But of course he is


Sweden had a mass murder attempt and school killing! The killer, Anton Lundin-Pettersson, walked into a school with a sword and managed to kill two people and wound another two. If only he’d been armed with rifles and handguns, he might have gotten a better score.

Horrible as this person was (he was shot by the Swedish police), he has another distinction: he’s another godless heathen. In fact, his favorite youtuber seems to have been that lovely fellow, The Amazing Atheist.

Indeed, it’s telling that the Trollhattan killer’s favorite YouTuber (if the account attributed to him is really his) was the noxious rager who calls himself TheAmazingAtheist. Lundin-Pettersson subscribed not only to TAA’s main channel but to his personal channel as well, and he favorited dozens if not hundreds of TAA’s videos (I stopped counting). Unlike some atheist activists, TAA doesn’t devote much time to trashing Islam; he’s far more interested in bashing Anita Sarkeesian and other supposed SJWs.

But TAA affects a hyperbolic “mad as hell” persona that, despite its obvious theatricality, seems to be rooted in a good deal of real anger. I can barely make it through a single video of his, and can only imagine the corrosive effect that watching dozens of his rage-filled videos would have on someone’s soul.

Remember when we used to tell ourselves that atheists were such mild, harmless people, unlike those religious fanatics? It was quite a long time ago — maybe a whole year or two — so it might be understandable if you’d forgotten.

Don’t worry! I’m sure someone will be along soon to explain that he couldn’t have been a True Atheist™ because he once babbled something about spirituality or linked to an Asatru web page, or because he was ideologically fascist or whatever excuse someone can come up with — odds on favorite is that he might have been an atheist, but he was “mentally ill”. One thing I’ve learned is that atheists are getting really good at padding the statistics, but somehow the tally always manages to exclude the bad people.

Comments

  1. screechymonkey says

    Funny how some of the same dictionary atheists who insist that it’s ludicrous to suggest that there are any moral or ethical implications to atheism are so anxious to explain how immoral and unethical people don’t qualify.

  2. aziraphale says

    TAA seems to have been a small fraction of the killer’s Youtube favorites. The first page has one TAA and three on Nazi weapons. It’s too much to call the killer an atheist on such evidence – he could be a pagan and go along with most of what TAA says.

  3. says

    PZ:

    I’m sure someone will be along soon to explain that he couldn’t have been a True Atheist™ because he once babbled something about spirituality or linked to an Asatru web page, or because he was ideologically fascist or whatever excuse someone can come up with — odds on favorite is that he might have been an atheist, but he was “mentally ill”.

    aziraphale @ 2:

    It’s too much to call the killer an atheist on such evidence – he could be a pagan and go along with most of what TAA says.

    Jesus fuck. The “I can’t think my way out of a wet paper bag” brigade is already here, and I’ve no doubt all the rest will be as well, including a bunch of fuckwitted “hey, dictionary only!” dudes to set the record, er, straight. I’m too bloody tired to read all the same old, tired shit again.

  4. says

    Lesbian Catnip @ 5:

    Hey man, paper bags are hard to argue with, being inanimate and all

    No need to argue; just need to think.

  5. says

    Are we to assume that the crimes of Stalin and Mao can now be pinned on atheism? This appears to be the direction you’re heading in. You seem to be so disillusioned with movement atheism that you’re going to blame it for every horrible act perpetrated by a non-believer.

    Who has ever denied that atheists can be horrible people? Please, quote any prominent non-believer making this claim. The fact that this man was an atheist isn’t relevant unless you can point to some sort of connection between his non-belief and his crimes. Do you have a connection that is akin to doctrine?

  6. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Please, quote any prominent non-believer making this claim. The fact that this man was an atheist isn’t relevant unless you can point to some sort of connection between his non-belief and his crimes.

    An atheist who believes in social justice would be unlikely to kill people based on race. A dictionary atheist on the the other hand, without a moral compass….
    You do the math.

  7. says

    An atheist who believes in social justice would be unlikely to kill people based on race. A dictionary atheist on the the other hand, without a moral compass….
    You do the math.

    That doesn’t mean his lack of interest in social justice was connected to his dictionary atheism (accepting that term for discussion’s sake). There is zero connection here.

    Can you point to an actual link between his non-belief and his actions? Pointing out that dictionary atheism doesn’t preclude the possibility of racism is not a convincing argument.

  8. says

    he’s far more interested in bashing Anita Sarkeesian and other supposed SJWs

    If anything, Anita Sarkeesian has helped me figure out which YouTubers I can safely ignore.

  9. says

    Where did I say atheism had a causal relationship to these heinous acts?

    I’m saying that the current laissez-faire attitude of many atheists to morality, their absence of any responsibility to their fellow human beings, and their reveling in the total lack of obligation to social justice means that atheism is seen as imposing nothing on them…and they will agree with me on that. If your emphasis on the virtues of atheism is that there are no virtues of atheism (an idea with which I am in vocal disagreement) then we have no grounds for excluding bigots, misogynists, and murderers from our little club.

    Also, that this common trope is now totally dead. The asshole atheists killed it.

  10. says

    Your above point totally contradicts what you expressed in the blog post. You said:

    Don’t worry! I’m sure someone will be along soon to explain that he couldn’t have been a True Atheist™

    You then said:

    If your emphasis on the virtues of atheism is that there are no virtues of atheism (an idea with which I am in vocal disagreement) then we have no grounds for excluding bigots, misogynists, and murderers from our little club.

    You seem to be the one saying that he shouldn’t be viewed as a true atheist. Those who disagree with you are not denying that he is an atheist. You are trying to redefine atheism in order to include only those individuals you deem virtuous. Are you suggesting that we should define atheism according to your values? After all, you and I are unlikely to fully agree on who is/isn’t a bigot/misogynist.

    Do you not see how absurd it is to define atheism as “non-believers who PZ Myers is cool with”? Because that’s essentially what you’re arguing for.

  11. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You seem to be the one saying that he shouldn’t be viewed as a true atheist. Those who disagree with you are not denying that he is an atheist.

    Asshole, nobody is denying he is an atheist. What YOU deny is that atheism can mean something positive, not simply nihilistic, to the the world.
    Which is why you are dismissed as not being worthy of being listened to. Get a moral compass. Then come back with why you are wrong.

  12. Rowan vet-tech says

    Because in James MacDonald’s world, you can’t have different people claiming different things about the same person.

    Plus, the 2nd post in this thread apparently didn’t happen.

    TAA seems to have been a small fraction of the killer’s Youtube favorites. The first page has one TAA and three on Nazi weapons. It’s too much to call the killer an atheist on such evidence – he could be a pagan and go along with most of what TAA says

    See, that’s someone trying to pull the No True Atheist card. And others will try to pull the dictionary atheist card, which directly contradicts that whole idea of being ‘good without god’ that so many were fond of a year or two ago.

  13. says

    “he could have been pagan and…”

    “…could be mentally ill…”

    Sure. He “could have been” anything — he could have painted himself green walked on his hands and stabbed people to death with his toenails! — that’s not important right now!

    What’s important is, this dude went all stabby on people.

    Why?

    I wanna know what made this guy tick.

  14. says

    Asshole, nobody is denying he is an atheist. What YOU deny is that atheism can mean something positive, not simply nihilistic, to the the world.
    Which is why you are dismissed as not being worthy of being listened to. Get a moral compass. Then come back with why you are wrong.

    Actually, PZ said that atheism should exclude misogynists, bigots, murderers, etc. Would you like me to quote him again?

    And I deny no such thing. What I deny is that atheism has to positively alter one’s worldview. Atheism can shape a person’s worldview in any number of ways, and not all of them are positive. My point is that you cannot just claim that someone isn’t an atheist because you find them reprehensible.

    See, that’s someone trying to pull the No True Atheist card. And others will try to pull the dictionary atheist card, which directly contradicts that whole idea of being ‘good without god’ that so many were fond of a year or two ago.

    No, that’s someone expressing doubt that he is an atheist. That is not the same as, for example, saying that Stalin was no true atheist. We know for a fact Stalin was an atheist. It’s not a logical fallacy to withhold judgment on someone’s non-belief until it’s confirmed.

    Also, what on earth makes you think a few horrible atheists undermines the fact that one can be good without god? Who ever claimed that atheists are by definition good people?

  15. says

    Addendum — So far as I can tell, all available evidence points towards this guy being an atheist. I suggest we simply… accept it.

    He probably was an atheist. The issue I have is that some people see this as an indictment of atheism, as though we didn’t already know that atheists can be horrendous people.

  16. devinlenda says

    James M., Indict atheism on the same grounds you indict religion. Come up with a ruler that allows apples to apples comparisons. A popular new atheist argument is that atheism is an absence of belief, therefore can’t cause anything. This is an attempt to preserve ingroup purity. But there are atheists and they have brains and they act. Atheists can be compared to other groups.

    -isms as ideas in heads on the other hand are low-dimensional metacognitive figments and are near useless. You can always exploit ambiguities to your advantage.

    This was an atheist and his actions go down as kills by atheists. If you want to show that group X’s beliefs cause more killing than group Y’s, you need first to show that group X members actually kill more ppl.

  17. says

    You’ve got everything backwards.

    I’m saying you can’t have it both ways: You don’t get to claim atheism is a harmless idea, unlike those dangerous religious beliefs, while conviently excluding murderers. We have to stop pretending that atheism is virtuous in its lack of incitement to do harm while also pretending that the lack of incitement to do good is harmless.

    If you’re going to argue that atheism is better than religion, you have to propose some positive advantages to it, beyond a lack of evil…especially when some atheists do evil.

    Do you not see how absurd it is to define atheism as “non-believers who PZ Myers is cool with”? Because that’s essentially what you’re arguing for.

    I’m certainly not suggesting that my personal favor is the defining character of an “atheist”. Unless you think I’m unique in not being cool with murder.

    I’m also not saying this guy is not an atheist because he murdered someone (I’m actually saying the exact opposite: murder is not contrary to being an atheist). I’m saying that there’s damn little point to advocating for movement atheism if it is so void of values that we’re going to welcome killers, misogynists, and racists to the club.

    Maybe we should aspire to finding values in our humanity. It’s all we’ve got.

  18. says

    James M., Indict atheism on the same grounds you indict religion. Come up with a ruler that allows apples to apples comparisons. A popular new atheist argument is that atheism is an absence of belief, therefore can’t cause anything. This is an attempt to preserve ingroup purity. But there are atheists and they have brains and they act. Atheists can be compared to other groups.

    Atheism can of course be at the root of behaviour. You actually have to show the link, though. You can no more blame atheism for every action taken by an atheist than you can blame Islam for every action taken by a muslim, or Christianity for every action taken by a christian..

    This was an atheist and his actions go down as kills by atheists. If you want to show that group X’s beliefs cause more killing than group Y’s, you need first to show that group X members actually kill more ppl.

    I agree that they go down as kills by an atheist, but that isn’t relevant in and of itself. It’s about the connection between belief and behaviour. Let’s say a feminist kills someone in cold blood. Should that murder be scored against feminism? It’s a kill by a feminist, but is it an indictment of feminism? Of course not. Unless we have a reason to think the individual’s feminism motivated the act, it says absolutely nothing about feminism.

  19. says

    @12, PZ

    If your emphasis on the virtues of atheism is that there are no virtues of atheism (an idea with which I am in vocal disagreement) then we have no grounds for excluding bigots, misogynists, and murderers from our little club.

    Does anyone say that it is a virtue of atheism that there are no virtues entailed by atheism or whatever? I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone do that. If they did it would be silly…

    @Nerd of Redhead, 9

    Please, quote any prominent non-believer making this claim. The fact that this man was an atheist isn’t relevant unless you can point to some sort of connection between his non-belief and his crimes.

    An atheist who believes in social justice would be unlikely to kill people based on race. A dictionary atheist on the the other hand, without a moral compass….
    You do the math.

    Any person who believes in social justice would be unlikely to kill people based on race. James asked for a connection, you failed to give one.

  20. says

    @21, PZ

    I’m saying that there’s damn little point to advocating for movement atheism if it is so void of values that we’re going to welcome killers, misogynists, and racists to the club.

    Ya, that makes sense.

  21. says

    I’m saying you can’t have it both ways: You don’t get to claim atheism is a harmless idea, unlike those dangerous religious beliefs, while conviently excluding murderers. We have to stop pretending that atheism is virtuous in its lack of incitement to do harm while also pretending that the lack of incitement to do good is harmless.
    If you’re going to argue that atheism is better than religion, you have to propose some positive advantages to it, beyond a lack of evil…especially when some atheists do evil.

    Atheism isn’t entirely harmless. I’d say there are very few beliefs/ideologies that couldn’t somehow be at the root of egregious behaviour, no matter how benign they appear on the surface. However, I think atheism is relatively harmless when compared to religion. There are very few ways atheism can inspire harmful behaviour because there’s so little content to it. That obviously isn’t the case with religion, generally speaking.

    I’m certainly not suggesting that my personal favor is the defining character of an “atheist”. Unless you think I’m unique in not being cool with murder.
    I’m also not saying this guy is not an atheist because he murdered someone (I’m actually saying the exact opposite: murder is not contrary to being an atheist). I’m saying that there’s damn little point to advocating for movement atheism if it is so void of values that we’re going to welcome killers, misogynists, and racists to the club.
    Maybe we should aspire to finding values in our humanity. It’s all we’ve got.

    I think the point of advocating for atheism is that it’s far better than the alternative. It leads to less harm, even if it doesn’t eliminate harm. Moreover, I see no reason why atheism has to be defined as something more than what it is. It can run alongside every other cause we value without subsuming those causes.

  22. devinlenda says

    Glad you agree it’s a kill by an atheist.

    But how new atheists attribute causality to religion is the problem. I don’t see a basis for specific claims about atheism, Islam, etc. causing anything. Fair to assume they have a place somewhere in the etiological scheme but it’s mainly, or perhaps only, as post hoc rationalization (you need a story, any story, that lets you do the thing, a requirement that can be met in many different ways). But new atheists learn that a killer said “in the name of God” and assume, based on no coherent theory, a causality that somehow runs through an entire multimillion member group. They do this because it supports the ingroup narrative, which is what religions are known to do.

  23. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I don’t see a basis for specific claims about atheism, Islam, etc. causing anything.

    Read the holy books and get back to us. Those of us who have read them know better. It does cause problems, depending on how much and what you take literally (never mind it is all mythology/fiction).

  24. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I think the point of advocating for atheism is that it’s far better than the alternative.

    Not if it leads to bigotry and murder. You are out of touch with reality….

    It leads to less harm, even if it doesn’t eliminate harm.

    Citation needed or dismissed as self-serving fuckwittery. Don’t preach inanities.

  25. says

    Glad you agree it’s a kill by an atheist.
    But how new atheists attribute causality to religion is the problem. I don’t see a basis for specific claims about atheism, Islam, etc. causing anything. Fair to assume they have a place somewhere in the etiological scheme but it’s mainly, or perhaps only, as post hoc rationalization (you need a story, any story, that lets you do the thing, a requirement that can be met in many different ways). But new atheists learn that a killer said “in the name of God” and assume, based on no coherent theory, a causality that somehow runs through an entire multimillion member group. They do this because it supports the ingroup narrative, which is what religions are known to do.

    It really depends on which claims we’re referring to. In the case of Charlie Hebdo, I think you’d have to work extraordinarily hard to get Islam off the hook there. In fact, I think you’d have to be dishonest to claim that scripture wasn’t the primary motivating factor.

    Israel-Palestine is obviously much more complex. I don’t think anyone would argue that doctrinal differences are at the root of that conflict. There are a whole host of factors, and I’m not exactly eager to assign each of them a percentage for their culpability!

    Even in the case of Northern Ireland, religious tribalism was the issue. Religion deserves a portion of the blame for that fact, but it’s not scriptural. There are clearly certain behaviours that are cashed out by scripture, though. When someone tells us they are doing something for religious reasons and there is a scriptural basis for their behaviour, I think it’s reasonable to believe them.

  26. devinlenda says

    Nerd:
    Explain the conditions under which a brain is pushed toward violence by God texts. Predictions please. Some basic explanation of mechanisms involved.

  27. says

    Not if it leads to bigotry and murder. You are out of touch with reality….

    The fact that atheism doesn’t preclude bigotry does not mean it leads to it. Feminism doesn’t prevent someone from being an asshole, but that doesn’t mean it leads to it.

    Citation needed or dismissed as self-serving fuckwittery. Don’t preach inanities.

    You want a citation for something that is self-evident? I’ll try a simple hypothetical instead.

    We have two books with very different content.

    Book 1: kill homosexuals, treat women like man’s property, keep slaves, kill people for blasphemy, etc.

    Book 2: Ignore the contents of Book 1.

    Which book do you anticipate being at the root of more human misery?

  28. says

    James MacDonald @18,

    Actually, PZ said that atheism should exclude misogynists, bigots, murderers, etc. Would you like me to quote him again?

    Look it’s not really that complicated.

    You are conflating two different kinds of atheism. One being the dictionary style (nihilism and no moral obligations) and the other being an atheism that includes actual morals and ethics and a focus on social justice and feminism.

    Nobody here is suggesting that bigots misogynists and murders should be excluded from dictionary atheism. On the contrary Professor Myers (in the OP) is saying they cannot and should not be excluded from dictionary atheism precisely because that’s what they believe in. We know they subscribe to dictionary atheism because if they had morals and cared about social justice they wouldn’t be murdering people in the first place.

    If this guy was in fact a dictionary atheist (looking that way) then the other dictionary atheists need to accept and own that. They need to face the fact that this is where dictionary atheism leads. They need to avoid latching on to any excuse like “oh he was really a pagan (or spiritual, etc.) and therefore not a (dictionary) atheist” and instead confront the terrible implications of their nihilistic non belief.

    Folks here subscribe to the kind of atheism that is rooted in ethics and morals and social justice and feminism. And we do need to and do want to exclude the bigots misogynists and murderers from our community. Not from dictionary atheism but just from our community of more enlightened atheists. We believe that’s what Professor Myers is saying @12. Those types should be excluded but if you espouse the nihilism of the dictionary atheist then on what moral or ethical basis can you exclude them? Answer: you can’t.

    Dictionary atheism is therefore insufficient because it doesn’t provide the moral or ethical grounds with which to exclude them. Therefore we shouldn’t be dictionary atheists unless we want to be part of a group that will not and cannot exclude bigots misogynists and murderers.

    Clear?

  29. says

    James MacDonald @31,
    The real problem is that books 3, 4, 5… n exist. Including things like Mien Kampf or neo nazi propaganda, far right hate speech, etc.

    Your book 2 doesn’t say to ignore all of that stuff too does it? What good is book 2 if it just says to ignore book 1 but doesn’t say a word about the countless other books filled with harfmul ideas?

    Don’t you see that in addition to book 2 you also need book 3 that says to ignore Mien Kampf and book 4 that says to ignore far right hate speech and book 5 that says to ignore…etc.? You need book 2 plus a bunch of other books.

  30. says

    If this guy was in fact a dictionary atheist (looking that way) then the other dictionary atheists need to accept and own that.

    They need to face the fact that this is where dictionary atheism leads.

    If someone who claims to be a feminist commits murder, do you need to accept that this is where feminism leads? Because that is what your argument boils down to.

    You are taking one fact about an individual and ascribing his worst actions to it. That is an extraordinarily simplistic way of looking at human psychology. You cannot just isolate one fact about a person and chalk up every action to that fact, particularly when there is no evidence to implicate it.

    Dictionary atheism is therefore insufficient because it doesn’t provide the moral or ethical grounds with which to exclude them. Therefore we shouldn’t be dictionary atheists unless we want to be part of a group that will not and cannot exclude bigots misogynists and murderers.
    Clear?

    You’re arguing as though we can only hold a single belief. People are not defined simply by their theological position. I can be an atheist and a feminist, an atheist and a liberal, an atheist and an anti-racist. Heck, I can be all four at the same time. A single concept doesn’t have to encompass everything about a person.

    We are allowed to believe multiple things, so the fact that atheism doesn’t itself provide a moral basis is irrelevant. Other ideas do, and I’m free to subscribe to them.

  31. says

    The real problem is that books 3, 4, 5… n exist. Including things like Mien Kampf or neo nazi propaganda, far right hate speech, etc.
    Your book 2 doesn’t say to ignore all of that stuff too does it? What good is book 2 if it just says to ignore book 1 but doesn’t say a word about the countless other books filled with harfmul ideas?
    Don’t you see that in addition to book 2 you also need book 3 that says to ignore Mien Kampf and book 4 that says to ignore far right hate speech and book 5 that says to ignore…etc.? You need book 2 plus a bunch of other books.

    That wasn’t the argument I was responding to. I said that atheism is less harmful than religion. Nerd asked me to provide a citation for something that should be self-evident. The point of my hypothetical was to show that atheism is less harmful than religion. I wasn’t trying to demonstrate that it cures all the world’s ills.

    I’ve responded to your point in a separate post.

  32. says

    James MacDonald @34,
    Please allow us to rephrase.

    Dictionary atheism doesn’t necessarily lead to bigotry misogyny and murder in all cases. We’ll grant you that. It’s just that it lacks any basis on which to reject those things. It doesn’t provide anything that pushes back against those baser instincts.

    Also of course you can be an atheist plus a feminist plus anti racist plus liberal. But then you wouldn’t be a dictionary atheist. That’s the point.

  33. paulcox says

    If you’re going to argue that atheism is better than religion, you have to propose some positive advantages to it, beyond a lack of evil

    Reliance upon evidence, as opposed to faith, is an inherently positive advantage, is it not? I don’t know of any atheist creationists, for example.

    I’m saying that there’s damn little point to advocating for movement atheism if it is so void of values that we’re going to welcome killers, misogynists, and racists to the club.

    I do agree with this, but with regard to atheism I see no need for a club at all. It may be frustrating that atheism itself is inherently devoid of values, but obviously it is possible for someone can be a terrible person and an atheist. (You make this very point with regard to the killer in this case.)

    I share the sentiment expressed here that the recognition that there is probably no god (i.e. atheism) should cause us to adopt humanist values, including the value of social justice. So I support secularism, humanism, and social justice. But if someone does not share my values, I cannot claim that s/he is not an atheist. And I don’t feel a need to distance myself from him/her precisely because our shared atheism is not linked to any movement in which I am a participant.

    Is there really anyone out there making the No True Atheist claim here?

  34. says

    Please allow us to rephrase.
    Dictionary atheism doesn’t necessarily lead to bigotry misogyny and murder in all cases. We’ll grant you that. It’s just that it lacks any basis on which to reject those things. It doesn’t provide anything that pushes back against those baser instincts.
    Also of course you can be an atheist plus a feminist plus anti racist plus liberal. But then you wouldn’t be a dictionary atheist. That’s the point.

    That’s the basis of our disagreement. You’re redefining atheism for no reason, as I see it. Expanding the definition of atheism to include certain values isn’t necessary. We have labels for those values. Indeed, we can even hold those values irrespective of whether we label them.

    There are lots of ideas and beliefs that don’t fully or even partially provide a basis for civil society, but I don’t think we can redefine them so as to include certain values, and then just stick dictionary at the front of every concept to denote the base belief.

    What you’re doing is in some sense a version of No True Scotsman. For example, let’s imagine some bloke who doesn’t believe in god and also hates women. He says he’s an atheist. You would presumably tell him that he isn’t a true atheist, but merely a dictionary atheist.

  35. paulcox says

    Also of course you can be an atheist plus a feminist plus anti racist plus liberal. But then you wouldn’t be a dictionary atheist. That’s the point.

    I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make sense. I can be a feminist, anti-racist liberal, but if I add atheist, then the dictionary definition of an atheist no longer applies to me?

  36. says

    I’m sorry but i have to step in here. The guy was not an ateist activist, but seems to have be a fascist sympathizer. You are missing the cultural context. He may not have believed in god but he believed in the hateful anti Muslim anti immigrant spew that is brewing in Europe at this time. None of the national medias have even mentioned or speculated about ateism, our right wing nutcases are deluded nationalist and fascists, not Christians. Ateism is not a movement in Sweden in the way that it is in the US. We simply don’t have the problems you have whit conservative Christians. We have secular fascist and nazis instead and they may or may not be ateists. They are hardcore conservative though, but more of a blood and honor type. Labeling him as an ateist may be true but it’s not relevant to this case.

  37. consciousness razor says

    James MacDonald:

    There are very few ways atheism can inspire harmful behaviour because there’s so little content to it. That obviously isn’t the case with religion, generally speaking.

    If it involves rejecting all religious claims, what makes you think it has any less content than religious beliefs themselves? How’s this obvious?

    I’m also not saying this guy is not an atheist because he murdered someone (I’m actually saying the exact opposite: murder is not contrary to being an atheist). I’m saying that there’s damn little point to advocating for movement atheism if it is so void of values that we’re going to welcome killers, misogynists, and racists to the club.
    Maybe we should aspire to finding values in our humanity. It’s all we’ve got.

    I think the point of advocating for atheism is that it’s far better than the alternative. It leads to less harm, even if it doesn’t eliminate harm. Moreover, I see no reason why atheism has to be defined as something more than what it is. It can run alongside every other cause we value without subsuming those causes.

    Note the italics in the original about the movement, as well as talking repeatedly about “the club.” He explicitly said he’s not saying such people aren’t atheists. We don’t want to associate them with our movement (which is not denying their beliefs, since that’s pointless), because as a social group of actual humans working and communicating together we should have much better standards than that — better than none at all. So it’s utterly irrelevant, if you have an issue with “defining” atheism in any way whatsoever, because it’s not about a fucking definition of a fucking word.

    But the fact that you start talking about it as a “cause” at the end gives away the game you’re playing, I think: you understand this just fine. If that’s the case, why blather on like this and argue with strawmen?

  38. Petteri Sulonen says

    The scary thing is that he’s so shockingly ordinary. He listened to the same music, watched the same shows, played the same games as any of us. Xenophobic, misogynist dipshits just like him are a dime a dozen. There were no Breivik-style endless political screeds there, no obvious delusions of grandeur, just bog-standard Internet stuff, seasoned with a dollop of hate-for-entertainment.

    And naturally the very people who first branded the killer as a Muslim immigrant—because Trollhättan has lots of those—are now yowling loudly that it is COMPLETELY UNFAIR AND WRONG to have this reflect badly on “immigration critics.”

    Yeah Europe kinda sucks right now.

  39. says

    If it involves rejecting all religious claims, what makes you think it has any less content than religious beliefs themselves? How’s this obvious?

    Because the burden of proof doesn’t lie with the non-believer. Requiring evidence before accepting a claim does not mean one’s position has equal content. My argument doesn’t actually turn on this point, either way. Feel free to respond to the two books hypothetical, as that engages with my argument.

    Note the italics in the original about the movement, as well as talking repeatedly about “the club.” He explicitly said he’s not saying such people aren’t atheists. We don’t want to associate them with our movement (which is not denying their beliefs, since that’s pointless), because as a social group of actual humans working and communicating together we should have much better standards than that — better than none at all. So it’s utterly irrelevant, if you have an issue with “defining” atheism in any way whatsoever, because it’s not about a fucking definition of a fucking word.

    Then why define it in opposition to “dictionary atheism” at all? You could just as easily say “atheism” and “movement atheism”. You’re not doing that, though. If what you’re saying is true, you have zero need for the term “dictionary atheism”.

    But the fact that you start talking about it as a “cause” at the end gives away the game you’re playing, I think: you understand this just fine. If that’s the case, why blather on like this and argue with strawmen?

    Is it helpful for you to assume bad faith the moment you enter a discussion? Does it generally lead to a productive exchange?

    I’m not playing a game. I’m having a discussion, and I had no idea “cause” had any baggage. I’m happy to use whatever word you’re comfortable with. I’ll go with “movement” for now.

  40. yaque says

    Aw jeez.
    I think a Venn diagram would help
    Big circles: “dictionary” atheism, Christianity, Islam, etc.
    inside “d” atheism: humanist atheism, asshole atheism, fascists.
    a lot of room outside these, but still d atheists who would be apatheists, etc.
    humanist atheism and assholes overlap a bit – TERFs.
    Asshole atheists are of course MRAs, etc. “deep rifts” FTW! and overlap quite a bit with fascists.
    fascists overlap with theists, there are atheist fascists – like in Europe, Nazis, etc., Jewish fascists (boy, do we have them) Christian fascists in the States – Dominionist, etc. and Islamic fascists, ISIL, AlQueda, etc. ( I’m using “fascist” in a conversational sense, I won’t argue with more precise definitions) and of course humanist overlaps with large chunks of theists.

  41. yaque says

    Also pagan, Hindu, and so forth. Also overlapping with humanist, etc.
    The question is who is where.
    D atheism isn’t sufficient to avoid being an asshole and/or a fascist. You need humanism too.
    Movement atheism should exclude assholes and fascists and should tell non-asshole/fascist atheists – d atheists – that to be a decent person you should be a humanist.

  42. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    Reliance upon evidence, as opposed to faith, is an inherently positive advantage, is it not?

    WHOAH WHOAH WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Hold your fucking horses!!! How the fuck do you get from “atheism” to “reliance upon evidence”??? ATHEISM JUST MEANS NOT BELIEVING IN GODS, STOP REDEFINING ATHEISM!!!1!!1!!!!!1!1

  43. Zeppelin says

    I’m an atheist and also a feminist and a humanist and all that other good stuff that I think is part of the ideology of the Pharyngula commentariat’s brand of what I’ll call Movement Atheism here. (In case anyone remembers me, I apologise if I seem to be permanently contrarian. I only comment here when I feel I have some kind of critical contribution to make. If I don’t comment, it’s probably because I agree and approve of the general opinion.)

    And I still think it’s kind of arrogant and offensive for this fairly insular, US-centric ideological group to claim for itself the title of “Atheism”. “A belief system that includes atheism and values of social justice” or whatever is great! It’s better to be an atheist and not an asshole than to be an atheist and an asshole! It’s good to have a well-examined ideology rather than a vague set of poorly examined beliefs!
    But it isn’t “atheism”. It’s an ideology that includes atheism, like, say, communism, and needs its own name. Calling it “atheism” and demoting everyone else’s atheism to “dictionary atheism” is arrogant and unhelpful.

    I agree that A MOVEMENT whose only tenet is disbelief in gods is kind of useless, and this was/is a real problem with many american atheist groups. But it doesn’t follow from this that an atheist who doesn’t want to be part of your movement or accept your labels is somehow morally defective, or in favour of those other groups.
    My moral beliefs don’t spring from my atheism, so it’s missing the point to criticise my “dictionary atheism” for failing to provide a moral basis. I don’t expect it to. I don’t believe in ghosts, but so far I’ve not been accused of practicing Dictionary Aghostism which lacks a moral centre. It’s just one of thousands of epistemological opinions I happen to hold. In my case it doesn’t even involve a *rejection* of religious values, because I was never religious, nor expected to be. It’s not a big part of my identity — my moral beliefs wouldn’t change much if Jahweh was discovered to exist tomorrow (at least then I’d know who to complain to about the state of the world!).

    I agree with your social and moral aims, generally! I’m just not interested in your movement, and I feel no obligation to promote your movement’s terminology. So I don’t appreciate being lumped into either “Dictionary Atheist who doesn’t believe in social causes, probably some kind of dudebro” or “one of us”. And I think many other “dictionary atheists” who comment here and promptly get piled on may feel the same.

  44. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    And I still think it’s kind of arrogant and offensive for this fairly insular, US-centric ideological group to claim for itself the title of “Atheism”

    *headdesk*
    Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk…

  45. tinkerer says

    Zeppelin @47

    Please go back and read the OP again, carefully. And then read all the following comments, carefully, including the ones which explain why “atheism” isn’t being redefined or exclusively claimed. It’s not complicated, it shouldn’t be this hard.

  46. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    Don’t worry! I’m sure someone will be along soon to explain that he couldn’t have been a True Atheist™ because he once babbled something about spirituality or linked to an Asatru web page, or because he was ideologically fascist or whatever excuse someone can come up with — odds on favorite is that he might have been an atheist, but he was “mentally ill”. One thing I’ve learned is that atheists are getting really good at padding the statistics, but somehow the tally always manages to exclude the bad people.

    Meanwhile, of course, what you’re aggressively eliding is that they’ll in large part be responding to theist-in-general and Christian-in-particular insistence that his atrocity OBVIOUSLY stemmed from not having God in his heart, because without God morality is just an opinion and life has no value.

    Where did I say atheism had a causal relationship to these heinous acts?

    When you insisted in previous posts that atheists, as a class, bore some responsibility for the atrocities of specific happened-to-be-atheists. Because that insistence makes no fucking sense otherwise.

  47. says

    James MacDonald @38,
    With respect your presumption is wrong. We would not tell that person that they aren’t really a “true atheist” regardless of how that term would be defined. Rather what we would say is: “you’re a dictionary atheist who doesn’t share our values (ethics, morals, social justice, feminism, etc.) and therefore we don’t want you as part of our community.”

    They would still be a true atheist (of the dictionary variety) but they aren’t welcome in our tent.

    paulcox@39,
    We didn’t say the dictionary definition would longer apply to you, rather we said you would not be a dictionary atheist. Subtle but important difference. The dictionary definition still applies even to those of us who are not dictionary atheists, it’s just that it doesn’t define us completely. It’s only part of the equation. We have to add some important terms to the equation to make it work. Like actually caring about social justice for example.

  48. consciousness razor says

    James MacDonald:

    Because the burden of proof doesn’t lie with the non-believer.

    You said it has “so little content.” Whether or not something has content is an entirely separate issue from the burden of proof.

    My argument doesn’t actually turn on this point, either way. Feel free to respond to the two books hypothetical, as that engages with my argument.

    You seem to assume some form of agnosticism is the correct or appropriate atheist stance to take. However, I believe gods don’t exist, and that makes me an atheist. I’m quite willing to make that positive claim and support it with the evidence I have. I also think quite a few things follow from the fact that gods don’t exist, and those can be supported with evidence and sound reasoning as well. Do you have a problem with that?

    Then why define it in opposition to “dictionary atheism” at all? You could just as easily say “atheism” and “movement atheism”. You’re not doing that, though. If what you’re saying is true, you have zero need for the term “dictionary atheism”.

    The term is needed to describe the kinds of arguments and attitudes you’re exemplifying here. The reference is to people like you, who obsess over the dictionary definition, as if that were relevant or helpful. That’s not itself plain old unqualified atheism, which is disbelieving in gods.

    Is it helpful for you to assume bad faith the moment you enter a discussion? Does it generally lead to a productive exchange?

    I’m not playing a game. I’m having a discussion, and I had no idea “cause” had any baggage. I’m happy to use whatever word you’re comfortable with. I’ll go with “movement” for now.

    If that’s how I see, I won’t beat around the bush. It doesn’t seem like you’ve thought about this carefully for any length of time. A good faith effort to read this charitably and thoughtfully (assuming you haven’t followed these discussions before) would’ve made the fallacy pretty fucking obvious to you.

    And it requires no kind of careful or charitable interpretation at all, just to read the words as they are in plain English, that no claim is being made that such people aren’t in fact atheists. Yet somehow, for no good reason, you concluded that was our claim. That simply isn’t the issue, but the conversation always gets derailed by “dictionary” atheists in exactly this way. If you want to have a productive discussion (about anything), then you do at least have to pay attention to what others are saying. That would’ve been a good way to start, but you’re free to try it out any time now.

    ——
    Zeppelin:

    My moral beliefs don’t spring from my atheism, so it’s missing the point to criticise my “dictionary atheism” for failing to provide a moral basis.

    None of them do? Here are two moral beliefs, for example:
    — I should pray, so that someone will be healed of an illness.
    — I should not pray for that (or for anything else), but should instead do something which the evidence suggests will actually be effective.

    I won’t give away the answer. I want to know if you’re able to tell, all on your own, without my help…. Which belief is consistent with atheism? And which one of them does “spring from atheism,” in that it is a consequence of the fact that gods don’t exist?

    Whichever one it is (if any), do you think I’ll have a hard time finding numerous other examples?

    I don’t believe in ghosts, but so far I’ve not been accused of practicing Dictionary Aghostism which lacks a moral centre. It’s just one of thousands of epistemological opinions I happen to hold.

    What’s an “epistemological opinion”? Don’t you have ontological belief, about a fact (not something subjective like an opinion), to the effect that there are no gods? Isn’t that like any other belief about what does and doesn’t exist?

    Since ghosts are nonexistent supernatural entities just like gods are (practically the same thing, with fewer alleged powers), we should be naturalists and reject all such things (since claiming a thing is more powerful doesn’t give you any better reason for believing it exists). I won’t argue with that, if you think of atheism as limited in that sense. We should also act on the basis of the fact that there aren’t ghosts. We shouldn’t act as if there are ghosts — if you’re going to claim otherwise, please try to explain to me how that’s supposed to work.

    Indeed, the most general claim I would make here is that our moral beliefs should be based on solid evidence and good reasoning. Atheism is not special in that sense, compared to any other belief or ideology. So what? It’s still the case that we should act some ways and not others, because there aren’t any gods.

    I agree with your social and moral aims, generally! I’m just not interested in your movement, and I feel no obligation to promote your movement’s terminology.

    Then why are you here? Isn’t communicating (at a bare minimum) with other like-minded people about the issues that matter to you a characteristic of a social movement? In what sense do you think you’re not interested or not a part of it? What is that supposed to signify to you? Do you think we’re going give you a lot of work to do or something?

  49. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You want a citation for something that is self-evident? I’ll try a simple hypothetical instead.

    Ah, an evidenceless philosopher. Typical blather from someone trying to avoid the real issue. Evidence rules, hypotheticals drool.

  50. says

    @Zeppelin #47:

    And I still think it’s kind of arrogant and offensive for this fairly insular, US-centric ideological group to claim for itself the title of “Atheism”. “A belief system that includes atheism and values of social justice” or whatever is great! It’s better to be an atheist and not an asshole than to be an atheist and an asshole! It’s good to have a well-examined ideology rather than a vague set of poorly examined beliefs!
    But it isn’t “atheism”. It’s an ideology that includes atheism, like, say, communism, and needs its own name. Calling it “atheism” and demoting everyone else’s atheism to “dictionary atheism” is arrogant and unhelpful.

    Yeah, this is a great idea. We should have some separate term for this sizable group of atheists who disbelieve in gods plus believe in social justice. Some kind of short, punchy, explanatory name. Something that lends itself well to a symbol. We should get right on that. And such a group certainly wouldn’t receive any kind of pushback for trying to taint or sully atheism or redefine it or make a power grab by taking over the atheist movement, because it’d be clear that they’re trying to describe something that already exists and separating out into their own group. Imagine how successful this would be, since there’s no reason for dictionary atheists to oppose the idea that some atheists like to go beyond not believing in gods and actually advocate for positive positions. Nothing bad could possibly come of this, certainly not prominent activists being driven out of online circles entirely.

    /snark

    Here’s the reality: in the wake of popular books in the early’ ’00s like God is Not Great and The God Delusion, a movement sprung up online and coalesced around the term “atheism.” They bought t-shirts and branded their blogs and bodies with a scarlet A as part of The Out Campaign. They bought shelves full of books by Harris and Dawkins and Hitchens and Dennett and the like. They engaged in scientific and skeptical and political activism, fighting against school prayer and intelligent design creationism and pseudoscience. They argued with theists online and formed blogs and YouTube channels to debunk religious apologetics. They attended skeptical conferences and argued with accommodationist skeptics about whether or not the scope of scientific skepticism included religious claims. They argued with each other on points of convention harassment policies and Islamophobia and libertarianism and feminism and racism and social justice.

    Throughout all that, they argued that atheists were more moral than gods and believers, by denouncing deities as genocidal thugs and citing misleading statistics about the prevalence of atheists in prison. They argued against the claims that atheistic amorality motivated Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot to commit atrocities, because Hitler was Catholic after all, and Stalin and Pol Pot? Well, atheism has no tenets, no beliefs, and thus cannot be the basis for any action.

    At no point in this process did they see the contradiction. At no point did they notice that all their “atheist activism,” all the clubs and organizations and conventions and speeches and books and so forth that were done under the banner of “atheism,” were really redefinitions of the term. There were a couple of points where it was considered that “atheist” may be a misleading term, but usually because of the stigma associated with it, rarely because it muddies the waters. Identifying as an “atheist” in this particular climate had come to mean something, something beyond just not believing in gods. It meant (broadly) being pro-science, pro-church-state separation, pro-being out as an atheist, pro-skepticism, pro-counterapologetics, etc. They’d tacked on a new definition to “atheism,” meaning not just the lack of belief in gods, but also the widespread movement labeled New Atheism by the press until pushback and age largely curtailed that usage.

    And now, especially ever since social justice-minded atheists tried to break off, tried to form their own separate coailition in Atheism Plus, they’ve been talking out of both sides of their mouth. Atheism is just disbelief in gods, they say. Talking about feminism or racism under the term “atheism” (or even “atheism plus”) is tainting the waters, redefining atheism, trying to push out all the racists and misogynists from the atheist movement. Note that activism against intelligent design was never opposed on the grounds of pushing out atheist creationists like Raelians; note that activism against school prayer was never decried as mixing unrelated politics with atheism; note that arguing against believers was never denounced as an unacceptable redefinition of atheism as an evangelical position, even though all those things are true.

    Atheism had been redefined to describe a movement, and atheists in that movement were perfectly happy to equivocate between atheism-the-position-of-not-believing-in-gods and Atheism-the-movement if it meant being able to stop talking about whether or not conventions should deal with harassment policies or have panels of speakers with more than just the same three old white dudes and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They fought tooth and nail and Twitter harassment campaign and slime pit against SJW atheists splitting off into their own group, and they largely won. They got to define us out of Atheism-the-movement, and a lot of us were happy to let them have the label.

    But if they’re going to take the term, if they were going to fight so hard with so much equivocation for the naming rights, if they were going to say that you can’t do feminism if you’ve got the word “Atheist” in your YouTube handle but by Atheismo you can spend ninety percent of your time shouting about Anita Sarkeesian and the other ten percent shouting at Muslims, then they’re going to own it.

    You fought hard to drive out anyone who might openly disagree with Amazing Atheists and Thunderf00ts and Sam Harrises, Movement Atheists. You fought valiantly to keep hateful, violent bigots in Movement Atheism. So now you get to fucking keep them.

  51. nybgrus says

    The problem is that you’ve long gone off the deep end PZ. I still read your stuff, but find much of it to be just as ridiculous as TAA. Your ridiculous insistence that atheism MUST carry some sort of ADDITIONAL moral and ethical implications is at the root of your problem. Your constant – and rather fanatically seeming – insistence that the “dictionary atheist” definition is wrong is… well… wrong.

    Yes, you COULD argue that “atheism is better than religion” and therefore try and have your requirement that something “better” about atheism be posited, but then you run into the problems you are consistently running into. Atheism is the default state. Just like a-fairyism or a-unicornism. It really IS an empty statement – the null hypothesis. The rejection of claims of theism because the claims are based on really shitty evidence that no reasonable person who isn’t already brainwashed or otherwise compelled to believe in such silly things would believe.

    What to DO with that realization afterwards is something very much worth considering. I wholeheartedly agree that the implications SHOULD lead one towards some form of secular humanism, but that is a philosophical argument not a NECESSARY extension of atheism like you keep arguing.

    So yeah, when people try to claim this sword wielding Swede is not a True Atheist (TM) they are wrong. He is, because being an atheist ONLY means rejecting the claims of theism. What one does beyond that is not and cannot be DIRECTLY informed by being atheist. Christians can be the epitome of secular humanists despite being Christian, just like an atheist can.

    I think your message over the past year or two muddies the waters and confuses people, gives them the idea that yes indeed atheism is like religion because people like you argue that it MUST give some sort of mandate to action and belief. It doesn’t. And you should give some reflection to your angry bitter old man ranting on his front porch schtick that you’ve taken up lately. It has clouded your ability to be a rational thinker and skeptic. I’d point out your inability to comprehend what Sam Harris has been saying, but you are so rabidly ideological on that topic I may as well be trying to explain to Ken Ham that he is misunderstanding Jerry Coyne. But your tiff with Steve Novella about atheism being a necessary part of scientific skepticism is perhaps more illustrative. I argued on your side of the matter at that time. The difference is that I didn’t close myself off as entirely as you have, thinking you are unquestionably correct on these matters and was actually able to understand the point that Novella and the others were making.

    I’m quite certain that this comment will go by either unnoticed or blithely written off. I don’t comment here basically ever, I don’t plan on following the responses to this comment, and I don’t want to waste more of my time trying to write some deeply insightful comment to try and engage you since you have been very effective in demonstrating your lack of skeptical thought and inability to be convinced of things you don’t already agree with. Which is a true shame. I honestly credit you for being the biggest inspiration to my own feminism (I am a male). But when it comes to atheism and ethics and philosophy, you should learn to be a bit more scientific… meaning humble and always wondering how you could be wrong. Your cockesurety smacks of the same repugnant stuff that religionists spout off.

    So if this comment finds its way to your consciousness even for a fleeting moment, perhaps it will make you pause to think. Probably you’ll come back to the same conclusions because, after all, how can you possibly be wrong about something you’ve been ranting about so vociferously for so long? But maybe you’ll end up being prompted to think just a bit more instead of ranting like a crotchety old man in slippers and pajamas.

  52. Gregory Greenwood says

    nybgrus @ 57;

    I’m quite certain that this comment will go by either unnoticed or blithely written off. I don’t comment here basically ever, I don’t plan on following the responses to this comment, and I don’t want to waste more of my time trying to write some deeply insightful comment to try and engage you since you have been very effective in demonstrating your lack of skeptical thought and inability to be convinced of things you don’t already agree with.

    Does anyone have access to the world’s tiniest violin? I think I need to play it for poor, poor misunderstood nybgrus…

  53. Gregory Greenwood says

    Tom Foss @ 55;

    An excellent post. That really does say it all.

    Several internets are even now winging their way to you along the cyber freeways of teh intertoobs.

  54. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Your ridiculous insistence that atheism MUST carry some sort of ADDITIONAL moral and ethical implications is at the root of your problem. Your constant – and rather fanatically seeming – insistence that the “dictionary atheist” definition is wrong is… well… wrong.

    As is any defense of the dictionary definition that ignores the consequences of deciding there is no god in a world run by “godly” morality. Every decision has consequences. You know that.

  55. paulcox says

    Tom Foss @55:

    Identifying as an “atheist” in this particular climate had come to mean something, something beyond just not believing in gods. It meant (broadly) being pro-science, pro-church-state separation, pro-being out as an atheist, pro-skepticism, pro-counterapologetics, etc.

    Thank you for this post, sincerely. It quickly revealed to me what I had unconsciously attached to the working definition of atheism in my brain, and there it was. I have never been part of the movement, but reading your narrative was a mini ‘light bulb moment’ because it became evident to me that I, too, was assuming those other things (science, church/state separation, skepticism, etc.) when they don’t necessarily follow from atheism (though obviously they are linked for many).

    I do not agree with the entirety of your narrative, but you helped me re-examine my own thinking, so I appreciate that. You also helped provide context to PZ’s reference to those who claimed that atheists are inherently less violent people. That seemed like a straw man to me, since I have never encountered such a claim, but I can imagine a person making that claim if one conflated the definition of atheism with things like reliance upon reason and valuing humanism (which, again, I admit to having done).

    It also helps that you didn’t denigrate the commenter by calling him/her an asshole or fuckwit in the first sentence.

  56. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    First off: fantastic post at @55, Tom.

    Nybgrus It takes a lot of gall for someone to critisize somebody else for being close minded and impervious to changing a narrative, when you are simultaneously beating up the same old, tired strawman that sorta, kinda, allows you to pretend you have a point.

    -You are redefining atheism!!-
    -Nope, i acknowledge what the meaning of the word is, and add that put into context of other positions and the necessities for a worthwhile movement involving people, as well as for the consistency of continuing to claim that atheists can be moral without gods, there are certain conclussions that should be derived from an atheistic perspective and included in movement atheism as part of the many values it has promoted-
    -But atheism doesn’t necessitate those conclussions!!!-
    -I know, i just said that-
    -You are trying to take the label for yourself!!-
    -No-
    -Atheism just means not believing in gods!!-
    -I know. And yet, if you look around, the internet is full to the rim with atheists campaining and promoting for certain values, some of them underserving of the title, under the umbrella of that label. And entire movement has been born out of doing just that. Popular Youtube atheists are not sitting in front of a camera and just saying “there are no gods” every 5 seconds on a loop. New Atheism books contain something other than “No gods”-
    -Being an atheist doesn’t demand that i be a feminist!!-
    -Neither does it demand that you oppose creationism-
    -You’ve gone off the deep-end with your declarations that atheism means you MUST be a feminist!!-
    -That’s not what i’ve said, you should learn to read-
    -I agree with your moral positions, but your continued attempts to redefine atheism force me to reject everything you stand for!!!-
    -You are an idiot-

  57. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Tom Foss @55:

    You are the non-violent bomb.

  58. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    And Tom Foss nails it exactly. at 55 Brilliant post, thanks. Bookmarking.

  59. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Gen:

    You can steal my title for the bookmark:

    How the dictionary atheist earned his asshole

    Don’t ask me if I like kippling. I’ve never kippled.

  60. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    I wonder how many e-mails a day Sam Harris gets from people that are outraged about his shameful misapropriation of atheism and his international efforts to redefine the term. Or Dawkins…I bet he gets loads of them…I can picture them “Dear Professor Dawkins, i share your values and credit you as an inspiration to my skepticism and rationalism, but i must say you have gone off the deep-end with your absurd insistence that atheism necessitates vocal opposition to the negative consequences that religion has in our society, it really is just as ridiculous as TAA”.

  61. malleusscientificarum says

    To be fair, TJ is actually heavily against guns. So it seems kind of odd that his favorite youtuber is TAA.

  62. says

    @James MacDonald

    Atheist is one, and one thing only, in actual fact – **One less excuse for blaming your own failings on something else, or excusing them, as being OK, because some “higher power” told you to do it.

    The problem isn’t that this is the reality, its that… it shouldn’t be. Its the difference between what is, and what we hope for. The difference between sighing unhappily, while drinking ice tea, at the poor kid two doors down that doesn’t even have safe water, instead of helping dig a bloody well. The question isn’t whether or not atheism, in some fashion ***does*** impose moral requirements, but whether or not it **should**. Whether its merely enough to throw out one made up excuse for doing wrong – i.e., religion, which lets one pat oneself on the back for doing both good and evil, in the same breath, because “something/someone else” defined them both as “good”, or if, by necessity, we need a rational, and sensible definition of right and wrong to go with it. Whether or not we can make any useful claim at all, about anything, by saying “atheist”. Because, if there is no fundamental difference between having a belief in mythology, and abandoning it, with respect to how we act, or fail to do so, then… what the hell is even the point of arguing for the abandonment of such ideas in the first place?

    Its like trying to make the world a safer place from guns, by making rulse against imaginary ammunition, and people who, when they open fire, yell out, “I am shooting you with unobtanium bullets!” If the f-ing problem is bullets, and your sole contribution to the argument is that people should stop believing in, and claiming to shoot at you with, imaginary ones, what the F use is your disbelief in their fantasies? What is the point of such a movement? Is the world, fundamentally, any different without Zeus than with him? Without Jesus, or with him? Without religion, or with it? If your sole absurd movement is dedicated to ***nothing*** other than denying an absurdity, while addressing nothing else, why are you are better than some dipshit that attends a Roswell, convention, or gets together in some basement to ramble about the details of some fantasy in a comic book, or grand idea from some book author, that has no effect on anything, outside of that basement?

    What, in short, are you fighting for, at all, if, in the end, the world would be no different, in truth, if you simply rid it of the most extreme religious fanatics, or you somehow rid it of all religion? If, in the end, you have failed to make anything better, other than the one, pointless, silly, thing you manages – harassing the moralistic equivalent of some Harry Potter fans, who think “magic is real”, because, yeah, **some** of them had turned out to take this so seriously that they tried to impose a real “Ministry of Magic” over the world. If, having gotten all the “believers” off your damn lawn, the next idiot that comes along decides to impose a “Ministry of Logic”, with all the dictatorial, hateful, irrational, death and dismemberment that is likely to come with it – what have you actually accomplished exactly by ridding the world of Zeus, Apollo, never mind Jesus and Allah?

    Absolutely F-ing nothing at all. That is what you managed.

    So.. I don’t give a flying f… what atheism “IS”. What matters is what it, “should be”.

  63. emergence says

    I think that I’ve already said my bit about this the last time that it happened (and it’s depressing that this has happened more than once), but at this point it’s buried in the old comments on one of the discussion threads. Whenever I hear a story like this, I feel a reflexive urge to distance myself from the perpetrator, or to prove that religious people are no better. You just know that the fundamentalist dipshit brigade are going to be using stories like these to prove that all atheists are evil, and it kind of bruises my ego to think that atheists have a larger number of murderous assholes in their ranks than religious fundamentalists do. I suppose that there are tons of horrible things that religious fundamentalists have done in recent memory, like child molestation, corporal punishment taken to the point of severe injury, etc., but I get the feeling that it’s immature to simply want to regain the moral high ground.

    It does seem like dictionary atheists that oppose social justice and progressive values are hurting the reputation of atheists as a whole, and I think that it’s important that non-religious people take these issues more seriously.

    How exactly should we respond to people who use incidents like this to vilify atheists?

  64. David Canzi says

    I have observed Christians wrestling over the definition of “Christian”. The goal of that effort is usually to impose a definition of the word that enables one group to say that they are Christians and that that group over there — the ones who think the Earth is billions of years old or the ones who worship on the wrong day of the week — are not Christians. And one of the desired effects of imposing a definition is to influence people. People become attached to ideas about their identity — that set of statements they believe about themselves that begin with the words “I am” — and feel threatened if you try to take away a part of their identity. They might give in, and keep that part of their identity by changing their beliefs or behaviour to conform to the definition that somebody is trying to impose on them. Or they might resist, and try to impose the definition they prefer by shouting it louder.

    One of the things I used to think was good about atheism was that we don’t do that. I guess I was wrong about that.

  65. says

    Tom @ 55 – well played sir. I always thought those bleating about A+’s alleged attempt to “redefine” atheism and implicitly exclude them from it had a beam or two in their eyes, as said bleaters invariably came from the New/Movement Atheist camp, which by their own standards effected precisely the same kind of redefinition with their renewed focus on church/state issues, their advocacy for going public and their criticism of anyone meeting the definition of atheist but not identifying as such (a criticism which continues).

    In my chats about this I’ve replaced the capitalised term “Movement Atheism” with “Establishment Atheism™”. After all, many Dawkinsians appear to have stopped actually moving – that is, progressing – and have indeed established themselves in positions where they really don’t (think they) need to anymore (or they see atheism itself as similarly established). “People are talking about atheism? People are happy to conflate atheism with scientific familiarity and greater intelligence? Job done!” appears to be their mantra, while those maligned in the last 3-to-5 years as SJWs (as if there’s some insult inherent in being dedicated to justice in society) wish to continue progressing toward a more egalitarian godlessness (and society in general).

    I’m not about to suggest a rebranding here, because that way lies madness and trolls, but I like to describe my personal position as socially progressive atheism (no quotes, no caps, no branding!) simply because it’s accurate. No gods or scripture to dictate behaviour, therefore decisions about how to live and how to treat others must be made based on available evidence and personal & observed experience of what appears to work best for the greatest number. You’d think that approach would appeal to Establishment Atheists, but, curiously, mention the shitful treatment of non-male atheists at the hands of (usually) male atheists and there’s Hell to pay.

  66. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    To all the people who are so outraged, so disappointed, so hurt about the terrible things that they imagine are being done to the word “atheism”, but who don’t spare a word to decry the rot and filth that is consuming movement atheism, you keep at it, brave soldiers, for that’s clearly where the real fight lies…
    A young man had a view of a form of atheism full of hatred and violent prejudice and these fermented cocktail of ideas led him to kill two people, but make no mistake, the real crime here is that somebody is saying that we should be fighting that view of a putrid, morally corrupted atheism with something better, with actual social values. I know, it’s enough to make you sick…

  67. A. Noyd says

    Tom Foss (#55)

    At no point in this process did they see the contradiction. At no point did they notice that all their “atheist activism,” all the clubs and organizations and conventions and speeches and books and so forth that were done under the banner of “atheism,” were really redefinitions of the term.

    It’s rather like all the racists who moan about the “agenda” to add more people of color to this television series or that video game without seeing that the absence of PoC comes from a white supremacist agenda in the first place. If you’re comfortable in your house, you don’t look beneath the wallpaper or question the composition of the foundation. What’s especially ridiculous is all the “dictionary atheists” who also adopt the label of “skeptic” while aggressively taking the status quo for granted.

  68. gmacs says

    You want a citation for something that is self-evident? I’ll try a simple hypothetical instead.

    Ah, an evidenceless philosopher. Typical blather from someone trying to avoid the real issue. Evidence rules, hypotheticals drool.

    Nerd, I think your opponents insistence on the use of hypotheticals is a sign you have caught yourself a Harrisite.

  69. gmacs says

    David

    I have observed Christians wrestling over the definition of “Christian”. The goal of that effort is usually to impose a definition of the word that enables one group to say that they are Christians and that that group over there — the ones who think the Earth is billions of years old or the ones who worship on the wrong day of the week — are not Christians.

    While those people definitely abound, I’ve been fortunate enough in the past few years to interact with Christians who don’t seem to be concerned with designating other’s as “not Christian” but rather as “hypocritical Christian”. Thus, they recognize a problem without assigning it to an out-group.

    I may also catch flack for this, but I actually like Reza Aslan for the same thing. His point is that he doesn’t find religion inherently good or bad, even though he is himself a theist. He has stated that the Saud family, whom he despises as theocratic tyrants, are no more or less Muslim than he is.

    One of the things I used to think was good about atheism was that we don’t do that [conform to identity definitions]. I guess I was wrong about that.

    Well put.

  70. blbt5 says

    If someone were to commit this act in the Name of Atheism, that would be one thing. Maybe in that case you would have cause for recriminations. But not in this case, or in any other case I know, although it’s certainly possible. So give it a rest PZ. I really think you need some more down time.

  71. says

    73, A. Noyd

    It’s rather like all the racists who moan about the “agenda” to add more people of color to this television series or that video game without seeing that the absence of PoC comes from a white supremacist agenda in the first place.

    I don’t think it’s as purposeful and deliberate as a white supremacist agenda. It’s definitely indefensible, but instead of actively seeking to exclude women and PoC, I think it’s a passive combo of social inertia and ignorant, play-it-safe development/marketing: game studios simply default to white men as their protagonists, making a twin assumption that i) most gamers are white guys and ii) players want protagonists who are reflections of themselves.

    Firstly, i) might be true, depending on the game and its geographical market. FPS games sold in Europe and the Anglophone world might be dominated by white guys – but even if that’s true, why should your majority demographic dictate your creative decisions? Countless high-selling and even legendary games have had non-male, non-white protagonists. There is no need to thoughtlessly pander to people’s cultural vanities if your game plays well. And frankly, if people are challenged by seeing a character that doesn’t look like them, good. Some people need a kick in the pants – and, on a personal note, I enjoy seeing characters that developers have obviously put some thought into. Seeing [being] yet another buff white dude mowing down the evil hordes can not only get boring fast, it can also be insulting to the intelligence.

    And ii) is frankly bullshit – a decade ago, GTA San Andreas was a massive hit with barely a white character to be seen and definitely none to be played. Not that that game didn’t have its own issues, but PoC central characters were thin on the ground in the ’00s and, sadly, still are.

    I shouldn’t need to list all the games/series with female protagonists, a gender option, full customisation incl. race, colour, species etc., or all the games in which the protagonist’s gender isn’t obvious or even relevant. It’s simply bone-lazy to go “Okay, team, new game on the drawing board. Guns, ‘splosions, things dying. So, what’s the protagonist’s name? Steve Bunkerbuster? Chad Fraggemup? Ramrod Titfucker?”

    However, laziness and ignorance doesn’t excuse “default character = white guy” development. Especially not these days, after the zillions of words that have been written discussing that very thing in just the last handful of years.

  72. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    @76 blbt5
    Well isn’t that a wonderful cop out? If ever there was any doubt that “dictionary atheism” is just a way to dismiss any responsibility, you just exemplified it perfectly.
    You know, racism is just the systematic discrimination of a group of people based on their perceived inferiority, but it doesn’t tell you anything about which group that is, and racists fucks don’t commit their crimes in the name of racism, so you can’t blame a racist ideology for being part of the motivations for someone to do something wrong, i mean, really, racism is just this ethereal concept divorced of any real world ties to people and how they operate.

  73. says

    The problem isn’t that this is the reality, its that… it shouldn’t be. Its the difference between what is, and what we hope for. The difference between sighing unhappily, while drinking ice tea, at the poor kid two doors down that doesn’t even have safe water, instead of helping dig a bloody well. The question isn’t whether or not atheism, in some fashion ***does*** impose moral requirements, but whether or not it **should**. Whether its merely enough to throw out one made up excuse for doing wrong – i.e., religion, which lets one pat oneself on the back for doing both good and evil, in the same breath, because “something/someone else” defined them both as “good”, or if, by necessity, we need a rational, and sensible definition of right and wrong to go with it. Whether or not we can make any useful claim at all, about anything, by saying “atheist”. Because, if there is no fundamental difference between having a belief in mythology, and abandoning it, with respect to how we act, or fail to do so, then… what the hell is even the point of arguing for the abandonment of such ideas in the first place?

    Do you have any idea how childish that sounds? You’re like a spoiled kid thumbing through the dictionary, telling your parents that you don’t like the meaning of certain words and demanding that we change them.

    You know what, I don’t like the meaning of nihilism. It’s a depressing concept. It should be more positive, don’t you think? From now on, nihilism will be defined as the desire to give everyone in the world free ice cream. There, that’s better.

    What other words can we tinker with? Nazism is a horrible worldview. I reckon it should be about promoting human rights, kindness, and advocating for things like universal healthcare and free education. Can we all agree on that definition? Terrific.

    The argument you’re making is comical. Atheism is what it is. No one is stopping anyone from promoting social justice alongside it. And if you don’t think a lack of belief in a deity has value, no one is forcing you to promote atheism.

    Every idea you want to spread already has a label. The notion that you can put all of the ideas you personally value into an ideological soup and just call it “Atheism” is ridiculous. It’s the premise of a comedy sketch, not a serious argument.

  74. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    No one is stopping anyone from promoting social justice alongside it

    What colour is the sky in that universe of yours? Are you fucking high?

  75. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    Also, please describe for us the value in promoting atheism as you see it.

  76. says

    What colour is the sky in that universe of yours? Are you fucking high?

    Who has stopped you from promoting the ideas you care about? People are undoubtedly pushing back against certain far left views and rhetoric, but criticism is not the same as stopping you from trying to promote the ideas you value.

  77. says

    Also, please describe for us the value in promoting atheism as you see it.

    As I said in an earlier post, I think atheism is better than the alternative because it isn’t hostage to ancient texts filled with edicts that run contrary to civil society. Moreover, I happen to value what’s true. I think it’s better to have one’s worldview track with reality.

    But even if atheism had no value, that wouldn’t give licence to fashion the concept to one’s liking.

  78. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    Ah, i see, so since i personally wasn’t physically restrained by a mob, you feel it’s apropriate to call the pushback and harassment against social justice in atheistic communities mere criticism.
    Jesus fuck….

    I’ll ask again, describe the value in promoting atheism as you see it.

  79. says

    Ah, i see, so since i personally wasn’t physically restrained by a mob, you feel it’s apropriate to call the pushback and harassment against social justice in atheistic communities mere criticism.
    Jesus fuck….

    I don’t know specifically what you’re talking about. Are you receiving threats?

    I’ll ask again, describe the value in promoting atheism as you see it.

    I replied to this about 5 minutes ago. I’m not sure if you missed my post.

  80. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    Oops.
    If it isn’t hostage to ancient texts filled with edicts that run contrary to civil society, was does it do? How do you get from atheism to “what’s true”? Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, it says absolutely nothing about truth, just about not accepting a particular position. You don’t even have to disbelieve in gods for good reasons.
    I agree it’s better to have one’s worldview track with reality, but that’s not atheism.
    I’ll ask a slightly different question….what is the value in promoting Atheism, New Atheism, Movement Atheism, however you want to call it?

  81. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    I don’t know specifically what you’re talking about.

    Clearly. So i’m not sure why you feel qualified to comment.

    And yes, i did miss your post while i was writting mine, sorry.

  82. says

    If it isn’t hostage to ancient texts filled with edicts that run contrary to civil society, was does it do?

    That is what it does. Not being held hostage to ancient texts has value.

    How do you get from atheism to “what’s true”? Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, it says absolutely nothing about truth, just about not accepting a particular position. You don’t even have to disbelieve in gods for good reasons.

    I didn’t claim that atheism gives you access to a larger truth. Atheism is a belief about the nature of reality that is almost certainly true, and I like having my views track with reality. That was my point.

    I’ll ask a slightly different question….what is the value in promoting Atheism, New Atheism, Movement Atheism, however you want to call it?

    See above.

    Again, it doesn’t actually matter if you agree with me or like my answers. If you don’t think it has value, no one is forcing you to promote it. If I didn’t think atheism had value, I just wouldn’t promote it. And I certainly wouldn’t try to alter its meaning in order to make it have value.

  83. says

    Do you have any idea how childish that sounds? You’re like a spoiled kid thumbing through the dictionary, telling your parents that you don’t like the meaning of certain words and demanding that we change them.

    Right…. Because wanting the thing you are to mean something more than a simplistic, and fairly useless, and very narrow, thing is childish, but doing the equivalent of jumping up and down and saying, “It isn’t, it isn’t, it isn’t.”, like a child who has just been told that, no, in fact, the stove it hot, so don’t touch it, is “adult”.

    Your “dictionary definition” for atheism does not require, in any way, shape or form, as someone else mentioned, “adherence to the reality of the world.” As they point out, you could reject gods because you think they where actually space aliens, or that they where mere spirits, or people with super powers, or, some other category of equally absurd notions, which make them “not actually gods”, without actually making the result any more “real” that if you did believe in them. This is the bloody point – rejection of the idea has certain consequences beyond mere disbelief, or it doesn’t have any consequences at all, and those consequences tend to, as you laughably try to “redefine” the word yourself, “Adherence to what is real”. So.. what.. this doesn’t, by extension, have other consequences? It shouldn’t? The concept of “no gods” just floats loose in the world, and you came by and picked it up, purely, because it “fit” into the little scrap book of “real things” you carry around with you? You are, in short, a child collecting interesting rocks, who just happens to know their real names, instead of making up stories about them?

    Again – if all atheism “should be” is “disbelief”, just what is the point of bothering to collect that particular rock? Purely so you have a complete collection?

    Worse yet, you seem to be one of those “language purists”, who absolutely despise the trend of having, “words change meaning, as they take on different uses”. Why the F shouldn’t we be allowed to change it, if it serves a better purpose than the original meaning?

  84. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Again, it doesn’t actually matter if you agree with me or like my answers. If you don’t think it has value, no one is forcing you to promote it. If I didn’t think atheism had value, I just wouldn’t promote it. And I certainly wouldn’t try to alter its meaning in order to make it have value.

    Quit throwing your immature temper tantrum. You are WRONG, but you are too stupid and stubborn to admit it. Your attitude, which is all you have, is not an argument, rather a symptom of your inability to think through the problem, and the irrational belief that you get to decide the “correct” definition for us.

    I suspect your real problem is that you don’t like being thought of a having real humanistic morals when you describe yourself as an atheist. That is your problem, not ours. You deal with your problem elsewhere.

  85. starfleetdude says

    Given the long-standing anger management issues here, it’s sure hypocritical to throw stones at other angry atheists. Oops, there goes another glass house! The guilt-by-association smear is also duly noted.

  86. HappyNat says

    Starfleetdude @91

    Great point, all anger is equal. The context of why someone is angry doesn’t matter at all. Being angry over police targeting and killing black people in the streets is exactly the same as being angry that a black dude is in Star Wars.

    As for guilt by association, if you hang out and support assholes . . .

  87. vaiyt says

    Atheism is a belief about the nature of reality that is almost certainly true, and I like having my views track with reality.

    It’s a belief about one specific aspect of the nature of reality – the existence of gods. Going by the strict dictionary definition, atheism doesn’t even say anything about whether the parts of the “ancient texts filled with edicts that run contrary to civil society” that don’t relate to the existence of gods are valid.

  88. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    Yeah, how dare people complain that there’s a problem with atheistic communities when there are people promoting a culture of hatred and prejudice, harassment, violence, etc…
    True atheists should look at all of that with nothing but calm contempt and indiference. It’s not like there’s anything to be angry about, oh no…

    @88
    No, that’s not what it does, because that’s nothing. Simply not being held hostage to ancient text doesn’t do anything. What do you do in the absence of ancient texts to tell you what you do? Do you use reason and evidence? That’s not atheism, that’s something else. So by “atheism” you are actually conflating other beliefs, positions and values, like rationality, skepticism, a scientific worldview, etc.
    I thought atheism was just disbelieving in gods, now it’s a belief about the nature of reality?
    Don’t you see that you are adding a tone of extra significance and consequences to merely not believing in gods? Why is it ok to do so for things like the nature of reality, skepticism and the use of science but not ok to do so for social values derived in a framework of gods not existing?
    This is the eternal contradiction….atheism only means what you want it to mean when it’s convenient as a cop out, and when it’s convenient to promote things you value, there’s no issue whatsoever in making atheism something else, with implications.

  89. neverjaunty says

    Tom Foss @55 really did say everything that needs to be said, and did so beautifully. Which is probably why James MacDonald and other apologists for ‘some atheist-plus beliefs are more atheist than others’ will continue to pretend it never happened; they’ve got nothing.

  90. says

    No, that’s not what it does, because that’s nothing. Simply not being held hostage to ancient text doesn’t do anything. What do you do in the absence of ancient texts to tell you what you do?

    I don’t do the things commanded in those ancient texts. Again, that has value.

    Ancient text: “Kill homosexuals”

    Do you see how not being hostage to books that express such things might actually have value? It doesn’t have to be about what you do. It can also be about what you don’t do. For example, not killing people is a good thing. And you don’t even have to move a muscle to accomplish it, which is a nice bonus.

  91. chris61 says

    @96 James MacDonald

    Perhaps for some people being held hostage to ancient texts does has value. If the only reason that those people chose not to rape murder etc is because they fear spending eternity in hell then I’d just as soon they keep believing.

  92. says

    Tom Foss @55 really did say everything that needs to be said, and did so beautifully. Which is probably why James MacDonald and other apologists for ‘some atheist-plus beliefs are more atheist than others’ will continue to pretend it never happened; they’ve got nothing.

    I was involved in several different exchanges with different people. Believe it or not, I can’t post comments all day. There are a lot of people I didn’t reply to.

    While you might think comment @55 is the Mike Tyson of forum posts, I can assure you I’m not ducking it. If I found it persuasive, I would have changed my mind or replied. If it makes you feel better to think I tremble at the sight of it, knock yourself out.

  93. says

    Perhaps for some people being held hostage to ancient texts does has value. If the only reason that those people chose not to rape murder etc is because they fear spending eternity in hell then I’d just as soon they keep believing.

    Said texts don’t tend to emphasize not doing those things, though. Do I really need to convince a blog network filled with atheists that, on balance, it’s probably better not to follow scripture?

  94. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    Those ancient texts also occasionally say useful, good things, so if blank rejection of everything they contain is all you have…
    And just in case you missed it, atheism doesn’t tell you that you should reject ancient texts. There are, in fact, atheists who despite not accepting the existence of a deity, uphold and use them as moral guides.

  95. says

    Those ancient texts also occasionally say useful, good things, so if blank rejection of everything they contain is all you have…

    This is what it has come to? I have to convince atheists that it’s better not to follow books that advocate murder, rape, slavery, etc. The good things you’re referring to are usually better expressed elsewhere, and you needn’t wade through a sea of shit to find them.

    And just in case you missed it, atheism doesn’t tell you that you should reject ancient texts. There are, in fact, atheists who despite not accepting the existence of a deity, uphold and use them as moral guides.

    If you don’t believe in the divine, you’re not going to follow books that are supposedly of divine origin. I have never heard of atheists using holy texts as a moral guide, but I would be fascinated to read about such a thing. Any links?

    If for some reason half a dozen or so atheists actually do base their values on scripture, the knowledge that it isn’t divinely inspired probably takes the teeth out of it.

    Frankly, I find it hard to believe that your arguments are genuine here. You sound like Karen Armstrong. If you came into a different thread and made the same points, do you think the commenters on here would take you seriously? I just can’t believe I have to convince any atheist that it’s better not to follow scripture.

  96. starfleetdude says

    HappyNat,

    “Great point, all anger is equal.”

    The point was that complaining about TAA’s anger was ironic given how one of the bylaws here is that justice trumps civility. If you’re going to complain about how angry someone is while indulging in fits of anger yourself from time to time, the goose has no business telling the gander what his problem is.

  97. neverjaunty says

    James MacDonald @98: Tremble? No, I think you’re simply engaging in the typical tactic of presenting an argument, and then carefully cherry-picking which counterarguments you respond to depending on whether you think you can rebut them. If you meant to accomplish being persuasive, instead of convincing yourself that you’re the Lone Voice of Reason, you may wish to consider whether others find your arguments persuasive. “I’m a busy man! *posts strings of comments*” isn’t awfully persuasive either, FWIW.

    Tom’s point, in short, is that if ‘atheism’ includes such things as advocating as science education, political activism regarding public schools, skepticism, public debunking, then it’s disingenuous to turn around and say “Your SJW belief isn’t part of atheism, because atheism is only about a lack of belief in a god.” Or, as others have phrased it, that some atheism-plus is more True Atheism than others.

    I hope that’s concise enough for your busy commenting schedule.

    Re atheism and holy texts, it helps if you get away from the Christian-centric idea that religion and abstract faith are inseparable. If you are in fact curious, “Jewish atheists” and indeed Reconstructionist Judaism (the joke about which is ‘there is no God, and Mordecai Kaplan is his prophet) are not only a thing, but a widespread thing.

  98. says

    neverjaunty @ 103:

    Tom’s point, in short, is that if ‘atheism’ includes such things as advocating as science education, political activism regarding public schools, skepticism, public debunking, then it’s disingenuous to turn around and say “Your SJW belief isn’t part of atheism, because atheism is only about a lack of belief in a god.” Or, as others have phrased it, that some atheism-plus is more True Atheism than others.

    One of these days, I’ll figure out why “dictionary only!” people bother to waste such a high amount of energy and verbiage in defense of their “atheist doesn’t mean anything except…” bullshit. If I thought that, I couldn’t be arsed to argue about it.

  99. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    @101
    No, you don’t have to convince me that it’s better not to follow ancient texts, but you do have to convince me that has fuck all to do with atheism, if you are going to selectively and dishonestly insist on a particular definition only when it’s convenient to you.

    Have you heard of cultural jews or catholics?

    Or have you heard of the statistics that even among non-believers, certain religious practices, like attending church are seen as good or even admirable?

    Of course my argument is not genuine, it’s reductio ad absurdum. I don’t believe that the rejection of the existence of gods exists in a vacuum, i believe it has consequences and implications with my other beliefs, and when you follow that particular rabbit hole, you eventually get to social justice, just like you get to skepticism and separation of church and state, which by the way, are also social values, just ones that people like you seem to be cool with conflating with atheism, unlike others. You believe so as well, you’ve said as much in other words, but you continue to pretend that somehow, you are not and that you get to use “atheism just means not believing in gods” only when it’s convenient for you to do so.

  100. chris61 says

    @101 James Macdonald

    If you don’t believe in the divine, you’re not going to follow books that are supposedly of divine origin.

    I don’t see how that follows. If you don’t believe in the divine then you’re going to believe that religious texts originate in human thought as all books do and you’re going to follow it if you agree with the thoughts it expresses.

  101. neverjaunty says

    One of these days, I’ll figure out why “dictionary only!” people bother to waste such a high amount of energy and verbiage in defense of their “atheist doesn’t mean anything except…” bullshit.

    Because they need to convince themselves they are superior in all ways – morally as well as intellectually.

    “I’m willing to be a less-moral human being if that’s the price of not believing in a Sky Fairy” is not a position you’re going to hear much, because such an argument would implicitly state that religion is not automatically an inferior moral system. You have to HAVE a moral system to say that it’s better than a religious one. If atheism isn’t the moral system (because dictionary!), then either there’s an absence of a moral system – which is something they’re not going to say, again – or they have a separate, possibly complementary, moral system (e.g. humanism), but being separate, it requires a separate justification and rationale.

    Whereas if atheism is the be-all and end-all of being a morally and intellectually elite person, you have to have some morals built in somewhere. And that’s why they spend so much time trying to square the circle. Their egos can’t admit the possibility that they can be rational and right on one thing (lack of belief in a god) and maybe not on other things (how to treat other people).

  102. says

    Tremble? No, I think you’re simply engaging in the typical tactic of presenting an argument, and then carefully cherry-picking which counterarguments you respond to depending on whether you think you can rebut them. If you meant to accomplish being persuasive, instead of convincing yourself that you’re the Lone Voice of Reason, you may wish to consider whether others find your arguments persuasive. “I’m a busy man! *posts strings of comments*” isn’t awfully persuasive either, FWIW.

    I posted exactly two comments after the comment you’re referring to. That’s an awfully short “string”. I said I can’t post comments all day, so please don’t twist my words.

    Tom’s point, in short, is that if ‘atheism’ includes such things as advocating as science education, political activism regarding public schools, skepticism, public debunking, then it’s disingenuous to turn around and say “Your SJW belief isn’t part of atheism, because atheism is only about a lack of belief in a god.” Or, as others have phrased it, that some atheism-plus is more True Atheism than others.

    You’re asking me to defend a position I don’t hold. I have never claimed that atheism includes those things. Others may have, so take it up with them.

    What I’ve said is that being an atheist is bound to influence one’s worldview. However, it doesn’t inevitably lead to any particular set of values. It’s more likely to lead to certain values, but being an atheist does not guarantee that one will be interested in social justice, secularism, skepticism, etc.

    This whole discussion attests to that fact. You are trying to define movement atheism in opposition to atheists who don’t share your values.

  103. says

    I don’t believe that the rejection of the existence of gods exists in a vacuum, i believe it has consequences and implications with my other beliefs, and when you follow that particular rabbit hole, you eventually get to social justice, just like you get to skepticism and separation of church and state, which by the way, are also social values, just ones that people like you seem to be cool with conflating with atheism, unlike others. You believe so as well, you’ve said as much in other words, but you continue to pretend that somehow, you are not and that you get to use “atheism just means not believing in gods” only when it’s convenient for you to do so.

    You’re not describing a position I hold. Other people may have said that atheism inevitably leads to particular beliefs, but I didn’t. I’m not going to sit here and defend someone else’s views. I’ll just copy and paste part of my previous comment.

    What I’ve said is that being an atheist is bound to influence one’s worldview. However, it doesn’t inevitably lead to any particular set of values. It’s obviously more likely to lead to certain values, but being an atheist does not guarantee that one will be interested in social justice, secularism, skepticism, etc.

    I agree with you that atheism has consequences. I’m simply pointing out that there are no necessary consequences.

    That’s probably a good note to end on. I’m not promising I won’t reply to any more posts because I know what I’m like. However, I hope you won’t mind if jump out of the thread at this point. Cheers for the discussion.

  104. neverjaunty says

    I posted exactly two comments after the comment you’re referring to.

    #79, #82, #83, #85, #88 before my comment at #95. Are we using a non-Euclidean counting system?

    but being an atheist does not guarantee that one will be interested in social justice, secularism, skepticism, etc.

    Nobody has claimed it did. Indeed, the empirical evidence is that plenty of atheists are actively hostile to, for example, social justice issues.

    There are really two separate arguments going on. One, which was PZ’s original point, is that there is no point to atheism if all it is, is saying “there is no god”; that’s an absence of opinion, no more significant than being wholly uninterested in football. The other, which is a corollary from the comments, is that mainstream ‘movement atheism’ is profoundly hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, rushing to embrace particular moral and ethical viewpoints (STEM education good! prayer in schools bad!), but rejecting others on the pretense that atheism isn’t about morality or ethics.

    And for all your insistence that you simply see atheism as nonbelief, you keep sticking your toes over that line too. Atheism isn’t a worldview about how ‘reality is’ overall; as was pointed out, it’s a view about a particular element of reality. Atheism isn’t about slicing and dicing the actions of murders to determine whether atheism ‘really’ motivated their beliefs.

  105. says

    #79, #82, #83, #85, #88 before my comment at #95. Are we using a non-Euclidean counting system?

    No, I posted two comments after I replied to you and said I couldn’t post comments all day. That’s what I was referring to (#99, #101).

    And for all your insistence that you simply see atheism as nonbelief, you keep sticking your toes over that line too. Atheism isn’t a worldview about how ‘reality is’ overall; as was pointed out, it’s a view about a particular element of reality. Atheism isn’t about slicing and dicing the actions of murders to determine whether atheism ‘really’ motivated their beliefs.

    I can’t keep responding to the same things over and over. I’m not sticking my toes over any line. Atheism is simply non-belief, but it’s obviously still going to influence your worldview. It just isn’t going to lead you in any particular direction. Because it does not guarantee that one will hold any particular set of values, you cannot define atheism as non-belief plus values a, b, c, and d. That has always been my point.

    I have also never said that atheism is a worldview about reality overall. I said it’s a belief about the nature of reality. I thought that was clear, but let me be more clear. When I said “a belief” that’s exactly what I meant. It’s a single belief.

    Alright, I’m going to try and drag myself away from the discussion now. Thanks for the lively debate.

  106. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    Inevitably, necessarily….those words, those words are where the trick is. Nobody is saying inevitably, or necessarily, except the people wailing about how others are trying to redefine words, even though they aren’t. It’s fine to suggest that whithin an atheistic framework, things like skepticism, rationalism, etc, can work, make sense and have value, that whithin atheistic communities, working for education, church-state separation, etc, are good goals, oh, we all get behind that, oh yes, no problems, but when it’s suggested that social justice fits as well, and that it is in fact needed for ANY movement, suddenly the words inevitably and necessarily appear to dismiss the conexion because it is neither. And instead of considering the value of such a thing, or even engaging in any way, there is much wailing and gnassing of teeth because of how not inevitable that conclussion is and therefore how nobody has to listen or consider anything because atheism just means *fingers in ears* na na na na na na na na naaaaaaaa

  107. says

    If one of these dictionary atheists would ever actually crack their Webster’s holy book, they might find that words often have multiple definitions and connotations.

  108. says

    Tom Foss @ 113:

    If one of these dictionary atheists would ever actually crack their Webster’s holy book, they might find that words often have multiple definitions and connotations.

    Oh now, can’t have that. Actually cracking The Most Holy Book™ might lead a person to The Incredibly Heretical Book of Words™, sometimes known as a thesaurus. Who knows where that might lead?

  109. HappyNat says

    @starfeeetdude@ 102

    The point was that complaining about TAA’s anger was ironic given how one of the bylaws here is that justice trumps civility. If you’re going to complain about how angry someone is while indulging in fits of anger yourself from time to time, the goose has no business telling the gander what his problem is

    What is TAA angry about? What are people on FTB angry about? That’s the point. Look up righteous anger. Oppressed people have the right to be angry and should be angry.

  110. says

    starfeeetdude @ 102:

    The point was that complaining about TAA’s anger was ironic given how one of the bylaws here is that justice trumps civility. If you’re going to complain about how angry someone is while indulging in fits of anger yourself from time to time, the goose has no business telling the gander what his problem is

    This tit for tat you’re trying to play is very silly. Anger doesn’t stem from or exist in a void. There’s a reason someone is angry. You can take two people who are angry about the same situation, yet the direction of their anger is completely different. One person is angry and directs that energy into a resolve for change; one person is angry and directs that energy into whipping up a mob of angry people. One person is angry about a lack of harassment policies at cons and writes about the issue, campaigns to institute policy; one person is angry over the need for harassment policies, thinks the need is only perceived by professional victims, instigates a harassment campaign to silence the person.

    All that has been seen, more than once. If you use your anger to damage and silence other people, you have no claim to the high road. No road at all, really. The emotion of anger might be equal, so to speak, but what people choose to do with it is not.

  111. zenlike says

    James MacDonald

    If you don’t believe in the divine, you’re not going to follow books that are supposedly of divine origin. I have never heard of atheists using holy texts as a moral guide, but I would be fascinated to read about such a thing. Any links?

    No links but a couple of years ago there was some brouhaha in the protestant community of the Netherlands, over some pastor who was an atheist, but still thought the values shown by (liberal) christianity were good and the bible was some nice stories which explained these values.

    I of course think this pastor is wrong, but by all dictionary definitions, this guy is an atheist.

    So yeah, if you really think atheism directly implies:

    This is what it has come to? I have to convince atheists that it’s better not to follow books that advocate murder, rape, slavery, etc. The good things you’re referring to are usually better expressed elsewhere, and you needn’t wade through a sea of shit to find them.

    and

    I just can’t believe I have to convince any atheist that it’s better not to follow scripture.

    Then congratulations, you are not a dictionary atheist.

  112. says

    Tom@113

    If one of these dictionary atheists would ever actually crack their Webster’s holy book, they might find that words often have multiple definitions and connotations.

    Such heresy. It’s the Oxford English or you may as well be speaking Klingon!

  113. consciousness razor says

    I can’t keep responding to the same things over and over. I’m not sticking my toes over any line. Atheism is simply non-belief, but it’s obviously still going to influence your worldview. It just isn’t going to lead you in any particular direction.

    Ridiculous. If it influences a person, that’s leading them in a particular direction, instead of some alternative direction. You presumably mean it won’t necessarily compel you to have a specific set of views, not that it somehow influences you into having ones which are indefinite or ones which encompass mutually exclusive possibilities. That is, to put it simply, if it influences you, then it influences you to something like a view A, not the views A and not-A at the same time. Nor does it make sense to say it’s influencing you in some other way, but into having no coherent view at all.

    However, you are compelled in a limited sense, on pain of irrationality or immorality, to have a specific set of views given specific facts. This is not an empirical claim that there are no atheists who are irrational or immoral (or that definitionally they’re not atheists), since being compelling in this way is not any kind of a “guarantee” that anyone necessarily or inevitably thinks and acts accordingly.

    It is a claim that they’re making a mistake, which could be corrected, if they’re not lead in an appropriate direction, by what follows from the fact that gods don’t exist. It’s not about their identity as an atheist or what their beliefs are, but that they are mistaken, haven’t understood something, haven’t thought about the implications of their beliefs carefully enough, and so forth. This is not something you could rule out, by appealing to a fucking definition, and I can’t imagine any good reason why you would want to.

    Because it does not guarantee that one will hold any particular set of values, you cannot define atheism as non-belief plus values a, b, c, and d. That has always been my point.

    Since we cannot do it, you must* understand that you’re complaining about something that hasn’t been (and can’t be) done. Since nobody has attempted that, nor do they even want to begin trying, making this point of yours has been a total waste of time and a total distraction from the actual issue at hand.

    *Notice that it isn’t literally necessary, but you’ve been equivocating like this, so why don’t the rest of us do it too? Anyway, there can be people, like you perhaps, who don’t understand all sorts of things. So, it is not that there must not be people like you. It means that a rational person should be able to do that, and if they fail to do so, they can be criticized for it.

    Atheists, like anyone else, can be criticized for being irrational or immoral. That seems to be the problem some people have: they personally don’t want to be told they’re wrong. Or they’re sometimes even more disingenuous about it, claiming it’ll hurt the movement somehow if we criticize each other, while at the same claiming the definition of “atheism” doesn’t itself tell us any of that (as if it was supposed to) and that they don’t care about being part of a social movement anyway. In other words, they’ve got nothing in the form of a coherent defense. It’s just a huge pile of bullshit.

  114. says

    starfleetdude@102

    The point was that complaining about TAA’s anger was ironic given how one of the bylaws here is that justice trumps civility. If you’re going to complain about how angry someone is while indulging in fits of anger yourself from time to time, the goose has no business telling the gander what his problem is

    Then the point misses the point entirely.

    If you think people here object to TAA’s anger in and of itself then you’ve badly misread the situation. People object to TAA’s anger when and if it’s disproportionate and/or misdirected (which, over the last few years, it frequently is). His petulant, adolescent raging against the straw-feminists he constructs is a good example of misplaced OTT anger; people here getting angry at misogynists, fundamentalists and the infinite varieties of backward idiocy that threaten or delay equality is not.

    In this case, the goose has every right to pull the gander up on his factually-challenged, self-serving honking.

  115. consciousness razor says

    Sorry, I leave out (or edit out) important words sometimes. Feels like it happens a lot….

    claiming it’ll hurt the movement somehow if we criticize each other, while at the same [time] claiming the definition

  116. madscientist says

    Although it’s good to be godless it is unfortunate that there’s nothing in nature to compel the godless to be good. Like any large population you can expect its share of rats.

  117. chigau (違う) says

    starfleetdude #102
    …given how one of the bylaws here is that justice trumps civility…
    Have you read the current Commenting Rules?
    There is a link on the sidebar, in PZ’s PROFILE frame.

  118. Jeff W says

    …there’s nothing in nature to compel the godless to be good. Like any large population you can expect its share of rats.

    Well, considering that rats, presumably godless, will forgo gorging on a pile of chocolate chips to help their distressed companions 50–80% of the time, I’m not so sure about “nothing in nature” (and maybe having some share of rats isn’t so bad).

  119. says

    James MacDonald @79:

    Atheism is what it is.

    And when did atheism become not believing in god PLUS:
    -fighting against religious intrusions into education
    -fighting to keep religion out of politics
    -advocating for proper science education.

    As others have said, none of that automatically flows from atheism, yet plenty of atheists are fine advocating for those positions. Why is it ok to support the adding on of those positions, but not social justice positions?

    @83:

    But even if atheism had no value, that wouldn’t give licence to fashion the concept to one’s liking

    So you go to Harris’ forum and Dawkins’ forum and argue against their promotion of ideas that have been added on to atheism, I take it?

  120. says

    General musing: what the actual fuck is people’s actual problem with attaching things to atheism? Dawkins, among many others, attached scientific literacy; Dennett attached secular philosophy; Harris attached morality and hypotheticals about Islamist evildoers with ticking rape-bombs; Hitchens attached excellent debating skills, whisky and Stephen Fry; Phil Mason attached being a dick; TAA attached being a huge dick. Nobody batted a fucking lash. Jen McCreight softly suggests “why not atheism plus giving a fuck about women, PoC and other under-represented groups within atheism?” and all of a sudden, atheism is ONLY non-belief and how dare you redefine it and take it away and put us in camps if we’re not on board with your Feminazi Bralek agenda and hey, let’s hound Jen until she leaves the internet.

    Ah. I see. It’s only when the attachment-to-atheism highlights any sort of privilege and requires people at least acknowledge it (much less do anything about it). That sort of thing makes the chaps uncomfortable and we jolly well can’t have that.

  121. erik333 says

    @119 consciousness razor
    25 October 2015 at 7:35 pm

    Atheism is simply non-belief, but it’s obviously still going to influence your worldview. It just isn’t going to lead you in any particular direction.

    Ridiculous. If it influences a person, that’s leading them in a particular direction, instead of some alternative direction.

    Except atheism isn’t “leading” you anywhere. Whatever values you happen to hold might lead you somewhere, atheism won’t. Realising that arguments based on the existence of one god or another are unsound frees your mind to some extent (if you were previously religious), that’s all the good it does. By rejecting particular religious dogma you previously were likely to follow it might appear as if there was a direction atheism leads you, but that direction would simply vary according to sect, not flow from atheism.

    This does not however necessarily lack value, as certain religious dogma is particularly dangerous (e.g. the existence of heaven and hell) and freeing minds from the joke of religion might make them more accepting of reason as informing their opinion rather than perceived authorities. Of course, it might be true that the human ape in general is too stupid or irrational for this tactic of promoting godlessness to work out in our favour. But I’ve seen little to suggest that religiousity makes for better societies as a rule.

  122. A. Noyd says

    Hank_Says (#77)

    I don’t think it’s as purposeful and deliberate as a white supremacist agenda.

    I think that’s a bit naive. Look at casting calls where, in movie after movie and TV show after TV show, PoC aren’t even allowed to audition for main roles. Look at the excuses game designers spout when called on their lack of diversity (some of which you’ve brought up). That’s all deliberate.

    I’m not talking only about organized white supremacist activism, like the KKK, mind you—though their past efforts have helped shape the present state of things. I’m talking about the everyday white supremacism that infects our societies at every level. It was deliberate before and it’s still deliberate now. It’s just that the white supremacist agenda has been around so long that we can continue to carry it out without intentional malice on our own parts.

    Anyway, the point is, people who are comfortable with how things are tend to completely overlook that “how things are” is in no way accidental or neutral.

  123. A. Noyd says

    James MacDonald (#111)


    Atheism is simply non-belief, but it’s obviously still going to influence your worldview. It just isn’t going to lead you in any particular direction.

    Except back in #101 you said “This is what it has come to? I have to convince atheists that it’s better not to follow books that advocate murder, rape, slavery, etc.” If you really meant atheism “isn’t going to lead you in any particular direction” then you wouldn’t find it at all contrary or remarkable for atheists to “follow books that advocate murder, rape, slavery, etc.”

    But you do find it contrary because you, yourself, do think atheism should lead people in a particular direction—ie. away from following books with nasty morals. Otherwise why say that? Now wise up and quit trying to have it both ways.

  124. starfleetdude says

    Hank_Says, I guess your point is that anger is o.k. when you’re right, and not o.k. when you’re wrong. My point is that it doesn’t matter whether you’re right or wrong or not, because anger provokes anger in return and is generally toxic to rational argument.

  125. axxyaan says

    Tony! The Queer Shoop @126

    There is a difference between (a number of) atheists are fine advocating some cause and atheism somehow implying such a cause. A whole number of theists are also fine advocating against religious intrusions into education, fighting to keep religion out of politics and advocating for proper science education. It doesn’t mean that theism is more than just the belief in a god.

  126. consciousness razor says

    erik333:

    Except atheism isn’t “leading” you anywhere. Whatever values you happen to hold might lead you somewhere, atheism won’t.

    How do you think you know anything like that? Where do you get such information? Is there any evidence or reasoning whatsoever, that’s meant to support it? Or is this just supposed to be “common sense” or “self-evident” somehow?

    Where do you think “values” come from? Is it magic? Do they fall out of the sky? Analyze it for me a bit, tell me a story about it, whatever works for you. Since you apparently think you know the answer already, just try sharing that with me so I can understand it.

    Realising that arguments based on the existence of one god or another are unsound frees your mind to some extent (if you were previously religious), that’s all the good it does.

    I’m not talking about rejecting arguments or freeing my mind. Gods don’t exist. That’s a fact, that reality is a certain way, and it is generally good to know such things, since we can act accordingly and better predict what effects our actions will have. That’s a good it does, so you didn’t mention all the good it does.

    By rejecting particular religious dogma you previously were likely to follow

    I don’t think I was ever likely to be a religious believer. For whatever reason, religions were very suspicious to me from an early age. And dogmatism more generally isn’t my thing either. Perhaps that’s unimportant, but perhaps clearing up wrong assumptions like this could be helpful for you. I can tell you that the life story you invented for me hasn’t been accurate so far.

    it might appear as if there was a direction atheism leads you, but that direction would simply vary according to sect, not flow from atheism.

    No it wouldn’t, because it’s not about various sects.

    Look, if you believed Earth had two moons made of different cheeses, you would obviously be wrong. What follows from the fact that Earth does have one rocky moon? That’s the sort of question we ought to be asking here, and lots of fucking things do follow from that fact. Different sects, with varying beliefs about the number of moons or the kinds of cheese, might have been influential in society, and we do have to cope with and respond to that somehow. But they are not relevant, in terms of the logical and physical consequences of the actual world we live in, which has actual properties and entities that exist in it. If those sects weren’t around, we would still have such facts about the actual world to contend with.

    There are no things that fit any description of any god; that is a fact about the world, independently of whatever any person happens to believe or not believe. So, we should not act like there are gods, whatever kinds of actions those may be, given what human beings might consider if there were such things. That makes it utterly ordinary as a moral claim, not at all unusual, because if it were not about the world we live in (based on actual, concrete facts about it) then I don’t know how any such thing could be a genuine moral claim in the first place.

    Maybe you’d want to say it’s somehow about a lack of a fact — the strategy is to make the fundamental claim of atheism seem as empty as possible, so you can try to argue that nothing follows from it. (But since many examples have already been given and have never been addressed, it’s hard to see how this is going anywhere useful.) What exactly would you say about the fact that Earth has one moon instead of two? Do we merely lack evidence about the second nonexistent moon, because it’s nonexistent? That seems like an awfully big and unwarranted leap to make. What about the “first” one, which for example doesn’t have an orbit consistent with an extra moon? Aren’t those facts related? Do we have everything we need to make a coherent and positive claim about the way reality is, even about things that don’t exist when they would have very noticeable effects? I think we do. But give me a reason to think otherwise, instead of just asserting otherwise. Do we for some reason have to play a weird agnostic, accomodationist, bullshitter rhetorical game, where we just avoid saying anything coherent to hide from criticism? Or what exactly are you trying to tell me?

  127. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    My point is that it doesn’t matter whether you’re right or wrong or not, because anger provokes anger in return and is generally toxic to rational argument.

    Righteous anger is good. Anger to keep people down is bad. What people like you pretend is that subjects can only be discussed in a Vulcan manner, Doesn’t work, as there are people who are polite, without anger, but their words are toxic due to the content.
    The most toxic people in discussions are those using the Vulcan like method, as they think they can say anything as long as they are polite. WRONG.

  128. axxyaan says

    @consciousness razor #119

    I can’t keep responding to the same things over and over. I’m not sticking my toes over any line. Atheism is simply non-belief, but it’s obviously still going to influence your worldview. It just isn’t going to lead you in any particular direction.

    Ridiculous. If it influences a person, that’s leading them in a particular direction, instead of some alternative direction. You presumably mean it won’t necessarily compel you to have a specific set of views, not that it somehow influences you into having ones which are indefinite or ones which encompass mutually exclusive possibilities.

    But it is begging the question that it is the atheism that is influencing or leading a person in a particular direction. My atheism is descriptive, not prescriptive in anyway. There is no particulare direction I have taken myself or that I have seen taken by other atheists, that can’t be taken by a theist, with the sole execption being the lack of belief in God. So if theist can be a social justice warriors just like atheist can, in what way is this social justice activism being atheistic? Are you claiming that most atheist social activists would be somehow indifferent or fighting against social progress should they have turned out theists instead of atheists?

  129. axxyaan says

    @consciousness razor #133

    I haven’t seen anything that follows from atheism. Just as there doesn’t follow anything from theism. Theism doesn’t tell you anything on how to behave, that depends on how it is filled in by the specific religion. And so neither does atheism tell you anything on how to behave, that depends on what others things you find important.

    If you find equal rights for man and women important you will more likely support feminism and be a feminist activist. However I don’t see how you will get there from atheism. I have never seen an arguments that boils down to something like: Sure if there was a god, we should oppress the women, but because there isn’t we shouldn’t. The sentiment I encounter mostly among feminist atheists is that even should a god exist, we shouldn’t oppress women and when god would demand the oppression of women, we shouldn’t obey him. So how does equal rights follow from atheism? Or do you think these atheists are wrong and should we find out that a god exists that demands the oppression of women that we should obey him/her?

  130. consciousness razor says

    But it is begging the question that it is the atheism that is influencing or leading a person in a particular direction.

    It’s not circular. It would be an empirical fact, and I’m allowed to mention it as such, since to me it appears to be the case.

    My atheism is descriptive, not prescriptive in anyway. There is no particulare direction I have taken myself or that I have seen taken by other atheists, that can’t be taken by a theist, with the sole execption being the lack of belief in God.

    Slow down and back up for a minute. What exactly would you include or exclude from the claims “a god exists” or “gods don’t exist”?

    If I said “we should pray for their souls,” intending it to have to some real moral significance, would you conclude that I’m a theist or an atheist? Or if I said “kill them all and let god sort them out,” what would be your conclusion then? Or “god will forgive them.” Or “god intended it to be this way.” Or “god has a plan.” Or countless other claims, which depend on the claim that a god exists.

    Have you thought about anything like these at all? Or are you only thinking of “god exists,” in isolation from claims that depend on it? Because ignoring all of those would indeed be circular, or fallacious in another way depending on how you actually addressed them. But you didn’t even try to address them, much less tell me anything substantial about them.

    So if theist can be a social justice warriors just like atheist can, in what way is this social justice activism being atheistic?

    I’m not sure social justice is atheistic, because like you said some theists care about it too, in ways that are consistent with theism. That seems to be because much of it follows from things that are apparently independent of both, since religions don’t dominate literally every aspect of society. However, atheism is still relevant to many fundamental moral issues, some of which do inform “social justice” activism.

    The claim has been, as you just repeated it, that there are no moral implications of atheism whatsoever. That would make it a very peculiar sort of fact, since basically every other fact we could ever know at least has the potential to be significant to us in all sorts of ways, including being morally significant. Anyway, if we could get past a huge hurdle like that, if dictionary atheists gave up their bullshit dogmas, then maybe a real discussion could be had about what legitimately is atheistic and not atheistic. But we’re not all there yet, because it’s always sidetracked by a lot of nonsense.

    Are you claiming that most atheist social activists would be somehow indifferent or fighting against social progress should they have turned out theists instead of atheists?

    No. If the world were different than it is, in any number of ways, we might have different ideas about what justice is and how best to secure it. That doesn’t imply anyone would be indifferent or fighting against it, however. I don’t know most atheists, and I have no clue what they would or wouldn’t do now, much less if they were different than they are. That’s not something I get to determine by speculating in my armchair. But there are a whole bunch of variables, when we’re entertaining counterfactuals like this, not just one big switch that turns people from good to bad. Anyway, the most basic part of what I’m actually saying is that, in the real world we live in (or in a counterfactual world, while we’re at it), the facts do matter, whether it’s a moral issue like social justice or something else. Are you claiming they don’t matter? Is it not a fact that gods don’t exist? Is it a very strange sort of fact that’s different from every other one? Are there more options for you, which I’m missing somehow?

  131. consciousness razor says

    If you find equal rights for man and women important you will more likely support feminism and be a feminist activist. However I don’t see how you will get there from atheism. I have never seen an arguments that boils down to something like: Sure if there was a god, we should oppress the women, but because there isn’t we shouldn’t. The sentiment I encounter mostly among feminist atheists is that even should a god exist, we shouldn’t oppress women and when god would demand the oppression of women, we shouldn’t obey him. So how does equal rights follow from atheism? Or do you think these atheists are wrong and should we find out that a god exists that demands the oppression of women that we should obey him/her?

    We weren’t created by a god, in order to fulfill separate gender roles for instance. Besides that, most forms of teleology or final causation make no sense at all, if gods don’t exist. So, add a possibly infinite number of examples to your list of implications, where a moment ago you thought there were none.

    If a god existed and demanded the oppression of women (or men), we would be right to resist that god in whatever way we could. But wait — what could we do? What could it do? That would depend on what the facts about this particular god are, as well as facts about us and our environment. Since a powerful supernatural entity isn’t real, that means there’s no such thing to resist, only other people who’ve introduced and spread those beliefs throughout our society. We’re not resigned to “accepting” the fact that we’re powerless to do anything about it, because we can recognize we are the ones responsible for the oppression and many of the social circumstances we find ourselves in, not a god. When you see the world differently, when in fact it is different, yes, you certainly should act about it differently. That, again, doesn’t imply that you therefore must make a radical change, from supporting feminism to rejecting it. The reasons you support a thing like that, how you support it, what you do about it, how you think about it, why you think you’re capable of changing anything about it, what exactly can change and needs to change … yes, concerns like that clearly are moral implications. How could that be at all controversial, if you’ve thought about it for even a minute?

  132. axxyaan says

    @consciousness razor

    Calling something a fact, because it appears to be the case, doesn’t make it so. IMO it doesn’t at all appear so, it is only interpreted to be so by a number of people.

    Your example are not theism vs atheism but specific religions vs atheism. I know theists that don’t say any of the examples you give.

    We weren’t created by a god, in order to fulfill separate gender roles for instance.

    I find this a spurious example. In the same way we weren’t created by a god in order to fulfill whatever purpose you do find important, like fighting for equal rights for men and women. The fact that an atheist doesn’t think god is at the origin for a specific purpose, doesn’t contradict that it is a purpose for a specific atheist. As far as I understand atheism doesn’t contradict that we have seperate gender roles that we should fulfill, only that they have their origin with god. So what example can you give me that doesn’t include god as the origin?

    You seem to claim that atheism has moral implications, well give me one. Give me a moral rule that would make one a theist if one wouldn’t follow it.

  133. says

    starfleetdude @131:

    Hank_Says, I guess your point is that anger is o.k. when you’re right, and not o.k. when you’re wrong. My point is that it doesn’t matter whether you’re right or wrong or not, because anger provokes anger in return and is generally toxic to rational argument.

    You have a rather simplistic view of human emotions and like many people I’ve seen, a negative view of certain ones (in this case, obviously, anger). Your assertion that anger provokes anger is just that: an assertion. Can you demonstrate (with evidence) why this ought to be considered a fact? More than that…so what if it provokes anger? Regarding your other claim-that anger is generally toxic to rational argument-that’s another claim you’re making that is rather shy with the evidence.

    For me, my anger and outrage over the shit I’ve dealt with or the shit others have gone through is part of my passion. It’s a way of conveying to others that a particular matter is of great importance. And strangely enough, I’ve encountered many people (not just here) that get that. And I’ve encountered many people that don’t react to my anger with anger. I’ve found that my anger can be a resource that helps enhance a rational argument by getting through to people. I have no interest in being emotionless in discussing the problems the people of the world are going through. Why should I? Racism, xenophobia, classism, homophobia, transphobia-these things cause tremendous distress and emotional upset to people all over the world. Anger and rage is a necessary outlet for that distress and upset. And the presence of anger or rage does not mean a substantial, rational argument cannot be made.

    ****

    axxyan @132:

    There is a difference between (a number of) atheists are fine advocating some cause and atheism somehow implying such a cause. A whole number of theists are also fine advocating against religious intrusions into education, fighting to keep religion out of politics and advocating for proper science education. It doesn’t mean that theism is more than just the belief in a god.

    From a dictionary definition, sure that’s what theism is. But the lived experiences of theists around the US (and the world) demonstrates that they live their lives as if there are implications to their belief in god. To them, there is baggage associated with believing in god. The majority of christians in the US don’t just believe in their deity. Among the many beliefs that I’ve seen go hand-in-hand with being christian theism in the US:
    They need to go to church. They need to speak and live the words of Jesus.
    They need to give of themselves to help others.
    They need to proselytize.
    They need to read their holy book.
    They need to raise their children up in the church.
    They need to ensure that their children stay on the righteous path, rather than sinning.
    They need to use their pulpit to condemn LGBT people. They need to dedicate themselves to the church.
    They need to go on missions.
    They need to preach against the ills of the world.
    They need to get on their pulpit and denounce the harmful influence of other religions.
    They need to show others the path to salvation.

    That’s not to say every christian engages in these activities (obviously that’s not true). But christians don’t just believe in god and that’s all there is to it. Their theism has implications for their lives.

    For theists who abandon their religion and become atheists, what becomes of all that baggage? If you abandon your belief in god, it would make sense to abandon the cultural and religious trappings that went along with that belief. IOW, eliminating the baggage of your religious belief.

    But that baggage extends deeper than just those items I mentioned above. If, when you were religious, you believed that:
    -gay people were immoral and you made disparaging remarks about gay people bc of your beliefs
    -wives should be silent unless spoken to or that they should always be ready to give themselves sexually to their husband
    -abortion was a sin and no woman should have one and you protested against abortion
    -the Earth was made in 6 days and that evolution is false
    -you shouldn’t dance, smoke, or drink
    -that girls should dress modestly
    -that women were inferior to men bc they were made from men

    What happens to those beliefs when you abandon religion? Do you still retain them? Because these beliefs have such a strong religious component, I think people ought to take a good hard look at their beliefs when they leave religion and question whether they ought to retain them. I think there are implications to leaving one’s religion. I don’t think that questioning one’s beliefs automatically lead to secular humanism, but that is one of the possible worldviews that one could adopt after rejecting god belief. And if you’re at all the kind of person who looks out in the world and sees the problems humanity has to deal with, and you now recognize that there is no god that is going to help us, you ought to realize that we are the only ones that can help ourselves. You ought to embrace humanism. But again, that’s if you give a shit about others and want to fight back against oppressive structures that keep innumerable people down.

  134. Jeff W says

    @ consciousness razor #137

    The claim has been, as you just repeated it, that there are no moral implications of atheism whatsoever.

    I think there are two interpretations of the “moral implications of atheism.” both of which are correct.

    Atheism has moral implications in that it disclaims the existence of a god (or gods) who makes or could make moral determinations. If someone says “God says do x, don’t do y” (as is often related in religious texts) atheism holds that, whatever else one can say about x or y, there is no god who said that. (You can then examine x and y, or not, on some basis other than a god having said something about it.) In a sense, atheism has meta-moral implications—it makes a claim about something else, god as the source of moral guidance, that has moral implications. But atheism doesn’t itself make moral determinations—it says nothing about x or y or even the examination of x or yin that sense, it has no moral implications.

  135. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    @141 Jeff
    Ok. Now, here’s the thing…who gives a fuck? Atheism doesn’t itself demand that you oppose creationism or promote skepticism, but there is an entire atheist movement dedicated to doing just that, and nobody bats and eyelid, the people who are involved don’t get e-mails or have posts on their sites from people complaining how terrible it is that they are misusing the term atheism because there is no direct, inescapable, obligatory connection between atheism and those other values. Why do we keep getting that shit from people when other values are suggested? Why is that point only raised in a particular situation and why is it used as a silencing, derailing smokescreen? Rhetorical questions, by the way, we already know the answer…

  136. axxyaan says

    Tony! The Queer Shoop @ 140

    Implications of specific denominations are not implications of theism. Here in Belgium and the Netherlands live a number of freethinking protestants for whom none of your needs apply. They see specific religions as languages. A cutural manifestation of people in search of god but there is no right religion just as there is no right language. The term “right” just doesn’t apply. So what baggage should these people loose? What baggage should people loose that never really have been a theist of any kind.

    There are people here who are for all practical purposes deists. They think there exists something divine, but they don’t think the divine interferes. What baggage should these people loose?

    There are a lot of theists here who don’t get their values from a god.

  137. axxyaan says

    Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia@142.

    As far as I understand, noone ever tried to argue that atheism implied opposing creationism or promoting skepticism. So those atheists who were not into that didn’t saw a threat to their identity as an atheist by other atheists opposing creationism or promoting skepticism.

    But now we see people trying to argue that atheism does imply specific values. So of course people who don’t share those values will see such attempts as a threat to their identity as an atheist. Now I don’t agree with how a lot of these people reacted but sure I understand why they give a fuck.

  138. Rivendellyan says

    Dreamin @142

    Atheism doesn’t itself demand that you oppose creationism or promote skepticism, but there is an entire atheist movement dedicated to doing just that, and nobody bats and eyelid, the people who are involved don’t get e-mails or have posts on their sites from people complaining how terrible it is that they are misusing the term atheism because there is no direct, inescapable, obligatory connection between atheism and those other values.

    Yeah they do, it’s just much smaller in numbers because those issues are much less, erm, “controversial”. Think about it like this: both religion and sexism are things that permeate our society in every level. However, religion has not only declined in recent years, but it’s also very bad at making it seem like the shit they defend is “natural order” or “the norm” or “just the way things are”. Meanwhile, sexism is something that affects people much closer to the center of their personalities, and as such it’s both much harder to spot, and much harder to eliminate from the self. So that gets reflected in that it’s easy to conclude religion is bad, but it’s hard to even realize sexism is a problem that exists, mostly because it’s so ingrained in people from the day they are born that it acts as a blindfold. As I see it, dealing with sexism is merely the next natural step of progressive movements, and just like people were horrified with the first “waves” of atheism for daring to speak against religion, there are people who are now horrified because we dare attack the way society works. The biggest difference is that now atheism is bigger ,meaning there’s a bigger number of problematic people in it, and well established, which means it now has a hierarchy of it’s own that also benefits, like everything else, from institutionalized sexism and atheists in position of power stand to lose something if things change.

  139. starfleetdude says

    Tony!, human emotions communicate the inner state of someone to others. Anger conveys extreme feelings of dislike and hatred that raises the stakes of an encounter to a confrontation where the angry person is demanding that the target of their anger back down and submit or retreat. Not surprisingly, targets of such anger don’t like it and usually choose to respond in kind in their own defense. This is why anger can be toxic to understanding and communication, and why marriage counselors advise spouses not to be angry with each other if they want to settle a dispute. Such emotional blackmail, when a spouse’s anger manipulates their partner, often destroys marriages. This isn’t a controversial or unsupported view of the emotion of anger and how it works. Anger is an outlet that isn’t just about expression, it’s also about controlling the narrative by literally shouting the other down. In many online communications, it’s used as a club to beat opponents with, then the opponents beat back in kind, and an impasse results. A substantial, rational argument cannot take place when anger preempts listening to the one you disagree with and instead remain stuck arguing back and forth in a rhetorical rut until one side gives up in anger and frustration. That gets us nowhere.

  140. chris61 says

    @144 axxyaan

    But now we see people trying to argue that atheism does imply specific values. So of course people who don’t share those values will see such attempts as a threat to their identity as an atheist. Now I don’t agree with how a lot of these people reacted but sure I understand why they give a fuck.

    I think even people who do share those values (or at least some of those values) dislike the argument that atheism implies specific values. It is too reminiscent of a religious argument that you can’t be a good [insert religious denomination of choice] if you don’t believe [insert belief of choice].

  141. erik333 says

    @133 consciousness razor

    I wasn’t talking about you specifically, by “you” i was referring to some rational moral agent whomever it may be.

    By “atheism” I meant “not believing gods exist”, please clarify if you were using it differently.

    Except atheism isn’t “leading” you anywhere. Whatever values you happen to hold might lead you somewhere, atheism won’t.


    Is there any evidence or reasoning whatsoever, that’s meant to support it?

    Atheism being devoid of values or moral code means it, by itself, offers no insight into questions of morality. A god existing, on it’s own (deism), similarly has no known moral implications – you only get those once you start delving into the dogma of specific sects.

    Where do you think “values” come from?

    Mostly parents, friends and other cultural influences. Some are possibly innate in most humans, not sure. Some you might come up with on your own. The hope is that you, as a responsible moral agent, will make the effort of doublechecking that you actually agree these are the right* values, and know which are more important to you – so that you can doublecheck the less important ones as to not be in conflict (given whatever rudimentary understanding of how the world works you have) with deeper values you hold.

    *Values being arbitrary, this is at the end boils down to personal/popular opinion what core values should be.

    Gods don’t exist. That’s a fact, that reality is a certain way, and it is generally good to know such things, since we can act accordingly and better predict what effects our actions will have. That’s a good it does, so you didn’t mention all the good it does.

    It’s not entirely clear to me what you mean by “fact”. “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” is what i get from a quick google (not my first language) – I would personally love to see proof of the non existence of gods, would save a lot of time, but I seriously doubt such a thing is even possible of metaphysical, usually (always?) meaningless, claims. Further, it’s completely unclear to me in what way a god’s existence might conceivably necessarily matter to our understanding of the world – unless we delve into the dogma of specific sects.

    In which ways would you expect a created universe to differ from one which wasn’t created? I have no idea how you would even begin to guess.

    Look, if you believed Earth had two moons made of different cheeses, you would obviously be wrong.

    That would be pretty epic, sure.

    What follows from the fact that Earth does have one rocky moon?

    Well, the tides would be different and werewolves would appear less frequently.

    There are no things that fit any description of any god. …

    AFAICT anything fits with a deistic god, which for exaclty that reason makes deism functionally pointless as it imposes no constraints on hypothesis space. If a god exists that interacts with the universe, I’ve yet to hear any evidence of it I find persuasive.

    …that is a fact about the world, independently of whatever any person happens to believe or not believe.

    It would seem bizarre if belief would make gods manifest, yes. Atleast one person would have believed in a god to end the universe by now, surely.

    So, we should not act like there are gods, whatever kinds of actions those may be,…

    I would say we should act as if gods don’t exists because:
    a) I know of no evidence that gods exist.
    b) If gods exist, I know of no way to know if/how a gods existence even matters.
    c) if a god was known to exist, and we knew that gods opinions on morality – it does not follow that we should accept those opinions as “better” than any we might come up with on our own. We’d still need to verify all of it using our own minds and abilities, as there is no guarantee a gods values and objectives correspond with our best interests.

    Maybe you’d want to say it’s somehow about a lack of a fact — the strategy is to make the fundamental claim of atheism seem as empty as possible, so you can try to argue that nothing follows from it.

    I already explicitly stated that something follows from it: arguments (or models of the world, sure) that depend on a gods existence are unsound. But yes, I’m arguing that the fundamental claim of atheism “I’m unconvinced any gods exist.”, doesn’t seem to limit hypothesis space much. But it’s not empty, as it leads a rational agent to dismiss a whole class of arguments as unsound.

    What exactly would you say about the fact that Earth has one moon instead of two? Do we merely lack evidence about the second nonexistent moon, because it’s nonexistent?

    Given what we know about massy bodies, we know where and how to look for one. There is no evidence where we expect there to be evidence, thus we can be reasonably certain there is no second moon*.

    *meaning massy body (which could reasonably be said to be orbiting the earth) big enough to care about.

    As for the existence of gods, there doesn’t even seem to be any way to know what evidence (or lack thereof) for gods would even look like.

  142. says

    Not sure that is always a bad argument. Does Dawkins’ sexism make him a good or bad one? Harris’ obsessions about Islam? Again, we end up going back to the absurd notion that.. well, this is the notion in a nutshell, that “atheism” is an attribute, like being blonde, or having blue eyes, and not a “community”. Because, a community can say, very clearly, “We don’t think you make a very good representative of what we think we should be.” They can also throw you out, if you persist in being a total ass about it (or, say, jail you, if the “community” is something like a country, and you break laws). Its about shared standards, and what its thought those standard should best be. In a sense, we are “letting the market decide”. And, well.. for a dang bloody long time the “market of ideas” has sided with misogyny, and racism, with respect to what is “recognized” as the “atheist community”.

    Some of us think its a damn stupid product, and maybe something ought to be done about it. And, of course, this invariably leads the some people getting really pissed that we are “attacking” the community they already are in, because, by gosh.. the might have to take down the 50 phallus from the lobby, or seriously rethink the Jihad Jane urinal targets in the bathroom. In fact, they seem outright offended at the suggestion that we might change any part of the decor at all, or that certain people might no longer be the best representatives of the brand name.

  143. HappyNat says

    starfleetdude @146

    Why do you think all anger is directed at a specific person? Systemic racism and it’s prevalence today in ruining lives make me fucking angry. When I hear about a new law, or killing, or what some asshole from the FBI says I get fucking angry. People around me are going to ask why and I’ll tell them with passion. They may understand my passion or they may disagree, but I’m not forcing them to submit, hopefully I’m forcing them to think.

    We people support regressive, harmful policies it’s OK to be angry at the them. We should be angry at them. A “substantial, rational argument” is all fine and good, but it’s not the only way to discuss an issue. Everything isn’t a debate with points scored.

  144. axxyaan says

    Kagehi@192

    Why is it absurd that atheism is an attribute? Sure people can form communities around a shared attribute, but that doesn’t turn the attribute into a community. As I see it there are several communities that formed around people being an atheist and those communities seem to be in conflict about what values are important. I don’t see why one of those communities should get to decide that their values are the atheistic values thereby implying that those other communities are somehow not real atheists.

  145. says

    I admit, having thought on this, I am.. conflicted. I am not sure it is possible to not create division. If one where to know that Thunderfoot, and any number of others where to be hosting an event at the same time, in the same city, or even attending the same one… would not an effort be made, despite the desire to not claim that they are poor atheists, to, never the less, do so, if for no other reason than to protect one’s own reputation?

    How do you propose stop the rest of the world from defining it for us, and to our detriment? Do we try to do what hackers did, and call people Harrisites, or Dawkonians, or Thunderfooters, and thus somehow expect the public to take up the mantle we suggest, and say, “Ah, I see.. So while atheists these people are somehow different, for having this new label!” Mind, perhaps, in some ways, it is just as silly to declare, “We are atheism+”, and somehow expect this to mean anything, without, by the very act, creating the division you decry.

    Yet, the alternative is what? To wait for the ones who discredit and disgrace us, from our point of view (at least), to die off, so they are no longer an embarrassment, while hoping no new embarrassments arise to replace them?

    By what means do we avoid, meaningfully, dividing the ranks, while, at the same time, condemning the actions of people using the name, to justify, or excuse, or simply paste over, their own faults? Will anyone but us care, one bloody wit, that someone we deem to have, at best, questionable values, on some matters are **not** speaking for all of us, when they express them?

    While I wholeheartedly agree with you in principle, I am not sure it is possible in the practical. In the end, we will not be the ones “defining” the word – it will be everyone else, after they decide **which** group they think exemplifies atheists. Knowing that they are wrong will not more correct this perception, as long as the public sees Dawkins, Harris, etc. as the face of atheism, in their minds, than trying to convince people that hacker doesn’t mean “Hollywood villain”, so long as all people see when the word is used is Hollywood stories, and ranting nonsense from paranoid law enforcement.

    To replace Dawkins, et al, as the face of atheism may, in some silly, simplistic sense, have no impact on the “dictionary definition”, but it sure as heck will, never the less, “redefine” the meaning. And.. there will be those who, despite what ever lofty goal we have of not creating divisions, will not be willing, or able, to “join”, or “stay in”, this new version. And thus, are we divided, all without ever having intended to do so. I am not sure it matters, in the end, whether we intend this or not, seek to make it happen, or actively fight it, nor if we desire, or abhor it happening. Perception of the result is not going to be in our hands, any more than the perception that exists **now** is, all we can do is aim for a perception we can live with, which may require little more than fighting for things that are being argued are not, nor should be, part of this one word, by people who somehow imagine this will not happen.

  146. consciousness razor says

    erik333:

    A god existing, on it’s own (deism), similarly has no known moral implications – you only get those once you start delving into the dogma of specific sects.

    If you’re aware of a large contingent of religious believers who believe in a deistic entity, which essentially does nothing whatsoever, then you must be from another planet or something, since basically no one I’ve ever heard of believes anything like that. Since atheism isn’t merely a opposed to deism, but to the personal interventionist gods of theism as well, we ought to be able to account for all of them. Atheists reject all gods, not just ones proposed by a kind of minimalistic deism that basically nobody adheres to anyway, so your argument here is confusing at best.

    If a god does or doesn’t intervene in the natural world in any way whatsoever, then that can have moral implications. There are of course much more specific implications, once you consider a much more specific theistic or atheistic worldview, but some are still there, right from the beginning, as soon as we’re considering atheism or theism in the most general terms. But you’re not considering it in the most general terms, since you’ve cherry-picked “deism” to represent all forms of theism, as if that’s the only thing atheists reject.

    But if a god did intervene in the world, atheists would be wrong about that, since they do reject all flavors of interventionist gods from all religious sects. If that were the case, Atheism would be false and theism would be true. And it’s simply false that atheism is unfalsifiable, or that atheists are infallible. So, you are simply wrong about all of this.

    It’s not entirely clear to me what you mean by “fact”. “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” is what i get from a quick google (not my first language) – I would personally love to see proof of the non existence of gods, would save a lot of time, but I seriously doubt such a thing is even possible of metaphysical, usually (always?) meaningless, claims.

    It’s either the case, or else it’s not the case, that a god exists (or of course multiple gods). One of those is true, whether or not we (or anybody else) can “prove” it. So, it’s normal in English to say that there is “a fact of the matter” about its existence. Maybe we don’t know that fact, maybe it’s not clear how it could be supported or established, but there is a fact.

    Likewise, there’s a fact about the mass of the Earth at any given time. In the past, people didn’t know what it was, perhaps they didn’t even have a clear or meaningful concepts about it, yet the mass of the Earth is a fact about the natural world. Not the most interesting one ever, maybe, but it is a fact that does matter in a practical sense to ordinary people (as well as physicists who might not have practical reasons for wanting to know it) because it has very noticeable and direct effects on our daily lives.

    If it were very different, we might act very differently. So, it is a reason for us to act certain ways rather than others. Although the mass of the Earth isn’t something we have much control over and doesn’t matter a great deal in lots of situations, this is what makes an ordinary fact like this relevant to morality: it is a reason why we should act in certain ways. It justifies acting certain ways rather than others, because it is a fact about the world, which could have an impact on the types of moral decisions we make or what the outcomes of such decisions will be like.

    Further, it’s completely unclear to me in what way a god’s existence might conceivably necessarily matter to our understanding of the world – unless we delve into the dogma of specific sects.

    In which ways would you expect a created universe to differ from one which wasn’t created? I have no idea how you would even begin to guess.

    Then you have no idea why you’re an atheist (or a theist)? You’ve never seen arguments about why a god’s existence is unlikely? (Which don’t mean it’s been “proven.”) I’m not going to rehash all of that now. If you really have to, assuming you’re not being disingenuous, look up the very long history of claims, arguments, discoveries, etc., about it. Or, if you are being disingenuous, which seems likely since this appears to be bargain-basement atheist apologetics, then just cut the sophistry. It’s certainly not helpful.

    But yes, I’m arguing that the fundamental claim of atheism “I’m unconvinced any gods exist.”, doesn’t seem to limit hypothesis space much. But it’s not empty, as it leads a rational agent to dismiss a whole class of arguments as unsound.

    The fundamental metaphysical claim, one which has some actual substance to it, is that there are no gods. If you’re going to be more sheepish about it or say nothing, then you have a problem.

    If you’re claiming an argument is “unsound,” then that means the premises are false or the logic is invalid. You don’t get that with a claim like “I’m unconvinced,” because people can be unconvinced about sound arguments too, for all sorts of wacky reasons. It makes very little sense to talk about it as a subjective or epistemic claim — even on the surface it looks like a metaphysical claim, a claim about reality, so there’s no reason not to treat it like one.

  147. axxyaan says

    consciousness razor@154

    If you’re aware of a large contingent of religious believers who believe in a deistic entity, which essentially does nothing whatsoever, then you must be from another planet or something, since basically no one I’ve ever heard of believes anything like that.

    I would say a large contingent of people who identify as catholic are essentially deistic here in Belgium. If they have to fill in a form they will check, “catholic” as their denomination but they think of Jezus as just an inspirational person, they don’t believe in miracles, don’t have problems with gays or gay marriage and don’t have problems with euthanasia.

    Then there is the contingent that gets called the “somethingists”. They believe there is something (divine) and that’s it. They are a lot of them into alternative med and quackery but not all and they generally don’t believe in an interventionist deity.

    So please inform me what values atheists can have, that those people can’t.

  148. Dunc says

    If you’re aware of a large contingent of religious believers who believe in a deistic entity, which essentially does nothing whatsoever, then you must be from another planet or something

    I believe they’re called “the Church of England”. [badum-tish!]

  149. axxyaan says

    Kagehi@153
    I am not telling you should avoid division. Look at it this way. Suppose there are two youth soccer clubs. One centers around diversity, the other centers around white supremacy. Now there is nothing wrong with there being a division between those two clubs. I just don’t think either can claim that playing soccer implies there own values or that their values are soccer values. Either can try to promote their own values or can try to argue that organized soccer should build on their specific values, but trying to argue that soccer implies their values and thereby trying to imply that the other club isn’t playing real soccer is invalid IMO.

    So yes I think it is useful to divide the ranks, and fight for the values you find important for them to spread through organized atheism. If you want a humane atheism, fight for it. I just don’t think it is correct to say that a humane attitude is atheistic. Not in the sense that atheism leads to a humane attitude and not in the sense that only atheists can have a humane attitude.

  150. says

    Not in the sense that atheism leads to a humane attitude and not in the sense that only atheists can have a humane attitude.

    And yet, what I advocate is that the former “should” be true, while never making the claim, at all, that the latter is. And, again, the “why” of what it “should” mean is, as I side – you can define yourself, you can allow others to define you. And, we have seen how well that has worked out for atheism, up to this point.

  151. Jeff W says

    axxyaan #157

    I just don’t think either can claim that playing soccer implies there own values or that their values are soccer values.

    I agree with you. (I was thinking of a similar example.)

    In fact, it would say something really peculiar about those soccer players if they felt the need to justify their opposition to white supremacy on the basis of their “soccer values,” even if they could—something like either (1) “we can’t figure out some other moral basis” or (2) “we need our own moral basis (e.g., we’re so different from everyone else, the standard moral basis doesn’t apply to us; we reject some other moral basis, etc.).” (When someone something like says, “Well, I think murder is wrong based on my [insert religion here] values,” I have to say those thoughts run through my mind.”)

    So yes I think it is useful to divide the ranks, and fight for the values you find important for them to spread through organized atheism.

    I’d say it divides the ranks in a way that makes sense and just reflects reality—some atheists will fight for social justice, some will feel they have no obligation to, and others, unfortunately, will be bigots, misogynists, and murderers—we don’t have to ascertain or even wonder about what atheism “imposes” on them or, really, if it imposes anything.

  152. axxyaan says

    Kagehi@158

    And yet, what I advocate is that [atheism leads to a humane attitude] should be true.

    I find that a rather odd thing to advocate. IMO whether one thing leads to another is a question about how things are. I don’t see how advocating for a should is helpful here. For AFAICS one could as well advocate that homeopatic medicin or quackery should work.

    I am siding with Jeff W here, that I find it strange that you seem to need atheism in order to advocate a humane attitude. Personally, I just try to advocate a humane attitude based on our human condition. Whether a god exists or not doesn’t play any role in how I think one should treat others. And I can’t help feeling a bit suspicious of those who want to ground their values, norms and morals on their atheism, because that means that should they somehow convert one day (and don’t say that will never happen, one can’t predict how one will react in various traumatic circumstances) that day they will also lose the base of their morality and so will be more suspectable to just take over the values, norms and morals of those that converted them.

  153. says

    because that means that should they somehow convert one day (and don’t say that will never happen, one can’t predict how one will react in various traumatic circumstances) that day they will also lose the base of their morality and so will be more suspectable to just take over the values

    Right… Because there has been no tragedy in my life already…

    Only total assholes (usually religious ones) make the claim that somehow, deciding you actually believe in the FSM will suddenly turn you into a serial killer. Heck, its they own #1 claim about their own silly beliefs in where morality comes from.

    You are missing my point, in any case. Not sure if its intentional or not, but you are, and now you are just getting absurd. To “convert” as you say would mean, in this case, abandoning reason and logic, at least within the framework of what is, and can be, known about the world. As an attribute, atheism is a logical conclusion **based** on these known facts. But, and this is what you are missing, there are consequences for choosing to not “pretend” to believe the silly nonsense that other people do. One of those is that you either strive to show that your belief can produce, or exist with, an ethical framework – i.e., promote it with, at the very least, such a framework, or you let everyone else define it, and you, based on what they think, are told, or imagine, that it promotes. If you succeed in showing that its possible to be moral and ethical, its not going to bloody matter, to most of those involved, that “atheism is just some attribute, like wearing black socks.”, they will, since most of them come from the perspective of belief systems that actually **do** claim to promote moral standards, assume one of two things – you got them, in some manner, as a consequence of atheism, or you got them from someplace else.

    Whether or not the latter is true isn’t going to mean much. After all, one of the idiot arguments used by some of them already is, “God gave you those morals, and you are just denying their source.”

    I am talking about perceptions here, and whether or not you want to promote an ethical and moral atheism, where the consequence is that, “abandoning gods has some real, tangible, impact on other things as well.”, or you are just going to stick it on your shirt, like a label, and claim there are no consequences at all. We can nitpick over how much, how little, what, and to what extent, there are such consequences. And, yes, even if its reasonable to try to shoehorn some other attributes onto atheism that don’t belong there. But, in the end, its about what we promote it to mean, and what we think ***should*** go hand in hand with it, vs. what everyone else arbitrarily assigns to the thing.

  154. axxyaan says

    because that means that should they somehow convert one day (and don’t say that will never happen, one can’t predict how one will react in various traumatic circumstances) that day they will also lose the base of their morality and so will be more suspectable to just take over the values

    Right… Because there has been no tragedy in my life already…

    A rather odd remark. Since the truth of my statement is totally independent from whether or not there have been tragedies in your life, it doesn’t imply nor even suggests that there has been no tragedy in your life as you seem to understand it.

    Only total assholes (usually religious ones) make the claim that somehow, deciding you actually believe in the FSM will suddenly turn you into a serial killer. Heck, its they own #1 claim about their own silly beliefs in where morality comes from.

    This seem rather irrelevant. I am talking about implications of your view. Those are independent of what people claim. It is rather simple. If C is a consequence of A and B is not then when A disappears C is more likely to also disappear than B. Otherwise I wouldn’t know what you would mean by C being a consequence of A. Yet when I spell this out when atheism is A and a humane attitude is C rather than B, you get indignant about that. Yet I am just pointing out the reverse side of your view. It seems to me you want your cake and eat it.

    But, and this is what you are missing, there are consequences for choosing to not “pretend” to believe the silly nonsense that other people do.

    Not in a meaningful way. I don’t believe that black cats bring bad luck. That has as much consequences for me as not believing that white cats don’t bring bad luck. Yes there is a difference between how I react to black cats and how some superstitious folks react to black cats, but the meaningful way to talk about that is talking about the consequences of superstition and not trying to shoehorn my reaction to (black) cats which is independent from the color as a consequence of my absence of superstition.

    If you want to talk about the consequences of something being absent, there is no reason to just pick the absence of theism. There are a lot of other absent ideas who’s presence could influence your conclusions. Yet I don’t see these other possible ideas mentioned and how the absence of those ideas had consequences. The only reason atheism seems more relevant is because theism is more culturally prevalent. But that is a consequence of the culture not of atheism itself.

  155. Jeff W says

    axxyaan #161

    I am siding with Jeff W here…

    Well, actually, no, I think I am siding with you.

    axxyaan #163

    If you want to talk about the consequences of something being absent, there is no reason to just pick the absence of theism.…The only reason atheism seems more relevant is because theism is more culturally prevalent. But that is a consequence of the culture not of atheism itself.

    Well, in the context of the thread, we’re picking the absence of theism because the claim is that atheism has (or should have) something to do with ethics/morals/virtues. It does but, as you say, that’s a consequence of the culture itself, not of atheism itself.

    kagehi #162

    But, and this is what you are missing, there are consequences for choosing to not “pretend” to believe the silly nonsense that other people do.

    The entire “atheism has no consequences” argument is a straw man argument. It’s absurd nonsense. (The fact that it is addressed in the way it is in this community is actually a counterexample to the argument that atheism itself has something to do with reason.)

    If I prevent a car from hitting and killing you and years later you go on to win a Nobel Prize, my action inarguably has the consequence of allowing you later to go on to win the Nobel Prize but we can’t attribute winning the Nobel Prize to not getting killed by a car. Not getting killed by a car is a necessary condition but it is not sufficient. There are intervening variables.

    Atheism isn’t necessary to anything about a moral/ethical framework (as we all agree, there are plenty of humane, ethical people who are not atheists) and it’s not sufficient (some people who are atheists are misogynists, bigots, and murderers).

    Atheism removes the basis that a god said x or did y or wanted z as consideration from determining/evaluating something about x, y or z—not because it cares about the claims x, y or z and not because it’s trying to come up with a better evaluation method—it’s only because atheism’s claim is that the sayer/doer/wanted does not exist. It does nothing else—just as preventing a car from killing you does nothing else (in terms of having you with a Nobel Prize later on). It doesn’t say anything about science or evidence or human-centered ethics.

    Does that mean that atheism doesn’t have enormous, “virtuous” implications? No—it does. Why? Because looking to what a god says or does or wants in addressing claims is prevalent in the culture, exactly as axxyaan says. If you remove that basis for evaluating claims, then other ways of evaluating claims (using science, evidence, reason) are allowed to come to the fore, not because of what atheism says (again, it says nothing about those things) but those are what our culture supplies as legitimate bases for evaluating claims. Atheism clears the space for that—that’s a big deal— but it doesn’t make a statement one way or the other about how to evaluate claims (or even if we should).

    I think your point about “define yourself or you let others define you” is right. But the definition that is going on here is on terms that work to the detriment of atheists. Here’s an analogy (which is definitely not exact):

    Japanese-Americans during WW 2 were asked to prove their loyalty. If you’re in that situation, you better define yourself or others will define you, right? Well, you can say “No, we Japanese-Americans are loyal, too!”—and it’s completely true—but that’s completely on someone else’s terms (i.e., you, as Japanese-Americans, have to say something about your loyalty). The better way to handle that situation is to not define yourself in terms of the question but to rebut the premise of the question, which here assumes that Japanese-Americans have something to prove at all—something like “no citizen has to prove his or her loyalty—we’re citizens.” (In a real sense, even addressing the question at all is embedded in the frame—no other citizens have to point out that their citizens—but that is unavoidable if you are going to address it.)

    Along the same lines, atheists don’t have to prove that they are more ethical/moral than others and they don’t have to show that their atheism “imposes” something on them that some poor, benighted atheists are not getting (recall that PZ is concerned that some people say that their atheism imposes nothing on them). The answer, if it needs to be addressed at all, is “we’re people—how ever other people get to their ethics/morality (aside from god-based reasons), we do also.”

    If some atheists say or have said, do or have done, things that are bigoted or misogynistic, we don’t have to, and shouldn’t, go to pains to point to our atheism to rebut them; some things we say “as atheists” we say because that’s what anyone decent says; in fact, to say that we’re against bigotry or misogyny as a consequence of our atheism seems to me, frankly, to be a bit nuts.

    So we as atheists can be “for social justice” and we can have a atheist movement that supports social justice. We atheists support social justice because people do support and should support social justice and we’re people.

    That’s a better frame—it gets atheism right and it gets why atheists support social justice right.

  156. says

    Sigh.. This feels like a conversation I had years ago, in which I and someone else argued about, well… it doesn’t matter. In the end, it turned out we where arguing around each other. Which is to say, trying to get to the same point, but from the wrong direction. I think there is, perhaps, a subtlety of argument that “both” of us are missing, and we are not really in disagreement at all, but I can see no point, or means, at this stage, to clarify matters.

  157. Jeff W says

    Well, that’s OK. If we’re not disagreeing and we’re just missing some nuances or coming at it from different directions—I can see that in several ways, then that’s better than thinking we have some real disagreements (or that the other person is willfully obstinate or acting in bad faith).

    If this topic comes up again (as it invariably does), at least then maybe the whole group can get to this point (or further) in much fewer than 160+ comments. In any case, thanks for the conversation!