Atheists More Irrational than Religious in U.S.A.

[jmtowle]

This post is directed to Evil Atheist in particular.

I woke up with the following thoughts and considered them worth sharing, hopefully they are not redundant.

You are participating in this forum for one of two reasons; you are either earnestly searching for absolute Truth or you are are working towards aiding souls in the direction of apostasy.

I trust you are doing the former and so I offer what I believe to be consolation.

In your honest efforts you are using to the best of your ability, your gift of reasoning, it is in those efforts that I believe you will fare well in your eternal encounter with God.

If in fact you are working towards the latter above mentioned reason, you will be permitted to continue your disbelief for all eternity and that you will discover was a terrible error.

It is my personal opinion based on much of the information I have gathered over a lifetime and the gift of faith that was given to me, that someone such as yourself is likely to receive great Mercy and those who claim to believe but are half hearted and who expend little energy in living out their beliefs, will receive that Mercy equal to their true faith; little or none.

Your efforts are admirable in that you continue to search without the gift of faith, a most difficult journey. I will pray that upon your death you are most pleasantly surprised.

JT

 

[yankee_doodle]

Well then again people who do understand the issue and the questions it evokes have already responded to this thread, like anEvilAtheist. Are you saying anEvilAtheist doesn’t understand the issue of the rationality of atheism vs. the rationality of theism? He is an atheist who has been longer on the boards than you and has made his points known on this thread and where he sees points for concern ; as opposed to you using the easy way out by using an adhominem as a rational rebuttal (i.e. I look silly). Hah, LOL

I didn’t say a single word about anything or anyone besides the article, another red herring (why am I not surprised). The article is clearly slanted towards Christianity. It fails to mention all the equally bizarre practices in Christianity & it misrepresents and misidentifies atheists.

The article makes people question their stereotypical assumptions of the reasonableness (or lack thereof ) of Christians versus the self-proclaimed reasonableness of the irreligious, agnostic or atheist. Indeed I believe the poll revealed that 21% of atheists claim belief in a personal God or impersonal force.

at atheist by definition does not believe in a personal god (or any god).

Atheist:

a) disbelief in the existence of deity
b) the doctrine that there is no deity

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

So, if the article did state that 21% of atheists claim a belief in a personal god or impersonal force, it destroys it’s own credibility

If you find the exercise silly, fine…Don’t post here. It might make the thread more thoughtful and reasonable that way in your absence. Many others have responded and it is good to clear up old unfounded stereotypes of the “irrational Christian”. If you think the WSJ article is hate-speech by comparing peoples’ beliefs then you have no understanding of what “hate-speech” is under the law, and I mean that. Hate-speech: that’s bizarre. Nobody at all has described atheists in the derogatory terms you routinely use against Christ and Christianity. This is an important subject.

Chew on this for a while:

*Aspects of the Gospel stories of Jesus have parallels with life-death-rebirth gods in the widespread mystery religions prevalent in the Hellenistic culture amongst which Christianity is assumed to be born. Closely related to this are mythemes of sacral kingship and “theophagy”, the eating of the body of a fertility god, traced by Walter Burkert to a neolithic fertility rite surrounding a god who needs to die and rise again in order to feed the community, sublimated in the Christian eucharist.

Several prominent early Christians, like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, actually acknowledged the existence of many parallels, complaining that the earlier religions had copied Christian religion and practices, predicted in Hebrew sacred texts, before Jesus was even born, as some form of diabolically inspired pre-cognitive mockery.*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

 

[KyivAndrew]

So, if the article did state that 21% of atheists claim a belief in a personal god or impersonal force, it destroys it’s own credibility

No, you didn’t read the article correctly obviously. The poll showed that 21% of “self-proclaimed atheists” believe in either a personal God or impersonal force. The poll is credible. It just points out the “irrationality” of many people who describe themselves as atheists and still cling to God. It’s not the poll that’s at issue, but that 1/5 of “self-proclaimed” atheists believe in a higher power which illustrates the irrationality of some atheists.

 

[yankee_doodle]

No, you didn’t read the article correctly obviously. The poll showed that 21% of “self-proclaimed atheists” believe in either a personal God or impersonal force. The poll is credible. It just points out the “irrationality” of many people who describe themselves as atheists and still cling to God. It’s not the poll that’s at issue, but that 1/5 of “self-proclaimed” atheists believe in a higher power which illustrates the irrationality of some atheists.

I went by what you said (I didn’t re-read the article when I responded to your post). If that’s the case then many people who describe themselves as atheist are obviously not true atheists; and therefore the conclusion drawn by this argument (that some atheists are irrational) is fallacious.

It’s not to say all true atheists are perfectly rational (obviously that’s a fallacious statement). However, the structure of the article’s argument goes like this:

Many people who call themselves atheist do believe in a god of some sort.

Atheists by definition do not believe in god.

Therefore some atheists are irrational.

Hopefully you can see why the conclusion is logically absurd?

 

[KyivAndrew]

Just a quotation for thought because I picked up the most recent issue of The American Interest at my local bookstore and was surprised to find an article by a former professor of mine of political philosophy, Clifford Orwin, one of the world’s famous Straussians originally from the Univ. of Chicago, entitled “Onward Christian Salesmen”. Orwin, who is not Christian writes:

"God is back…and of course the obstreperous atheists - Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris et al. – don’t deny that God remains powerful; rather they are protesting the fact. At the same time, they find this incomprehensible, which is why their rage is so towering. Hadn’t modernity refuted religion long ago? How can it possibly have lingered and even renewed itself, such a stew of superstition and gibberish?
Which is to say these writers, like the thinkers of the radical Enlightenment whose caricatures and epigones they are, cling to the ‘secularization thesis’. This is the supposition, so long cherished by so many Westerners… that as modernity waxed religion would wane. Instead religion, or a certain kind of it, is flourishing as never before." (I’d give a link, but it’s not available free online)

Just food for thought for all sides. I always disliked the bearing of Dawkins et al. in debates and interviews and think Orwin is spot on in characterizing them. If you were an atheist would you want such stubbornly dogmatic and raging spokespersons? If anything, Dawkins and Hitchens are a godsend to Christians in my view as they make their case in the most stunningly supercilious way that can be made – i.e. common plebs listen to us scientists (or incorrigible pundits) and follow us as we lead you to the Grand Earthly Utopia with God trampled underfoot. The more appearances they make, the more repellent the whole idea of atheism becomes IMHO. (and I realize this is genetic fallacy of course).

On the other side, Orwin looks semi-approvingly on the spread of Pentecostalism as one worldly demonstration of Christianity’s outreach (especially South America, Chinese house churches, etc. and calls their leaders “pastorpreneurs” for preaching the syrupy Prosperity Gospel which I as a Catholic view as a unfounded view of Jesus’ message.)

I think Orwin overstates his optimism slightly. I don’t believe syrupy sprirituality will do and the threat of a thoroughly secularized and morally vacuous Public Square and all its attendant problems surely remains. I mean just browsing a bit on atheism and such I note campaigns to have Bibles given pro bono to hotels banned, etc. I thought only the religious banned books? What on earth could evoke such emotion from certain sectors of atheism. What: Jesus Christ’s message of Love and Forgiveness? Why rage if atheism is meant to be the “rational and reasonable” position?

p.s. no intent to give offense intended

 

[yankee_doodle]

Just a quotation for thought because I picked up the most recent issue of The American Interest at my local bookstore and was surprised to find an article by a former professor of mine of political philosophy, Clifford Orwin, one of the world’s famous Straussians originally from the Univ. of Chicago, entitled “Onward Christian Salesmen”. Orwin, who is not Christian writes:

"God is back…and of course the obstreperous atheists - Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris et al. – don’t deny that God remains powerful; rather they are protesting the fact. At the same time, they find this incomprehensible, which is why their rage is so towering. Hadn’t modernity refuted religion long ago? How can it possibly have lingered and even renewed itself, such a stew of superstition and gibberish?
Which is to say these writers, like the thinkers of the radical Enlightenment whose caricatures and epigones they are, cling to the ‘secularization thesis’. This is the supposition, so long cherished by so many Westerners… that as modernity waxed religion would wane. Instead religion, or a certain kind of it, is flourishing as never before." (I’d give a link, but it’s not available free online)

Just food for thought for all sides. I always disliked the bearing of Dawkins et al. in debates and interviews and think Orwin is spot on in characterizing them. If you were an atheist would you want such stubbornly dogmatic and raging spokespersons? If anything, Dawkins and Hitchens are a godsend to Christians in my view as they make their case in the most stunningly supercilious way that can be made – i.e. common plebs listen to us scientists (or incorrigible pundits) and follow us as we lead you to the Grand Earthly Utopia with God trampled underfoot. The more appearances they make, the more repellent the whole idea of atheism becomes IMHO. (and I realize this is genetic fallacy of course).

The irony of how blind you are to Christian hypocrisy amazes me (since you seem to be an otherwise intelligent individual). Christianity is in our face all day long. All over the television, in our subways, above ground rail systems, buses, street corners, health clinics, supermarkets, I know I missed a few … but you get the point.

Yet we (and by we I mean a tiny minority in this country) say, hey wait a minute, this stuff is merely an offshoot of earlier mythological systems (which it, reasonably speaking, is) – and we’re militants, enraged, and every other insult you can think up.

What this is of course is an attempt by Christian theologians, intellectuals, and leaders (and their army of wannabes) to chill our speech. Why such a harsh reaction to two or three guys who merely do an occasional interview and who wrote a few books – when there’s an enormous Christian propaganda machine unmatched in resources, with an army of people (numbering in the billions), multitudes of intellectuals, TV stations, and everything else you can imagine at its disposal? It’s the proverbial elephant frightened of a mouse.

This tells me something. Historically it’s always tyrants who seek to chill free speech, and intimidate its opposition through whatever means it has at its disposal. The reason tyrants are always frightened of smart people who are brave enough to voice a dissenting opinion is obvious enough. It’s a threat to their power and the status quo (which they benefit from).

On the other side, Orwin looks semi-approvingly on the spread of Pentecostalism as one worldly demonstration of Christianity’s outreach (especially South America, Chinese house churches, etc. and calls their leaders “pastorpreneurs” for preaching the syrupy Prosperity Gospel which I as a Catholic view as a unfounded view of Jesus’ message.)

Obviously I’m no fan of Pentecostals. But I gotta say, a prosperity gospel sounds better than a poverty gospel.

I think Orwin overstates his optimism slightly.

you think

I don’t believe syrupy sprirituality will do and the threat of a thoroughly secularized and morally vacuous Public Square and all its attendant problems surely remains.

In the eleventh or twelfth centuries they would just have burned us at the stake, but I digress.

Anyways, it’s funny how the point you were trying to make in your OP seems to have evaporated, which is what happens when religion meets logic. I seem to remember you accusing the irreligious of all sorts of weird behavior, like believing in spiritual mediums, palm reading, astrology, haunted houses, UFO stories, and who knows what else (you know, the second gunman in the JFK assassination crowd). And then, to top it off, you accused atheists of being irrational because, according to you (and I guess the article you posted) 21% of “self proclaimed” atheists believe in god.

Then when I pointed out true atheists by definition don’t believe in god (after I stopped laughing), mysteriously you changed the subject.

I mean just browsing a bit on atheism and such I note campaigns to have Bibles given pro bono to hotels banned, etc. I thought only the religious banned books? What on earth could evoke such emotion from certain sectors of atheism. What: Jesus Christ’s message of Love and Forgiveness? Why rage if atheism is meant to be the “rational and reasonable” position?

p.s. no intent to give offense intended

You can keep saying rage until you’re blue in the face, but I’ve rarely seen an enraged atheist. What I see is thoughtful, yet determined people who understanding we’re dealing with an adversary that has proven to be ruthless throughout history in protecting its interests and power.

We can’t even take free speech for granted, because the religious would like to take it away from us.

I mean you drum up these threads just to bait us in … flower us with insults, then seem amazed when I fight back

 

[KyivAndrew]

Anyways, it’s funny how the point you were trying to make in your OP seems to have evaporated, which is what happens when religion meets logic. I seem to remember you accusing the irreligious of all sorts of weird behavior, like believing in spiritual mediums, palm reading, astrology, haunted houses, UFO stories, and who knows what else (you know, the second gunman in the JFK assassination crowd). And then, to top it off, you accused atheists of being irrational because, according to you (and I guess the article you posted) I think it was 21% of atheists believe in god.

Then when I pointed out true atheists by definition don’t believe in god, mysteriously you changed the subject.

Yankee. I think on this point we are speaking beyond each other. I believe many religious people are prone to hold irrational beliefs. I believe many irreligious people are prone to hold irrational beliefs. The poll in the original OP stated that more irreligious people (which includes atheists) believed in irrational stuff than religious people. That’s it! I am not accusing all atheists of “being irrational” as you aver above but was relying merely on one poll to start a conversation, that’s all! Atheists can be rational as well. Please note I am not engaging in any ad hominems of calling you blinded as you have me.

Your last point is not pertinent where you posted “true atheists” don’t believe in a God with respect to the poll in question. Well, of course they don’t. I realize that all along. I’m not sure why you are looking for something ulterior that isn’t there, because “self-proclaimed” atheists were the group being polled (hard to differentiate who really understands atheism and who doesn’t among self-proclaimed atheists - that’s not the job of pollists). I haven’t been avoiding this because I don’t see what bearing it has on my original juxtaposition of comparing the reasonableness of Theism (in our case mostly Christianity) and its followers to the reasonableness of Atheism and its followers. That’s all I was attempting to jumpstart. No smoke and mirrors. I have no where in my posts claimed all atheists irrational IMHO and worry about you looking for an enemy when I am willing to hear you out. You’re seeing deception where you may simply see a misunderstanding between us on statistics.

Now, since I am not as intelligent as you make me out to be, I haven’t learned the art of multi-quoting so I’ll respond to another point you make below. Regards, Andrew.

 

[AntiTheist]

I just want to comment on the poll that found 21% of “atheists” to have a belief in some sort of impersonal force (or a god).

I haven’t studied the poll in question, but from what I’ve gathered about it, I think it’s likely that there was either a flaw in the way questions were asked or the way that the people polled understood the definitions being used.

To some people, for example, an “atheist” is someone who doesn’t believe in a personal god. To them, someone who believes in an impersonal god or energy source could be called an “atheist.” This is not the way that the vast majority of atheists use the word, of course, but I could imagine a person believing in an impersonal energy field – like a pantheist or a deist – and still calling himself an “atheist.” It would be inaccurate and kind of confusing, but it would explain that puzzling 21%.

In other words, it might be confusion over definitions or poorly-phrased questions that accounts for these bizarre results, not necessarily “irrationality” on the part of the so-called “atheists” polled.

But to the larger point in question, certainly atheists can be irrational. The only thing that atheists share in common is that we all lack belief in gods – other than that, we can have a wide array of beliefs. For example, we can – and do – differ on the position of the degree of “activism” that’s necessary. Some atheists (like some religious people) are well-intentioned but overzealous. And some atheists (indeed like some religious people) are just plain nuts.

Things like campaigns to ban Bibles in hotel rooms, which Kyiv Andrew mentions, are – to me, anyway – incredibly silly and pointless. Ditto with the “let’s remove ‘so help me god’ from the oath of office!” nutjobs that came out of the woodwork during the inaugeration. As another example, I saw an episode of The Atheist Experience on youtube the other day in which a crazy atheist caller wanted to sue someone over a bumper sticker that insults atheists; the hosts were trying to convince him that his plan was stupid and terrible PR for atheists, which it is.

There are, however, legitimate reasons for atheists to be mad, of course – things like supernaturalists wanting to teach pseudo-science in schools under the label “intelligent design” or attempting to pass laws in this secular country on religious grounds (such as banning gay marriage).

I don’t think you’ll find too many atheists getting mad at “Jesus Christ’s message of Love and Forgiveness” – I think you’ll actually find legitimate atheist anger directed at Christians (and any other religionists) who want to rip up the Constitution and promote religion through government.

 

[KyivAndrew]

The irony of how blind you are to Christian hypocrisy amazes me (since you seem to be an otherwise intelligent individual). Christianity is in our face all day long. All over the television, in our subways, above ground rail systems, buses, street corners, health clinics, supermarkets, I know I missed a few … but you get the point.

Yet we (and by we I mean a tiny minority in this country) say, hey wait a minute, this stuff is merely an offshoot of earlier mythological systems (which it, reasonably speaking, is) – and we’re militants, enraged, and every other insult you can think up.

What this is of course is an attempt by Christian theologians, intellectuals, and leaders (and their army of wannabes) to chill our speech. Why such a harsh reaction to two or three guys who merely do an occasional interview and who wrote a few books – when there’s an enormous Christian propaganda machine unmatched in resources, with an army of people (numbering in the billions), multitudes of intellectuals, TV stations, and everything else you can imagine at its disposal? It’s the proverbial elephant frightened of a mouse.
I
We can’t even take free speech for granted, because the religious would like to take it away from us.

I really disagree on your first point. Tell me where exactly is Christianity in your face in America all day on television and such. Do you really expect us to believe that Hollywood and the all-encompassing American music scene are instruments of Christian propagation? Who exactly in Hollywood is promoting Christianity so that it’s in your face. Is it the morally repulsive grind-house movies, the avant-garde movie exploring incest and attendant complications, the comedy movie that pushes the boundaries of what is considered decent to the point where there is not much more one can push the envelope.

I believe in your newspapers (the NY Times, The Washington Post), your t.v. sitcoms which I wager don’t have one positive Christian character in them, your gory movies where murder and torture are treated as humor, in all of these media, the Christian is not bombarded by any Christian message whatsoever but Secularism, anti-Christian bigotry, and amorality. Hollywood is Christian now? Now, I’ve heard everything.

The secular, humanist, and atheist monopolize control over Hollywood and popular violent music. How does an “unmatched Christian propaganda machine” overpower Hollywood? Rubbish!

How are the religious going to take free speech away from you yankeedoodle? I mean you can come freely into the den of the beast CAF and post whatever aspersions at Christ you wish it seems. Can you provide an example of Christians taking away your free speech? The ideology you hold is basically the same one held by the secularist mover and shakers at the peak of society. Believe me, you don’t have much chance to fear of Christianity starting to get any sort of equal voice in the cultural square as Hollywood. I think you overstate Christianity’s power. It’s fighting for its life in certain respects in the public square.

May I ask you then, yankee doodle, do you believe in Objective Morality and since you don’t seem to believe in God, what do you use to judge between “right” and “wrong”, or are there no such concepts.

p.s. don’t you sleep I hate going to bed in an argument. God Bless.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I just want to comment on the poll that found 21% of “atheists” to have a belief in some sort of impersonal force (or a god).

I haven’t studied the poll in question, but from what I’ve gathered about it, I think it’s likely that there was either a flaw in the way questions were asked or the way that the people polled understood the definitions being used.

To some people, for example, an “atheist” is someone who doesn’t believe in a personal god. To them, someone who believes in an impersonal god or energy source could be called an “atheist.” This is not the way that the vast majority of atheists use the word, of course, but I could imagine a person believing in an impersonal energy field – like a pantheist or a deist – and still calling himself an “atheist.” It would be inaccurate and kind of confusing, but it would explain that puzzling 21%.

In other words, it might be confusion over definitions or poorly-phrased questions that accounts for these bizarre results, not necessarily “irrationality” on the part of the so-called “atheists” polled.

But to the larger point in question, certainly atheists can be irrational. The only thing that atheists share in common is that we all lack belief in gods – other than that, we can have a wide array of beliefs. For example, we can – and do – differ on the position of the degree of “activism” that’s necessary. Some atheists (like some religious people) are well-intentioned but overzealous. And some atheists (indeed like some religious people) are just plain nuts.

Things like campaigns to ban Bibles in hotel rooms, which Kyiv Andrew mentions, are – to me, anyway – incredibly silly and pointless. Ditto with the “let’s remove ‘so help me god’ from the oath of office!” nutjobs that came out of the woodwork during the inaugeration. As another example, I saw an episode of The Atheist Experience on youtube the other day in which a crazy atheist caller wanted to sue someone over a bumper sticker that insults atheists; the hosts were trying to convince him that his plan was stupid and terrible PR for atheists, which it is.

There are, however, legitimate reasons for atheists to be mad, of course – things like supernaturalists wanting to teach pseudo-science in schools under the label “intelligent design” or attempting to pass laws in this secular country on religious grounds (such as banning gay marriage).

I don’t think you’ll find too many atheists getting mad at “Jesus Christ’s message of Love and Forgiveness” – I think you’ll actually find legitimate atheist anger directed at Christians (and any other religionists) who want to rip up the Constitution and promote religion through government.

I can’t agree with your last points fully but the rest: I want to thank you for a thougtful post. Nice surprise. Thank you and if you’ll pardon me, God Bless You! Andrew

 

[KyivAndrew]

I mean you drum up these threads just to bait us in … flower us with insults, then seem amazed when I fight back

I was never good at fishing and selecting proper bait yankee. My biggest haul was a big pike in Ontario. Magical feeling then. I will pepper you with flowers next time. I wasn’t trying to bait anybody in but to learn from Christians and atheists alike and as to what they hold as reasonable and unreasonable from the other side.

 

[josie_L]

I just want to comment on the poll that found 21% of “atheists” to have a belief in some sort of impersonal force (or a god).

I haven’t studied the poll in question, but from what I’ve gathered about it, I think it’s likely that there was either a flaw in the way questions were asked or the way that the people polled understood the definitions being used.

To some people, for example, an “atheist” is someone who doesn’t believe in a personal god. To them, someone who believes in an impersonal god or energy source could be called an “atheist.” This is not the way that the vast majority of atheists use the word, of course, but I could imagine a person believing in an impersonal energy field – like a pantheist or a deist – and still calling himself an “atheist.” It would be inaccurate and kind of confusing, but it would explain that puzzling 21%.

In other words, it might be confusion over definitions or poorly-phrased questions that accounts for these bizarre results, not necessarily “irrationality” on the part of the so-called “atheists” polled.

But to the larger point in question, certainly atheists can be irrational. The only thing that atheists share in common is that we all lack belief in gods – other than that, we can have a wide array of beliefs. For example, we can – and do – differ on the position of the degree of “activism” that’s necessary. Some atheists (like some religious people) are well-intentioned but overzealous. And some atheists (indeed like some religious people) are just plain nuts.

Things like campaigns to ban Bibles in hotel rooms, which Kyiv Andrew mentions, are – to me, anyway – incredibly silly and pointless. Ditto with the “let’s remove ‘so help me god’ from the oath of office!” nutjobs that came out of the woodwork during the inaugeration. As another example, I saw an episode of The Atheist Experience on youtube the other day in which a crazy atheist caller wanted to sue someone over a bumper sticker that insults atheists; the hosts were trying to convince him that his plan was stupid and terrible PR for atheists, which it is.

There are, however, legitimate reasons for atheists to be mad, of course – things like supernaturalists wanting to teach pseudo-science in schools under the label “intelligent design” or attempting to pass laws in this secular country on religious grounds (such as banning gay marriage).

I don’t think you’ll find too many atheists getting mad at “Jesus Christ’s message of Love and Forgiveness” – I think you’ll actually find legitimate atheist anger directed at Christians (and any other religionists) who want to rip up the Constitution and promote religion through government.

Apart from evangelicals espousing young earth creationism and wanting to institute this in their particular state or school, Christians are not out to rip the Constitution to promote religion through government, they are in fact, using their God-given liberties as stressed by the constitution to protect their views and values (as does every other group or lobby). And it seems that the government is the one that seems to be blurring the lines between State and Church in many matters concerning morals.

 

[AntiTheist]

If I can comment on one other thing:

I think that yankee is probably referring to the way that religion in general saturates daily life in America, or at least many parts of the country (and we’re talking about all aspects of life here, not just entertainment). You do see religious discourse a lot in daily life here.

Further, religion still has a great deal of political power. For example, it’s widely believed by political analysts that religious voters – motivated at least partially by a desire to ban gay marriage – were responsible for electing George W. Bush twice. Religion still has powerful, powerful effects on the world.

As I already mentioned, there are activists and people in positions of power who want to legislate their beliefs in unconstitutional ways. In Ireland, to take a recent example from elsewhere in the world, the situation is far worse: the Irish government has actually passed a law making it illegal to commit blasphemy. Talk about violating the free speech of individuals! Luckily, I don’t think even the most creative interpretation of the American constitution would allow such a horrible law to be passed here, but I’m sure that there are religiously-motivated folks who would love to give it a shot.

Religion is still a very powerful force in the world, and it does worry those of us who observe that it is inherently irrational, i.e. based on faith, requiring people to accept claims not justified by reason.

As a final comment, I would be careful about lumping together all remotely progressive newspapers and all of the entertainment industry and labeling it “yours” . It’s a sign of sloppy thinking, of a simplistic “us vs. them” mentality. Certainly, many of those things are secular, or at least not explicitly promoting religious values, but that doesn’t by default mean that they have anything to do with atheism. For example, almost all of the atheists I know dislike gory movies – and on top of that, these atheists I know are pacifists who don’t approve of violence.

 

[josie_L]

Now, since I am not as intelligent as you make me out to be, I haven’t learned the art of multi-quoting so I’ll respond to another point you make below. Regards, Andrew.

Use the Bubble quote (one to the left of the #) and highlight the text you want boxed, however, make sure that when you quote the highlighted text you avoid double quoting, for example,

Now, since I am not as intelligent as you make me out to be, I haven’t learned the art of multi-quoting so I’ll respond to another point you make below. Regards, Andrew.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Religion is still a very powerful force in the world, and it does worry those of us who observe that it is inherently irrational, i.e. based on faith, requiring people to accept claims not justified by reason.

No, I disagree. Christianity is not inherently irrational and its claims to God’s existence are, among many, a) first cause argument; b) the argument from design; c) the argument from morality; d) the argument from asthetics, etc. all point to the fact that Religion can be supported by Reason. (and yes one can find difficulties with each argument but taken together they add up to a reasonable balance of probabilities for the existence of God. Aquinas was not irrational. Mortimer Adler wrote a whole book on proofs for God’s existence which show on a balance of probabilities God exists as opposed to there being no God. His main proof was “exnihilation” which I can explain when it’s not so late.

Tell me AntiTheist, is there such a thing as Objective Morality. If not, on what should one base morality. What is the measuring stick for judging good from bad in the absence of God and His Law. Where does Morality come from?

Do you believe in the Big Bang AntiTheist?

It seems to me the atheist has the bigger hill to climb in disproving God’s existence by explaining how something could come from nothing, is there a “morality” to life, and are all us here simply victims of chance and randomness in the Universe whose existence is mere accident?
Regards, Andrew

 

[KyivAndrew]

Use the Bubble quote (one to the left of the #) and highlight the text you want boxed, however, make sure that when you quote the highlighted text you avoid double quoting, for example,
KyivAndrew;5744598:

Do you see how at the beginning of the sentence there are two quotes in brackets, well makes sure that you remove

in order to multiquote properly.

Thanks josie. God Bless You.

 

[josie_L]

If I can comment on one other thing:

I think that yankee is probably referring to the way that religion in general saturates daily life in America, or at least many parts of the country (and we’re talking about all aspects of life here, not just entertainment). You do see religious discourse a lot in daily life here.

Further, religion still has a great deal of political power. For example, it’s widely believed by political analysts that religious voters – motivated at least partially by a desire to ban gay marriage – were responsible for electing George W. Bush twice. Religion still has powerful, powerful effects on the world.

As I already mentioned, there are activists and people in positions of power who want to legislate their beliefs in unconstitutional ways. In Ireland, to take a recent example from elsewhere in the world, the situation is far worse: the Irish government has actually passed a law making it illegal to commit blasphemy. Talk about violating the free speech of individuals! Luckily, I don’t think even the most creative interpretation of the American constitution would allow such a horrible law to be passed here, but I’m sure that there are religiously-motivated folks who would love to give it a shot.

Religion is still a very powerful force in the world, and it does worry those of us who observe that it is inherently irrational, i.e. based on faith, requiring people to accept claims not justified by reason.

As a final comment, I would be careful about lumping together all remotely progressive newspapers and all of the entertainment industry and labeling it “yours” . It’s a sign of sloppy thinking, of a simplistic “us vs. them” mentality. Certainly, many of those things are secular, or at least not explicitly promoting religious values, but that doesn’t by default mean that they have anything to do with atheism. For example, almost all of the atheists I know dislike gory movies – and on top of that, these atheists I know are pacifists who don’t approve of violence.

Well so much for labeling as you pretty much called all theists irrational, sort of that simplistic us (the :whacky vs. them (the :newidea mentality that you were refering to, I mean for the love of all that’s holy you’re username is “antitheist”. And it’s not my problem that you’re worried for if we were intent on harming people’s civil liberties we would have done so already, and our society would hardly be liberal and relativistic.

p.s. For the most part aren’t atheists liberals and therefore accepting of the present views promoted by Hollywood and the media, i.e., our culture. which for the most part is liberal and moral relativistic?

 

[KyivAndrew]

Religion is still a very powerful force in the world, and it does worry those of us who observe that it is inherently irrational, i.e. based on faith, requiring people to accept claims not justified by reason.

And believing there is no God is just as equally irrational (though you say religion is inherently irrational. Look at my prior posts on societies predicated on atheism and how incredibly “irrational” they were. Atheist Communism took the lives of 100 million people, the greatest violent onslaught in the most violent century of world history. None of atheist communism’s claims could be justified by reason. They tried to kill God and instead killed 100 million men, women, and children. How was atheism rational in that regard? Christianity to a great degree with the Church under JP2 was part of the mechanism that brought that evil empire down. Would you describe Stalin as evil and using what moral framework?

My point is it is much more reasonable to believe in a Personal God than it is to believe in no religion or no God at all.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yankee. I think on this point we are speaking beyond each other. I believe many religious people are prone to hold irrational beliefs. I believe many irreligious people are prone to hold irrational beliefs. The poll in the original OP stated that more irreligious people (which includes atheists) believed in irrational stuff than religious people.

I guess I actually have to explain the simple logic of this issue to you.

If I said I don’t believe Jesus ever existed, yet called myself a Christian, could I be objectively defined as a Christian? If I then responded to a survey and said I’m a Christian, who doesn’t believe Jesus ever existed, and likes to bite the heads of of bats … would it be reasonable for that survey to conclude Christians like to bite the head off of bats?

People who believe in a god, yet call themselves atheists, may be irrational … but they’re NOT atheists (since atheists, by definition, do not believe in god). Therefore, however they respond to a survey cannot be used to characterize real atheists (just as someone who doesn’t believe Jesus ever existed cannot fairly characterize Christians, since objectively you must believe Jesus existed to be a Christian).

That’s it! I am not accusing all atheists of “being irrational” as you aver above but was relying merely on one poll to start a conversation, that’s all! Atheists can be rational as well. Please note I am not engaging in any ad hominems of calling you blinded as you have me.

Wrong again. You twisted a poll to characterize atheists as “irrational” when in fact the respondents (who claimed to be atheists that believe in god) weren’t really atheists at all.

Your last point is not pertinent where you posted “true atheists” don’t believe in a God with respect to the poll in question. Well, of course they don’t. I realize that all along. I’m not sure why you are looking for something ulterior that isn’t there, because “self-proclaimed” atheists were the group being polled (hard to differentiate who really understands atheism and who doesn’t among self-proclaimed atheists - that’s not the job of pollists). I haven’t been avoiding this because I don’t see what bearing it has on my original juxtaposition of comparing the reasonableness of Theism (in our case mostly Christianity) and its followers to the reasonableness of Atheism and its followers. That’s all I was attempting to jumpstart. No smoke and mirrors. I have no where in my posts claimed all atheists irrational IMHO and worry about you looking for an enemy when I am willing to hear you out. You’re seeing deception where you may simply see a misunderstanding between us on statistics.

You were trying to paint a picture and pigeon hole all irreligious people in one group; and then say hey look, this is why we’re not quite as weird as irreligious people (including atheists).

 

[yankee_doodle]

I really disagree on your first point. Tell me where exactly is Christianity in your face in America all day on television and such. Do you really expect us to believe that Hollywood and the all-encompassing American music scene are instruments of Christian propagation? Who exactly in Hollywood is promoting Christianity so that it’s in your face. Is it the morally repulsive grind-house movies, the avant-garde movie exploring incest and attendant complications, the comedy movie that pushes the boundaries of what is considered decent to the point where there is not much more one can push the envelope.

are you from the United States? We have evangelical protestant televangelists, Catholic EWTN, and dozens of other religious views expressed on television all day long. I’m not saying they don’t have a right to be there … although it would be nice to have an atheist alternative television program that exposes religion as myth.

I believe in your newspapers (the NY Times, The Washington Post), your t.v. sitcoms which I wager don’t have one positive Christian character in them, your gory movies where murder and torture are treated as humor, in all of these media, the Christian is not bombarded by any Christian message whatsoever but Secularism, anti-Christian bigotry, and amorality. Hollywood is Christian now? Now, I’ve heard everything.

anti-Christian bigotry … huh? Since more than 80% of US citizens claim to be Christians, I’ll assume your either Canadian or really paranoid.

I think you overstate Christianity’s power. It’s fighting for its life in certain respects in the public square.

It is false mythology after all. As people become more knowledgeable, secularism invariably increases.

May I ask you then, yankee doodle, do you believe in Objective Morality and since you don’t seem to believe in God, what do you use to judge between “right” and “wrong”, or are there no such concepts.

p.s. don’t you sleep I hate going to bed in an argument. God Bless.

Yes of course I believe in right and wrong. I just re-read a portion of your previous post that included an excerpt of your OP article. The author called the enlightenment thinkers, “radical” (with a negative connotation). In other words it seems as if he objects to the values we hold precious today, which sprang from enlightenment thinkers (like liberty, separation of church and state, tolerance, etc.).

So it seems the “religious” ideal of objective morality doesn’t include many of the values Americans hold precious.