that should be secular - universities, schools, governments, law courts ...). It's things like taking the Pope seriously, and treating him a as head of state, when he's more like the president of an objectionable country club.

Frankly I would base no action on what you consider to be a meritorious claim. Nor would I follow your suggestion because you consider it meritless. The short, crude answer is, who the fuck are you to deem something meritorious or not? Opinions are of passing interest only.

There is nothing inherent in religion or religious belief that supports the position that humanity is better off without it. You believe that? Fine, then don't believe this. And it's not your place or mine to pronounce that it should be eliminated or promulgated. Even the most outlandish or offensive claim (which most of them are not), is powerless until it is acted upon. When it is, that's a political and social act which bears the consequence of a political and social reaction.

The issue is, as it always has been, the use of religion for political and economic leverage. It really is that simple. If you want to test that hypothesis, try this: Denounce the inherent harm of the Shakers and the Quakers. Start your litany of horrors committed in the name of these religions. Without state and political power, your list will be quite short. You don't like Catholics and Muslims? Fine. Then keep them out of state power. But do not delude yourself into thinking that by eliminating religion you are eliminating the harm that a state can do, with or without religion.

You've written rather a lot about a straw man.

Or do you think it will simply shrink away and vanish in the glare of active shunning? Or do you prophesy its inevitable demise?

What you suggest sounds ominously close to proselytizing of another sort, muriel. You are outlining a mission to get people to perceive the world and their beliefs differently, and to do so in a way that falls more in line with how you see it.

Why would you want to do that? Do you really think there is any chance at all that you will get believers to see the world your way and give up their religion?

While I think there is room to criticize and work with some religious leaders, your approach sounds like fundamentalism to me. You have the answer and you think everyone else should have it as well.

I think Stedman is right on the money here. Religion should be taken more seriously and the areas in which it does good should receive positive reinforcement. Your statements about fantasies are no better than those made by the other "one wayers". It is the talk of the anti-theist, to whom this article is directed.

That is not, at all, "proselytizing". The safest religions are the ones which are just a hobby. Like the UUs, or the Church of England, at least the bits that say "women? fine. LGBT? fine." Ones that don't think their opinions need special consideration. But there's no need to say "faith is important" - because it isn't. Not to society, anyway. Religion needs a 'DNR' sign on it, and Stedman is helping perform heroic measures. People can keep their faith inside their special meetings of people who think like they do. Or, even better, inside their own heads.

Do I think there's a chance? Well, Europe and East Asia have got a fair way there.

"Religious leaders" are a special problem. They really need to be ignored - like most people ignore astrologers or psychics. Why do people need 'leading' in religion? Shouldn't people be working out their ethical, or metaphysical, positions themselves, rather than being spoon-fed it by a waste of space like a minister or a pope? You strike me, for instance, as someone who's never relied on someone else to tell them what to believe. But Stedman indulges himself in Catholic courses, and a job as a 'humanist chaplin' - there's a job for the Golgafrincham B Ark if there ever was one.

What you suggest is not going to happen, imo, and it ignores the good that religion and religious believers has done. The fact that it is easily co-opted and perverted is a significant problem, and I support challenges to that, but you completely ignore it at your own peril.

Should MLK have been ignored, had an apathetic ear turned towards him?

To say that ministers are a waste of space is naive, at best. While I don't need and, in fact, would reject being spoon fed, I can not deny the good that has been done by some religious leaders for people that were in crises.

I would propose a friendly amendment to what muriel_volestrangler said, replacing it with the following: the religion of leaders should be ignored.

MLK's contribution to America wasn't converting people to his particular faith, it was convincing people of a moral imperative that cuts across all faiths (counting atheists with a conscience as a faith, for the purpose of argument).

And THAT, while 100% accurate, is something you will NEVER get cbayer, her father, or most of the other apologists here to admit. Doing so would only strongly validate muriel_volestrangler's point, exposing their hypocrisy even more.

It will be interesting to see if cbayer even bothers to respond to you (my bet is she won't), since you made one of the dreaded "gotcha" posts that she and her father feel is not conducive to meaningful conversation.

But pay no mind to that. You are spot on.

and he made no attempt to seem otherwise.

I am not sure what the "religion of leaders" is. I have strong feelings about those who try to impose their religious beliefs in any way that restricts the rights of others. And while I want them to keep their beliefs out of politics, I think ignoring them is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Blowing them off is one of the ways we got in this mess.

There have been and still are religious leaders who champion causes that liberal/progressive democrats embrace. In some areas, they are doing the most work and making the most progress.

Too much lumping and not enough splitting leads to bigotry and hate.

But in any event my point is about how we look at him now, not how people looked at him then, and my position now is that I embrace the moral imperatives of MLK even though I disagree wholeheartedly with his religion. His moral conclusions are the common denominator that I would like for all of us to focus on, so we can begin to find common ground rather than things to argue about and kill each other over.

So I do ignore MLK's religion in order that I may embrace his morality. I hope others will do the same.

believers or not.

I think we all embrace the moral imperatives of MLK, believers or not. But he clearly said that these imperatives were for him religiously based. That makes them no less or no more significant or righteous, but their source was critical to him.

I absolutely agree with you that we need to find common ground. We have power in numbers. There are theists who thwart the causes that we, as liberals and progressives, fight for, but there are others who sometimes lead the charge for what we are trying to achieve.

Ignoring his religion is fine, particularly if it works for you. But suggesting that all religious leaders be ignored is counter productive. Anti-theists are destructive to the democratic party and, imo, actually give ammunition to the christian extremists who took over in the last few decades.

Together, believers and non-believers have the opportunity to take back our shared causes. One does not have to "convert" to one way or another to be a part of this process.

As Obama said, If you are not with us, get out of the way. Anyone who thinks attacking liberal/progressive theists at this point in the election season is going to help in anyway is more likely than not to not really be on our side.

Who doesn't?

I don't think the actual religion is gonna be of much help. I mean, neither the atheists nor the "faitheists" (a word no one uses) can rely on the supernatural to solve things.

But he's free to call himself whatever he chooses.

Interesting that searching for the term "faitheist" results in many links to discussions of Stedman's book. One link to PZ Myers 3/4 of the way down the page. I think Mr. Stedman may be employing a bit of creative license in his telling of the cocktail party assault on his benign, inter-faith, can't we all just get along 'atheism'.

There is a difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. What makes you think he's not an atheist?

And the fact that his RL work is "Humanist Chaplain".

Humanism reminds me of those old logic questions they like to ask on assessment tests: If all Weezels are Snarks, and some Snarks are Pozzles, then . . .

A Humanist might be an atheist - but you don't have to be an atheist to be a Humanist. As I said, he can call himself whatever he wants, but when he calls himself an atheist and then writes a book criticizing atheists, he's probably going to be questioned about his real motives - rather like someone claiming a particular political persuasion in order to make criticism of that group seem more reasonable.


cbayer - I don't know what he is - or what he is not. I don't know anything about the guy other than what I've read today (beyond an unfortunate tendency toward histrionics in his writing). Based on that, my opinion is that this is a young man who is still relatively conflicted about many things - an adoption of evangelical Christianity in late childhood (so he wasn't raised in it, but chose it). A rejection of that faith when he realised that they rejected his sexuality and a swing to the other end of the pendulum and "New Atheism". A growing unhappiness with that end of the spectrum and a gradual move toward a center position, combined with a desire to meld/join/negotiate/fix (whatever) the divide that he sees between believers and nonbelievers.

It's a nice goal, but it certainly points to someone who spends a tremendous amount of time thinking about his own place in the universe. It would not surprise me at all if he eventually moved back to some sort of faith - perhaps not in religion, but in a 'higher power'. I've met quite a few people who have done exactly what he has done thus far. Eventually, they all returned to some form of theism. That's fine - they're happy with that, and perhaps even more content because they have traveled the entire road.

So, yeah - I'll reiterate. What makes me think he might not be an atheist is his tone. I'm sure he's a nice guy and very sincere. I wish him luck (and maybe a better editor for his next book).

And if you talk to them about their beliefs, they have no ambivalence. In fact, I'm one myself, at least at times. Tone is obviously something that can change from moment to moment. I'm mostly a "fatheist" type of atheist, talking to and about people who are religious in a soft way that seeks common ground. But I also confess that at times I speak of religion using a tone of ridicule. Having taken both approaches I think it's the former that is more effective for the most part. Instead of using snarky ridicule I'd rather, when I think about it more carefully, use facts and logic put softly but plainly.

Granted that any of us can change our minds. That fact, however, doesn't make any one of us not an atheist unless it makes all of us not whatever we thought we were.

I see your point, but, frankly, I am more in tune with those who are still searching as opposed to those who feel they have found *the way* (be it beliefs or lack thereof).

It doesn't seem particularly important what he is or is not, I am drawn to his message of identifying common goals and working together. I reject fundamentalists of all stripes, including anti-theists, and support his message of building coalitions.

There is both toxic theism and atheism. Those who hold these positions are unlikely to want to work together with the rest.

steed man, the chap who took care of the horses. In this case, mainly beating the dead ones.

And I hope Stedman didn't sprain anything patting himself on the back. His description of that party with the Evil Chicago Atheists was a masterpiece of fake modesty ("holes in my socks!" "unfathomable hors d'oevres!&quot . Combined with a huge streak of self-flattering egotism.

I sure couldn't make it thru a whole book's worth of this sanctimonious prattle.

Oh, and this hilarious bit about his Muslim friend: Sayira, who was close to receiving her black belt in karate. Sayira, one of the most gentle and loving people I’d ever met...

ROFL! One of those things is not like the other.

Stedman appeared on a panel at the Global Atheist Convention this year, with P.Z. Myers and Leslie Cannold. Myers wrote, with an especially apt adjective:

How do I get myself talked into these things? I have two events with the slithery Chris Stedman coming up...

Second, the day after the Global Atheist Convention, as part of their fringe events, I’m speaking at this event: PZ Myers, Leslie Cannold, Chris Stedman – The Road Less Traveled, in which I’m supposed to talk about whether believers and atheists can work together for the common good.

My answer is simple: sure they can, but faith isn’t in the common good, and we have to work against it.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/25/me-vs-chris-stedman/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

And, also, of this guy?

Not if, buts or maybes. If you don't agree with the religionist and do as HE WANTS, you're forever excluded and probably damned to eternal punishment.

Check out the science, and MRI's. "God's wishes" live in that EXACT SAME PART OF THE BRAIN, as the religionst's own personal thoughts. Using fMI, it is perfectly possible to distinguish between the subjects personal thoughts, and what he believes would be the thoughts of another human being. HOWEVER, it is pretty much impossible to distinguish between the subjects own thoughts and what he believes to be the thoughts/wishes of God.

"If you don't agree with the religionist and do as HE WANTS, you're forever excluded and probably damned to eternal punishment."

Says who? You must have associated, for however short a time, with some strange "religionists". Perhaps rather than introducing extraneous factoids about MRIs (can't you at least use PET scans?), you may consider the dangers of extrapolating from the particular to the general.

My time in Catholic school as a couldn't give a shit Church of Englander. My fate at best was Eternity in Purgatory.

Once upon a time I did, I try to avoid such associations today. However I can't entirely help observing them.

Could well have been PET, but I think fMRI (functional MRI, my bad). Maybe both. The point remains, that in the imaging, however it is obtained, the subject thinks for themself or God with the same parts of the brain, and uses a completely different set of brain regions to imagine how another human would think.

That bit about brain regions is interesting. Got a link or something you can direct me to?

I found Stedman's piece thoughtful not arrogant and it gave me hope that we are all seekers in our own way and really want to find common ground. And that most of us are not sure we have found the Way but that we want to keep on traveling.

Last edited Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:04 PM - Edit history (1)

I find these topics endlessly fascinating. Chime in whenever you're comfortable.

Whereas toxic religion doesn't!


There's nothing toxic about Richard Dawkins. People keep trying to create an hysterical mean bad-ass character for him but it just isn't there. He merely treats religion as a fairy tale not worthy of serious consideration and is horrified by its cruelty.... especially to children. Otherwise he's a rumpled old scientists with a soft British accent. Even some atheists are scared by the backlash they may get from religion. And why wouldn't they be? Religion is pretty awful to those who disagree with it. Atheists, not so much.

If their faith is so strong, then why do they care what atheists say about them?

There's no toxic atheism. There's just poor poor put upon religionists and those (even nonbelievers) scared of them. The rest is just plain old atheism.