Our job is done, atheists!


trumpxian

Pat yourselves on the back. God is dead and has been removed from American politics. And we owe this victory to an unexpected hero, Donald Trump.

You see, the crass, vulgar narcissist who hasn’t shown a hint of piety ever in his entire life has assembled a religious advisory board, and some of the most prominent names in conservative Christianity have stampeded to be on it. Richard Land is on board to to give spiritual counsel and advice and to speak Biblical truth. Trump has Robert Jeffress, Jerry Falwell Jr., and Ralph Reed. He’s got Michele Bachmann and James Dobson. Tony Perkins and Mike Huckabee are cheering him on. And don’t forget, he’s also got the majority of the conservative electorate.

Mr. Trump has received widespread support from Evangelical leaders, communities and voters, winning the majority of the Evangelical vote throughout the primaries.

It is absolutely clear that none of this support is thanks to Trump’s lifelong service to their god, and some long-standing, activist evangelical Christians do see right through him.

Today, a candidate whose worldview is greed and whose god is his appetites (Philippians 3) is being tacitly endorsed by this throng.

They are saying we are Republicans no matter what the candidate believes and no matter how vile and unrepentant his character.

They are not a phalanx of God’s prophets confronting a wicked leader, this is a parade of elephants.

In 1980 I believed that Christians could dramatically influence politics. Today, we see politics fully influencing a thousand Christian leaders.

This is a day of mourning.

God beliefs don’t matter any more. The Christian Right has surrendered. We won without really trying!

Of course, then we have to ask, if it isn’t a god that’s uniting these people, what is it?

That’s also clear. Hatred of others — the LGBTQ community is still in their sights. Controlling everyone’s personal life — they need to tell everyone what they’re allowed to do in the bedroom. Keeping women shackled and oppressed — that women dare to control their own reproduction is an abomination to them. Immigrants, brown people with strange accents who don’t sound like their grandparents, are the enemy. Hell, if you don’t say “Merry Christmas” with sufficient fervor, you’re in need of scourging. The Christians who don’t share these repressive views are not lining up behind Trump.

I’ll also disagree with Michael Farris, who is mourning the end of the Christian Right: this is no surprise and no change. The Christian Right, the Moral “Majority”, have always been about a kind of social tyranny. All that’s happened now is that the godly mask has fallen off, and we see their faces clearly. These are the witch-hunters and parasites and con artists and prudes and puritans who have plagued us forever — not the shining champions of a benign deity, but narrow-minded, frightened zealots.

Thanks, Donald, for helping.

Of course, now that the mask has slipped, atheists aren’t actually done — we have to wake up to the fact that fighting an illusion isn’t particularly useful. Maybe, just maybe, we should change our targets to the reality of the oppression of women, minorities, sexual minorities, and all the things that the god-botherers were actually doing, and still are doing, while they pretended to be doing God’s Work.

You’re not really going to go on imagining that Donald Trump is a sincere Man of Faith, are you?

Comments

  1. chigau (違う) says

    Isn’t that mob likely to tear each other to shreds?
    Can they actually work together?

  2. Gregory Greenwood says

    I’ll also disagree with Michael Farris, who is mourning the end of the Christian Right: this is no surprise and no change. The Christian Right, the Moral “Majority”, have always been about a kind of social tyranny. All that’s happened now is that the godly mask has fallen off, and we see their faces clearly. These are the witch-hunters and parasites and con artists and prudes and puritans who have plagued us forever — not the shining champions of a benign deity, but narrow-minded, frightened zealots.

    Exactly. Religion in and of itself is toxic in all manner of ways, but it is most often problematic as a pious, pseudo-moral fig-leaf for the various bigotries of the political right who seek to hide behind the shield of unearned religious privilege to avoid being called out as the hate-mongers they are.

    What binds them all together – and not just Xian bigots, sometimes the shared enthusiasm for hating the marginalized even leads extreme Jewish and Islamic bigots to put aside their various differences to join with the Xian bigots in twisting the knife in the vulnerable members of society (heck, sometimes even the atheist bigots get a look in) – is an obsessive hatred of those who are different and an authoritarian streak a mile wide that leads them to attempt to control other people’s lives in a bid to validate their own, with a particular (and very creepy) fixation on other people’s sex lives as you say, alongside great spades of straightforward racism and xenophobia. Now that Trump has demonstrated that you don’t really need to bother invoking the sky fairy to get away with spewing hateful bigotry day and day out, the aspect these arsehats assume is changing as a consequence.

    Unfortunately, this seems to suggest that the way that US society will reach a point where a non-Christian President is a possibility will be when it becomes clear that not being a Christian is no impediment to being a bigot, which is not exactly movement in the right direction.

  3. Saad says

    Trump has Robert Jeffress, Jerry Falwell Jr., and Ralph Reed. He’s got Michele Bachmann and James Dobson. Tony Perkins and Mike Huckabee

    They need to come up with a name. American ISIS just doesn’t sound that good. Also it would have the word Islam in it.

    ChriSIS?

  4. says

    They need to come up with a name.

    Moral Majority 2.0
    The “2.0” is “edgy” and will appeal to the youth demographic. They also need to embrace gamergaters, which will give them an instant media arm.

    (Imagine what a clusterfuck that would be!!)

  5. Dunc says

    Isn’t that mob likely to tear each other to shreds?

    The great thing about extremists of all kinds is that they are, by nature, splitters. They can work together against a common enemy for a limited amount of time, but they inevitably end up turning on each other.

  6. says

    Maybe, just maybe, we should change our targets to the reality of the oppression of women, minorities, sexual minorities, and all the things that the god-botherers were actually doing, and still are doing, while they pretended to be doing God’s Work.

    Absolutely, just absolutely, we should change our targets to the reality of the oppression of women, minorities, sexual minorities, and all the things that the god-botherers were actually doing, and still are doing, while they pretended to be doing God’s Work.

    I’m beyond tired of trying to coddle fellow atheists into understanding that going after the soft underbelly of beliefs doesn’t make them superior, that there are real problems that are crucial to address. Let them stay behind in the dirt, busy being the intellectual and emotional equals of all those invested in hate.

  7. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    Vocal Majority ——- to recall their previous Silent Majority. to be subtitled with “Time to speak UP”

    re proposal @3:
    too close to NJ governor’s name (who’s name must not be mentioned). Maybe it was just my godless self that liked to play around with his redundant sounding double name which was the title given to some ancient gadfly as being grossly ironic.

  8. Sastra says

    Trump sincere in his faith? Oh, I wouldn’t put it past him.

    Religion has mastered the art of fooling oneself, and The Donald seems to me to be acting on the main assumptions of The Secret:: If you believe really BIG things and have a huge amount of CONFIDENCE then yes, the universe WILL bow to your desires and you WILL be successful. Surround a narcissist with enough people supporting this sort of nonsense using a Christian interpretation (“God wants to reward His humble servants so others may convert!”) and it’s probably easier to believe it than not.

    Or, perhaps, believe it some times but not others. I can certainly imagine Trump being as inconsistent in his sincerity as he is in everything else.

  9. says

    More info on the people on the advisory board:

    Jeffress […], “believes that gays and lesbians are ‘perverse’ people who are either pedophiles or likely to abuse children in the future; compared homosexuality to bestiality and called it ‘a miserable lifestyle’; accused gay people of using ‘brainwashing techniques’ to have homosexuality ‘crammed down our throats’; said that gay people ‘are engaged in the most detestable, unclean, abominable acts you can imagine’; predicted that the gay rights movement ‘will pave the way for that future world dictator, the Antichrist’; and labeled homosexuality a ‘filthy practice’ that will lead to the ‘implosion of our country.’”

    Floyd, the SBC president, once said that Satan is using the “gay lifestyle” to destroy cultural values and labeled the adoption of children by same-sex couples a “tragedy” […]

    Link

    Also, Trump advised evangelical leaders to tell their flocks to pray for one leader, him:

    So, I think people were saying, some of the people were saying, “Let’s pray for our leaders.” Well, you can pray for your leaders, and I agree with that, pray for everyone, but what you really have to do is you have to pray to get everybody out to vote, and for one specific person.

    Link

  10. robro says

    There’s something almost Biblical about these theocrats sacrificing their presumed integrity to gain influence over some despicable ruler, serving the interest of power and greed. It’s been a while since I read them, but I’m confident there are narratives in the Old Testament prophets about just this sort of self-serving religious hypocrisy. As the old saw says, “There’s nothing new under the sun.”

  11. says

    I hope this is all an extinction burst. The dominant characteristic of these assholes is: they are old. The Daily Show gutted their future when they weren’t looking, by making them a laughingstock to the young. There’s going to be a lot of unpleasant noise and drama but I think we passed the tipping point a few years ago.

  12. raven says

    I’ve been saying this for years. I was right.
    1. US fundie xianity is hollowed out.
    It’s just right wingnut politics with a few crosses stuck on for show. The crosses aren’t important any more.
    Which makes sense. While gods and heaven might exist, they probably don’t. But power and money do exist, are highly sought after, and useful.

    2. The fundies don’t take their beliefs seriously or most likely, really believe them anyway. They never, ever walk their talk. They have a magic book written by their god. They never read it and have no idea what their god supposedly said.

    A lot of people including the few serious xians left have noticed the same things. It’s obvious if you look.

  13. raven says

    The fundies don’t have the power and numbers they think they do.
    1. Their last candidate was Romney, a Mormon Reptilian Shapeshifter. Half of all xians don’t even consider the Mormons…xians.
    2. Their current Great Orange Hope is Trump, a dubious xian at best, the three time married philanderer.
    3. Which is what the data says. From Pew, they are 25% of the population and not all rabid right wingnut haters. Amazingly, 20% of them voted for…Obama.
    White xians are a minority in the USA these days.
    White fundie xians have always been a minority.

    It’s not all good though. It’s clear that a lot of the christofascists are just fascists, which is how they ended up controlling the US congress.

  14. anbheal says

    Yes, LGBT and Muslims, but let’s no forget good ole country-fried racism. There is really only one theme unting the three branches of modern conservatism — Wall St. Overlords, Libertarian Small-dicked Gun-barrel Fuckers, and Christofascists: videlicet, a virulent hatred of African-Americans. Mexicans are simply the JV squad of Dark People. As a wag once said, “ain’t no cracker so dirt-poor her won’t take food from his baby’s mouth and give it to a banker, long as the banker promises none of it will go to a ni***r”. And it’s worth noting that the church is still very strong in hundreds of black communities across the country — in fact, of my friends who still go to church, most are black. But none of them will vote for Trump. So it’s not even religion that drives the “Christian Right” — it’s Angry White Tribalism.

  15. A Masked Avenger says

    Bah–y’all don’t understand. To the Judeans, Jesus also seemed irreligious or even downright blasphemous. The people who don’t realize you are God will always accuse you of lacking piety and of narcissism. They don’t realize that what they’re calling “narcissism” IS reverence for God.

  16. says

    deep down inside, they were just frustrated little grand inquisitors.

    it’s probably of great relief to them that their insipid charade is over. the stakes are ready and oiled. let the auto-da-fé commence!

  17. qwints says

    we have to wake up to the fact that fighting an illusion isn’t particularly useful.

    I’m beyond tired of trying to coddle fellow atheists into understanding that going after the soft underbelly of beliefs doesn’t make them superior, that there are real problems that are crucial to address. Let them stay behind in the dirt, busy being the intellectual and emotional equals of all those invested in hate.

    These two lines really anger and sadden me. i had nightmares about hell growing up, and for years I had intrusive and disturbing fears about the rapture. There are thousands of schools in the US where it takes courage to openly identify as an atheist. There is incredible comfort for a kid surrounded by overt religiosity in hearing people who think like themselves. There is a power in being able to stand up and say it’s bullshit.

    PZ, I first heard of you when you defended a student getting death threats for not taking superstition seriously. That mattered to me. I had lost basically all my childhood friends when I stopped going to church, and I had lied to my parents for years about my beliefs. It meant the world to me to see you and others saying that I didn’t have to believe the bullshit that my family and community was telling me I did.

    So can we stop saying that mere ‘dictionary atheism’ isn’t particular useful or isn’t addressing a real problem? I don’t mean stop critiquing organized atheism or stop fighting for a world in better ways. I just mean it hurts to be used to see something that meant and means a lot to me be used as a punchline.

  18. Vivec says

    It’d help if mere dictionary atheist groups could like, stop tacitly supporting other forms of oppression and stop wasting time on irrelevant bullshit.

    I have a limited amount of time and energy, and I’m not going to spend it fighting ten commandment statues and unenforceable religious test laws, nor am I willing to spend it helping a group that tells me to put my race and orientation aside to focus on religion.

  19. qwints says

    stop tacitly supporting other forms of oppression

    Or actively perpetuating, agreed.

    and stop wasting time on irrelevant bullshit.

    I have a limited amount of time and energy, and I’m not going to spend it fighting ten commandment statues and unenforceable religious test laws

    I’m not asking you to. I’m just telling you hurts to see secular activism called “irrelevant bullshit” or to see atheist and secular activists called “the intellectual and emotional equals of all those invested in hate.”

  20. Sastra says

    qwints #21 wrote:

    So can we stop saying that mere ‘dictionary atheism’ isn’t particular useful or isn’t addressing a real problem? I don’t mean stop critiquing organized atheism or stop fighting for a world in better ways. I just mean it hurts to be used to see something that meant and means a lot to me be used as a punchline.

    The definition of ‘dictionary atheism’ doesn’t seem to be fixed in the atheist dictionary.

    Sometimes it means “insisting that atheists should stop critiquing organized atheism and fighting for a better, more socially just world because atheism only means focusing on arguing against the existence of God.” Other times, it seems to mean “focusing on arguing against the existence of God instead of going after the more important stuff, like critiquing organized atheism and fighting for a better, more socially just world.”

    They’re similar, I think, in that both definitions seem to be trying to tell other people what to do. But, as Greta Christina once pointed out, you have to pick your personal cause, know your passions and strengths and go with them — or words to that effect. And I agree with her, and you. There are plenty of important battles to fight and they’re all connected. There’s even an important battle over what the most important battle is.

    On some level, though, I think they’re all useful. The Other Side isn’t a monolithic block and we probably shouldn’t be one either. Our jobs aren’t done.

  21. says

    Nah. As the Official Coiner of the term, those definitions don’t work.

    Dictionary Atheism is the insistence that atheism has no other goals, other than enforcing the narrowest definition possible, that atheists don’t believe in gods, full stop.

    It’s that simple. I’m saying that atheism has implications, and should change how you look at the world. It may tell you that you should be a humanist, or it could be you use it to justify misogyny. Whatever. Once you accept any extension of the principle of atheism in any direction (such as science), it invalidates any argument that X is not part of atheism.

  22. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’m just telling you hurts to see secular activism called “irrelevant bullshit” or to see atheist and secular activists called “the intellectual and emotional equals of all those invested in hate.”

    Maybe it’s time to invest in a new label, like Atheistism ♥︎, atheism with a heart (social justice). This allows us to make those against social justice atheists without a heart. Which gets to the point.

  23. hotspurphd says

    @#2. Exactly. Religion in and of itself is toxic in all manner of ways, but it is most often problematic as a pious, pseudo-moral fig-leaf for the various bigotries of the political right who seek to hide behind the shield of unearned religious privilege to avoid being called out as the hate-mongers they are.

    Is anyone here willing to admit that religion does some good? . That all Christians are not fundamentalists or haters? I know one who is quite liberal and another who is a fundi but doesn’t hate. Also there is a great deal of charitable work being done in the world by Christians which no one else will do . People who travel toHaiti for instance at their own expense to help on a regular basis, saving lives and building schools. All I hear at this site is how bad religion is and never that it might sometimes be good. I’ve posted this idea twice recently and no one responded . Will no one comment on this?

  24. qwints says

    I guess I’m just having a hard time distinguishing criticism of “those against social justice atheists” from those atheists who are “fighting ten commandment statues and unenforceable religious test laws.”

  25. Sastra says

    PZ Myers #25 wrote:

    Nah. As the Official Coiner of the term, those definitions don’t work. Dictionary Atheism is the insistence that atheism has no other goals, other than enforcing the narrowest definition possible, that atheists don’t believe in gods, full stop.

    Isn’t that more or less a paraphrase (or prequel) of my first definition — ” “insisting that atheists should stop critiquing organized atheism and fighting for a better, more socially just world because atheism only means focusing on arguing against the existence of God?” Which is of course silly, since even counter-apologetics involve science and promoting the moral value of a more reasonable world. Reasonable how?

    Stopping at counter-apologetics then makes no sense. But skipping them completely isn’t a wise policy either. Anything can be ‘reasonable’ if people can fall back on the supernatural. Or start out there — which, as qwints said, they still do, in all sincerity.

    “Atheism has no other goals” is wrong. “Atheists should have no other goals” is both wrong and annoying. And as long as the argument is still “No, that’s not what WE’RE saying — that’s what YOU’RE saying,” then I hope there is hope for ‘atheism.’

  26. chigau (違う) says

    hotspurphd #27
    I know a few Christians of the school-building kind.
    They tell me they do the school-building because it needs to be done.
    Their religion is not the main motivation.

  27. Sastra says

    hotspurphd #27 wrote:

    All I hear at this site is how bad religion is and never that it might sometimes be good. I’ve posted this idea twice recently and no one responded . Will no one comment on this?

    I will (at the risk of going off-topic but whatthehell.)
    Sure, there are many good things in religion, and good things which the religious do. I don’t think that’s really in dispute.

    The problem is that ‘what’s good in religion’ has to be defined in terms of humanism. When you (or anyone) brings up positive examples, they’re going to involve universally admired humanistic values like “helping the poor,” “promoting social justice,” or “building schools.” One does not need to be religious to follow or promote such things. The good is not unique to religion.

    So what kind of ‘good works’ ARE unique to religion? The stuff that only makes sense or seems right if you are religious. “Petitioning God to stop a drought.” “Stemming the sinful tide of homosexuality.” “Slaughtering the infidels.” The God’s-Eye View enlightens and justifies (regardless I think of what really truly came first)

    This is a serious and critical problem with religion itself. Your point then is valid, but it sidesteps the heart of the issue. Moderate and liberal religions which view God as a humanist may be closer to good, but they’re no closer to God. Since that’s supposed to be their highest goal and defining point, they’re getting an admirable result by what amounts to chance. And the “hate-mongers” don’t know they’re the Bad Guys. They’re also trying to do good by being closer to God. It’s a faith-impasse.

  28. unclefrogy says

    as someone who had the benefit of a religious education with some good rationality inspired science education and even in religion classes I eventually came to understand much differently. I came to freely admit disbelief. Along the way one of the things that really pushed me away was the judgemental ignorant bigoted nature of the community of believers.
    It is just things like the cow-towing to authoritarian ass holes mentioned above that really sealed the deal for me. I have seen no way by any convoluted twisted logic that can remove that connection from religion.
    It was not me who left the church it was the church that has rejected me and rejected the world and the people and mostly even the preaching of their christian god.
    that good people can do good things is not surprising and they would do good regardless of religion
    there are also those that do good in the name of religion and usually require some kind of a faith test or commitment, they always include strings including credit for doing their good deeds

    uncle frogy

  29. Owlmirror says

    As long as the topic is in this direction, I just want to say that I don’t like the phrase “dictionary atheist”, because as noted above, it leads to confusion as to what you’re trying to express. Is there something wrong with the dictionary definition? No, the dictionary definition of atheism is fine.

    The problem is how we define ourselves — as individuals, as members of our societies, and as atheists.

    I don’t know exactly what phrase to use instead. There are terms and phrases that might convey a better sense of what the problem is. Isolationism? Privilege? Single-note? Anti-justice?

    I’m not sure.

    /clarity in all things.

  30. vaiyt says

    Dictionary Atheism is the insistence that atheism has no other goals, other than enforcing the narrowest definition possible, that atheists don’t believe in gods, full stop.

    And that insistence only comes up when someone tries to extend the premises of atheism to conclusions the Dictionary Atheist is uncomfortable with. After all, going by the Dictionary definition, there’s nothing in atheism that leads to fighting for secular education, equality of treatment for nonbelievers or debunking false claims. The Four Horsemen should have been laughed off the stage for being off-mission long ago *if* Dictionary Atheists were in any way honest.

  31. vaiyt says

    Dictionary Atheism is atheism filtered by privilege – only the causes that affect me matter, the rest of y’all can shut up so this can keep being all about me me me.

  32. F.O. says

    These are authoritarians.
    They don’t care WHAT the authority is, or whether it is good or evil: the Authority is always right, by definition.
    They don’t care whether it is God or Trump.
    They don’t care about consistency, or logic, or evidence or morals.
    They were born and raised in a dangerous world, full of evil who is out to get them.
    Alt right, fanatic nationalists, religious fanatics, they largely respond to the same call: xenophobia.

  33. F.O. says

    PZ

    Once you accept any extension of the principle of atheism in any direction (such as science)

    Why should atheism be a principle at all?

    My principle is that I build my idea of reality out of stuff that is supported by evidence.
    Atheism is a consequence of that, it is not a principle.
    It is rather irrelevant to my morals.
    If I believed in God, my morals would be *exactly* the same.
    There is plenty of people whose morals and attitude towards evidence I share, who compartimentalise and decide to believe in some supernatural stuff.
    They are still far more “my people” than your random xenophobic atheist.

    I really fail to understand how atheism is important, or relevant at all.

  34. John Morales says

    F.O., you rail at a phantasm.

    PZ

    Once you accept any extension of the principle of atheism in any direction (such as science)

    Why should atheism be a principle at all?
    My principle is that I build my idea of reality out of stuff that is supported by evidence.
    Atheism is a consequence of that, it is not a principle.
    It is rather irrelevant to my morals.
    If I believed in God, my morals would be *exactly* the same.
    There is plenty of people whose morals and attitude towards evidence I share, who compartimentalise and decide to believe in some supernatural stuff.
    They are still far more “my people” than your random xenophobic atheist.

    You seem to imagine that a principle is an axiomatic belief, rather than a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct.

  35. ck, the Irate Lump says

    hotspurphd wrote:

    Is anyone here willing to admit that religion does some good?

    Nope. Religion doesn’t do any good. On the other hand, the religious sometimes do. An idea may inspire someone in one direction or another, but it doesn’t do anything all by itself.

    That all Christians are not fundamentalists or haters?

    That’s a ridiculous strawman, and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard an atheist say that all Christians are fundamentalists or bigots. No, it’s Muslims that usually get that treatment…

    People who travel toHaiti for instance at their own expense to help on a regular basis, saving lives and building schools.

    Some do it entirely out of charity and generosity. Some do it because they think it’ll be a good experience and helps people who need it. Some do it because they believe it’ll give them social status within their peer group. Some do it entirely to win souls for Jesus to glorify their own God. Some do it to “adopt” (kidnap) children to give them a proper Christian upbringing.

    I suppose my only point there was that there is no cause so noble that complete assholes won’t be attracted to it for all the wrong reasons.

  36. ck, the Irate Lump says

    ck, the Irate Lump wrote:

    That’s a ridiculous strawman, and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard an atheist say that all Christians are fundamentalists or bigots. No, it’s Muslims that usually get that treatment…

    I left this a little too ambiguous (and potentially meaning something other than what I intended). What I meant was that all Muslims usually get (unfairly) tarred as bigots and radicals by atheists, and not any of the other things that sentence could’ve meant.

  37. Ichthyic says

    In 1980 I believed that Christians could dramatically influence politics. Today, we see politics fully influencing a thousand Christian leaders.

    This is a day of mourning.

    What he should be mourning is the fact that he was too stupid to see that based on what he thought in 1980… the second part was inevitable.

    what the rest of us should be is embarrassed that we let “moderate” xians like this complete fuckwit EVER think that they even should, let alone could, influence politics.

    it’s a complete fail all the way around.

  38. Ichthyic says

    If I believed in God, my morals would be *exactly* the same.

    wow. I don’t think I have ever heard such a stupid argument from someone claiming to be an atheist.

    really.

    I mean, it’s completely and entirely thoughtless.

    again… wow.

  39. Knabb says

    How exactly is this supposed to look like religion being taken out of politics? Sure, there’s a right wing Christian whining about how they don’t have as much power as they want to have, but that’s an age old complaint that means approximately nothing. Yes, Land, Jeffress, Falwell and Reed are currently reduced to working under someone who isn’t an evangelical, but that’s also four hardline evangelical leaders influencing policy using power they only have because of their religious clout.

    The religious right hasn’t surrendered. It’s playing dead to some extent, trying to pretend that it is some powerless, marginalized force. That’s also nothing new though; it’s the underlying strategy behind all those claims that they are really the oppressed people, being oppressed by whoever they’re currently targeting. The most optimistic reading the current political climate has is one where the religious right is no longer powerful enough all by themselves to dictate policy, and now they’re just the most powerful part of a coalition capable of doing so.

    Everything that coalition is doing needs to be opposed, and the list in this blog post is part of that. So is the religious privilege that gives these people so much power, and so is the religious power that is directly exercised against people who are either a member of a religious minority or no religion at all.

  40. Owlmirror says

    In 1980 I believed that Christians could dramatically influence politics. Today, we see politics fully influencing a thousand Christian leaders.

    This is a day of mourning.

    what the rest of us should be is embarrassed that we let “moderate” xians like this complete fuckwit EVER think that they even should, let alone could, influence politics.

    He’s not a moderate. The Moral Majority was conservative and right-wing.

  41. Knabb says

    I suspect that’s why the term “moderate” is in quotes. The Moral Majority was pretty right-wing, but they were in the habit of presenting themselves as centrists that covered most of the political spectrum, where anyone opposed to them was painted as a radical of some sort. That’s why they made a point of including “Majority” in their title, despite it being questionably accurate at best.

  42. F.O. says

    @John Morales: me and a few dictionaries seem to think just that. Not a native speaker, I have to use them.
    BTW, I also stated that atheism is irrelevant to my morals.

  43. hotspurphd says

    Me- that all Christians are not fundamentalists or haters?
    Other person-That’s a ridiculous strawman, and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard an atheist say that all Christians are fundamentalists or bigots. No, it’s Muslims that usually get that treatment…

    Me- on this site it seems to implied that all Christians are fundamentalists bigots,etc,etc. for example above ” religion is toxic in all manner of ways…”
    Never do I see anyone write anything good about religion. It seems clear to me than some people’s faith helps them in not fearing death as much, they feel there is an omnipotent being that cares for them. These are not minor things. It may also be as some claim that Christians are doing good works at remote places in the world that no one else will do.( sorry, no citation). And I know some people who are driven by their faith to do these things, believing that Christ is moving though them.
    I agree, mostly with the criticisms of religion and the religious here but believe that perhaps some see things in only ne way. And some enjoy ridiculing others and beating those they think are trolls just for the sadistic fun of it. Others done do that are are unfailingly helpful , rational, and kind, like chigau.
    Nobody it seems wants to admit any of this I think so I’ll just leave it here.

  44. Vivec says

    Never do I see anyone write anything good about religion

    I’m of the “there is nothing good about religion that could not be better provided through secular means” camp. So sure, religion might lead people to do some good things, but it has a lot of other baggage bundled up with it that ultimately makes it a net bad thing.

  45. raven says

    Me- that all Christians are not fundamentalists or haters?

    Strawpeopling. You are a serial killer of…strawpeople.
    Most of us are ex-xians. Most of us have family members that are still xians including my parents. We know that not all xians are fundies and haters.
    The fact is though that the moderate xians simply don’t matter. They’ve been silent about the fundies and haters and lost all credibility. The fundies are a minority of US xians and yet, they are by far the dominant group and the public face of US xianity.

    Never do I see anyone write anything good about religion.

    That is because their isn’t much good about religion to write about.
    This is obvious to anyone who has read a newspaper in the last 50 years.
    The evil of religion is something we see every day. Orlando was just the latest in a long, long string of atrocities.

    Religion might do some good for some people. it certainly causes a huge amount of harm to many people. Does the good outweigh the bad? No!!!

    Sure there are good people who are religious. Most of us are ex-xians. I was a xian for 45 years. PZ Myers was raised as a Lutheran. It’s Weinberg’s rule though.
    Good people will do good.
    Bad people will do bad
    But it takes religion to make good people do bad.
    or
    Science flies humans to the moon.
    Religion flies jet planes into skyscrapers.

  46. John Morales says

    F.O. @46 re #38:

    @John Morales: me and a few dictionaries seem to think just that. Not a native speaker, I have to use them.

    If you want to believe that principles are axiomatic on the basis that you think that’s the dictionary definition, fine with me.

    BTW, I also stated that atheism is irrelevant to my morals.

    Fair enough. So you have no problem whatsoever with faith schools or the indoctrination of children into theistic religions, so long as those don’t promote what you see as immoral behaviour.

  47. raven says

    Never do I see anyone write anything good about religion.

    This is really stupid.
    Why would you expect to see anything like that on an atheist blog? Most of us are ex-xians. We know all about it. Some of the atheist leaders are ex-ministers.

    There are dozens of xian websites and hundreds of thousands of churches, all dedicated to saying good things about religion. It is their reason for existing. Maybe you should learn the difference between religion and no religion.

    I will say one thing good about religion. The fundie xians created the New Atheists. Just by being sick and evil and trying to take over the USA.
    New Atheism is a true bottom up mass movement. US xianity is losing 2 million members a year as people leave in the order of best and brightest.
    Which means the ones who are left are the worst and most dull witted. US xianity is not only dying, it is getting uglier and uglier as it fades into the night.

  48. notto says

    PZ @ 25, thanks for the summary. Replying with some minor snips

    Dictionary Atheism is the insistence that atheism has no other goals

    Atheism as a philosophical position doesn’t have goals, neither does theism (religions on the other hand…)

    So presumably you mean Movement Atheism. This can have any goals its participants like, but I think that any atheist gets to argue about whether they are suitable since they have been coopted.

    atheism has implications

    The only direct implication I can think of is that any position based upon a theological argument is suspect. Any other reasoning needs more input.

    and should change how you look at the world

    Only if you were previously a theist.

    It may tell you that you should be a humanist, or it could be you use it to justify misogyny.

    Isn’t this agreeing with the dictionary atheist position? If atheism can be used to help justify such opposing positions, they can’t be said to be consequences of atheism.

    Once you accept any extension of the principle of atheism in any direction (such as science), it invalidates any argument that X is not part of atheism.

    Replace atheism with theism. Or religion. Can you clarify what “extension of the principle” means?

  49. Saad says

    F.O., #37

    If I believed in God, my morals would be *exactly* the same.

    So if you believed in the Muslim or Christian god, your morals would be *exactly* the same?

    I think you need to define what you mean by “believed in”.

  50. Saad says

    hotspurphd, #47

    At its very best, religion is a refusal/failure to think critically. Therefore, it’s always bad.

    Good deeds + brainwashing children < Good deeds

  51. Sastra says

    F.O. #37 wrote:

    If I believed in God, my morals would be *exactly* the same.

    I think that would only be the case if you, today, with the morals you already have, changed your mind and became convinced that the universe was indeed created from a nebulous sort of Divine Principle or God — one which ultimately explains why you have the morals you have. Otherwise, what you consider right or wrong would be shaped by a different set of circumstances.

    hotspurphd #47 wrote:

    Never do I see anyone write anything good about religion. It seems clear to me than some people’s faith helps them in not fearing death as much, they feel there is an omnipotent being that cares for them. These are not minor things.

    No, but neither is truth. It matters a great deal to the people who find comfort in religion, or their comfort comes at too high a price even for them. And once we’ve recognized that the religious beliefs aren’t true, we recognize the problem with a reasoning system which only checks itself against something that doesn’t exist. If someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, there’s nothing to stop them from doing the wrong thing for the “right” reasons, from their point of view. That is not a minor thing, either. And it cuts deeper.

    I think criticizing religion is similar to criticizing pseudoscience. The fact that people can get good advice from astrologers, recover on their own after taking homeopathy, or take nice healthy long walks while searching for Bigfoot, doesn’t really count in favor of pseudoscience.

  52. hotspurphd says

    Saad #54
    23 June 2016 at 6:47 am
    hotspurphd, #47
    At its very best, religion is a refusal/failure to think critically. Therefore, it’s always bad.

    It is a refusal to think critically in some limited areas like the existence of God , creationism, efficacy of intercessory prayer. Some who don’t think critically in those areas can do so in other area, e.g. Francis Collins ,head of NIH. Also a number of people I know.

  53. hotspurphd says

    Vivec #48
    23 June 2016 at 2:35 am
    Never do I see anyone write anything good about religion
    I’m of the “there is nothing good about religion that could not be better provided through secular means” camp. So sure, religion might lead people to do some good things, but it has a lot of other baggage bundled up with it that ultimately makes it a net bad thing.

    Something about religion than cannot be better provided by secular means is a belief in an afterlife where one will be gloriously happy for eternity . For many this is a very good thing. You may say that some bad comes out of this for some people but for others it does not. Someone here said the truth is most important. For you maybe but not for others. I would prefer the truth for myself but I firmly believe that for some people I know well, my step-children for example, faith is a net good. I don’t think it hurts them to believe in creatinism and other nonsense. It really doesn’t. And I have given up trying to educate them on this. They are doing just fine with their beliefs. I fail to see any harm from their beliefs and much good for them and the people they help.
    Whether religion causes more harm or more good is an unknown. And unknowable. For example, using one metric: are more people killed by others in the name of God or saved by people digging wells to provide sanitary drinking water, provide vitamins to prevent blindness , giving food to those starving to death. There is no way to compute these things. Unless you believe if people are happier believing untruths that is by definition a bad thing.
    Raven- no this is not really stupid. You have a need to call people and there arguments stupid . Ounce called me a death cults Xtian for simply asking a question. I am an atheist.

  54. Vivec says

    So the one thing you point to as an example of something good that can only be provided by religion is irrational belief and the suspension of one’s normal standards of evidence?

    Sorry, doesn’t qualify as good.

    It can have good effects as a motivating factor, but that is not sufficient to make something good. Plenty of awful things have good effects.

  55. Saad says

    hotspurphd, #56

    It is a refusal to think critically in some limited areas like the existence of God , creationism, efficacy of intercessory prayer. Some who don’t think critically in those areas can do so in other area, e.g. Francis Collins ,head of NIH. Also a number of people I know.

    Refusal to think critically in some areas is refusal to think critically.

    Saying “I’m a free thinker. I’m not gullible. I use my critical thinking … except when it comes to these topics” is the same as refusal to think critically.

  56. Saad says

    Francis Collins (if he truly and genuinely does think a man walked on water in the Middle East a while back and angels exist) is a poor critical thinker.

  57. Vivec says

    Wasn’t his reason for converting that he saw a frozen waterfall in three parts and was like “whoa, trinity”?

    I think even a lot of theists would consider that a ludicrously poor reason.

  58. hotspurphd says

    I’m not trying to argue for religion, only that many people’s faith leads them to help others. And apparently at a much greater rate than others.
    From conservapedia.com
    “A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.[3][4] The study revealed that forty percent of worship service attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[5][6] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).[7][8]”

    As one of us pointed out secular people do these things also, but apparently not to the same degree.
    And for those of you who talk about a net loss because it not the truth or there is an absence of critical thinking- from the perspective of the the faithful I think it is their experience that should inform us. And many brilliant and productive people engage in this uncritical thinking. Francis Collins led the team that decoded the human genome in 2000. Apparently his being an evangelical didn’t get in the way of his work. Interestingly he war a go.od friend of Hitchens. Go figure.
    I suspect most of you want to just think badly of religion. It’s easy to get that impression from reading the postings here. And it’s not just the content, it’s the tone and the anger. Well justified you say? Well, I guess so, often it is. But there really are no non-fundies who believe lots of what we would call nonsense who do quite well. And some fundies who don’t hate and don’t d anyone any harm. Too often I think the religious are tarred with. The same broad brush. If I am wrong then I apologize.
    And if you say that you have an agenda here which focus on the bad that religion does and everyone recognizes the good, I wonder where the evidence of this is. Or would you say there doesn’t need to be any? Well, perhaps not, but if this were my blog I would not want to so much vituperation and one-sidedness. I wouldn’t want equal time for the positive side of religion, just an acknowledgement that there is another side.

  59. Vivec says

    Okay, now my poe detector is going off. You do know that conservapedia is a creationist rag run by a guy who might be crazier than both Hovinds combined, right?

  60. hotspurphd says

    Collins in his scientific work did do good critical thinking. The fact that in some areas he didn’t doesn’t negate that he did in other areas. Hey ,a large percentage of scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals must be doin good critical thinking despite the fact they man believe a man walked on water. You who are questioning this are not using your thinking skills very well. People can do good science and still believe in the supernatural. This is too obvious t have to point out. So Collins say the waterfall as confirmation of his belief in the Trinity. There is not sense to that but it doesn’t speak to the quality of his scientific work.
    These arguments you proffer are evidence of what I’ve been saying. There is much resistance to accepting that faith can be a good thing. Sure, you wouldn’t want it for yourself no matter how good it made you feel but it’s clear to me that it helps some people feel better. I know some one who would have killed herself by now if she hadn’t had her faith.

  61. hotspurphd says

    Vivec- no I didn’t know that. It was the first site that came up on my search. I’ll find a better reference. Though maybe those data are correct.

  62. Vivec says

    Your “argument” hinges on the assumption that faith is good simply because it has good effects, which I reject.

  63. Vivec says

    Though maybe those data are correct

    Doubt it. Assfly and co are notorious bullshitters with a kindergarten understanding of statistics.

  64. Saad says

    hotspurphd, #64

    The fact that in some areas he didn’t doesn’t negate that he did in other areas.

    I never said it “negated” his scientific work.

    I’m just saying he’s not a very good critical thinker.

    Not being tricked by Hindu and Aztec mythologies but then being tricked by Christian mythology means one is a poor critical thinker. Particularly when one has done great scientific work. One has even less of an excuse and even more to explain for why they fell for tales of angels and people coming back from the dead.

  65. Saad says

    hotspurphd, #64

    There is much resistance to accepting that faith can be a good thing. Sure, you wouldn’t want it for yourself no matter how good it made you feel but it’s clear to me that it helps some people feel better. I know some one who would have killed herself by now if she hadn’t had her faith.

    Something making people feel better does not mean that thing is necessarily good.

    False hope and hiding the truth often make people feel better.

  66. iggles says

    Sure, you wouldn’t want it for yourself no matter how good it made you feel but it’s clear to me that it helps some people feel better. I know some one who would have killed herself by now if she hadn’t had her faith.

    Anecdotes like that are not evidence. Plenty of people kill themselves because of their religious beliefs – for instance, self-hating gays. I’d venture to say that this happens on a large enough scale to overwhelmingly negate whatever lives are saved by the comforts of faith.

    If you want to prove that faith makes people happier, you have to back that up with some actual data. (Credible data. Not, you know, Conservapedia.) There is no reason to believe that atheists fail to develop effective coping strategies independent of religion.

  67. hotspurphd says

    vivec 66
    23 June 2016 at 4:40 pm
    Your “argument” hinges on the assumption that faith is good simply because it has good effects, which I reject.

    Why. If it has no bad effects why do you reject it.
    Because it’s not t true. Well, you don’t actually know what true. Even if you did know hat was true, f having false beliefs results in someone having a better and more meaningful life and no bad effect( in his or her mind) why would you not see that as good?
    I haven’t found m view of the universe to happiness producing. My death and my wife’s fills me wth dread. O if I only knew that we could go on together. The would make me feel a lot better.

  68. hotspurphd says

    I am not saying faith makes most believers happier. Just some of them. And not saying it is not a net negative. Maybe it is. There is no way to know. Sure, false hope and hiding the truth often make people feel better and those are not necessarily good things, but they can have good effects. Sometimes better not to know a devestating truth. That why we have this unconscious defense mechanisms.

    Assume that false beliefs help some people and hurt others . I believe that is true. I think the hen they help someone that is a good thing. It certainly helped my mother in law t believe that she was going to go t heaven rather than cease to exist. How s that not a good thing. For her. Not for you.

  69. Siobhan says

    Okay, now my poe detector is going off. You do know that conservapedia is a creationist rag run by a guy who might be crazier than both Hovinds combined, right?

    That’s a… charitable description of assfly.

  70. Vivec says

    Why. If it has no bad effects why do you reject it.

    1. Something is not a good thing simply because it has good effects. Bad things can motivate people to do good things, but that does not make the original thing good.

    2. I reject that faith doesn’t have bad effects. Faith leads people to do all sorts of awful things.

  71. Vivec says

    There is no way to know.

    Uh, yes, there absolutely is.

    There’s no amount of “making some people kind of happier” that could make up for a single person killed in the name of faith.

  72. Vivec says

    How s that not a good thing.

    That’s only a good thing if you accept a priori that ceasing to exist is a bad thing and eternal life in the realm of a horrific tyrant is a good thing.

  73. Rob Grigjanis says

    iggles @70:

    Anecdotes like that are not evidence. Plenty of people kill themselves because of their religious beliefs – for instance, self-hating gays. I’d venture to say that this happens on a large enough scale to overwhelmingly negate whatever lives are saved by the comforts of faith.

    Gotcha. So if you want to present a dodgy position, the proper way to do it is to put “I’d venture to say” in front of it.

    raven @49:

    Good people will do good.
    Bad people will do bad
    But it takes religion to make good people do bad.

    One of the few stupid things said by Weinberg. It takes bad ideas to make good people do bad, whether they come from religion or not. By the way, I’d say Weinberg is a good person, generally, but he is a staunch Zionist who thinks that boycotting Israel is antisemitic.

  74. iggles says

    @77

    It’s not a gotcha. The entire point was that duelling anecdotes are proof of nothing. I’m not obligated to present evidence to rebut an evidence-free claim.

  75. raven says

    I am not saying faith makes most believers happier. Just some of them.

    So does alcohol, heroin and cocaine. So what. This is about as irrelevant as it gets.

    Religion also makes people fearful, judgmental, and homicidal.

    For everyone who claims to believe in heaven, they also believe in…Hell. A place where people are sent to be tortured for all eternity. There are rules for getting into heaven or hell. No one knows what they are. Or rather there are 42,000 different xian cults that have the rules and all of them are different rules.Basically, the religious are playing blind roulette on staying out of Hell.

    Religion is also highly correlated with low socioeconomic status, and any social problem you care to name. Teen age pregnancy, child sexual abuse, divorce etc..
    It’s no accident that the most dysfunctional US states are also the most religious. The same holds true worldwide.

  76. raven says

    hotpurphd the troll
    I suspect most of you want to just think badly of religion.

    LOL. The truth is out.
    Hotpurphd is a troll. No surprise.

    I pointed out yesterday that most of us, including myself are ex-xians. We don’t want to think anything. We lived religion for decades (45 years for me) and live in a society saturated with xianity. We know!!!

    The troll also comes across as astoundingly ignorant and dumb. Like a ten year old playing on mom’s computer.
    The world had the conversation about the harm and evil of religion decades ago. Whole shelves in libraries are filled with books detailing this and it’s often front page news. The noosphere has moved on to less settled subjects.

    You all have fun playing with the troll. I’ve only got a few decades left and am not going to waste that valuable time.

  77. hotspurphd says

    raven
    23 June 2016 at 6:50 pm
    hotpurphd the troll
    I suspect most of you want to just think badly of religion.
    LOL. The truth is out.
    Hotpurphd is a troll. No surprise.

    Oh please, not this again. I am not a troll. I misspoke in the quote above. What I should have said is that most people here think badly of religion. As do I. The difference is that I have seen how helpful it is to some people that I know well and how some of their efforts are of great help to others, even saving the lives of poor Haitians. I think anecdotes can be helpful in seeing what is possible. Overall I think it’s impossible to know whether religion has a greater positive effect or a greater negative effect.
    Vivec, it’s not a matter of one life saved making up for lots of suicides. The question is, to my mind, what is the effect of religion for good or ill. I don’t think it is possible to quantify the effects so the answer is impossible to know. And if religion destroys a million lives and saves 100,000 you could say that that latter fact is a good one but religion has a net negative effect. But saving 100,000 is better than none.
    Yes Raven, there are lots of books that say lots of things but I don’t think they answer the question. Bertrand Russell detailed the horrors of Christianty but said little if anything about the positive things. Has anyone made a serious effort to assess the good and the bad? How would you do it? You are so convinced it seems that it only bad. I am not. I am convinced that it is sometimes a force for good.
    I was hoping that some of you here would be able to offer some helpful thoughts and information about this. So far no one has. You have reacted by attacking me as a troll or as someone trying to praise religion. I’m not trying to do that. I was expecting a more balanced response and something that would be helpful since so many of you know so much about so many things.
    There is a very strong bias here against religion to the point that you really can’t see any significant good in it.
    To the person who brought up that website again that I quoted, conservapedia, I already said I knew nohing about it and I take it back. I assume you are correct that it is a creationist site. I don’t know that the data reported is incorrect. I found since that some polls show the faithful give more to charity and some don’t, and that polls are confounded by whether or not you include giving to the church charity. So I dunno about that yet.

  78. Vivec says

    Vivec, it’s not a matter of one life saved making up for lots of suicides.

    Who said anything about suicides? You do get people have been murdering others for their faith as long as there’s been religion, right?

    The question is, to my mind, what is the effect of religion for good or ill. I don’t think it is possible to quantify the effects so the answer is impossible to know.

    That is an assertion that requires evidence.

    I reject your claim that it is impossible to know, both from lack of evidence and because I think it is fairly trivial to contrast the net good and bad motivated by religion.

    And if religion destroys a million lives and saves 100,000 you could say that that latter fact is a good one but religion has a net negative effect. But saving 100,000 is better than none.

    Under that literal same logic, Nazism is good.

    Sure, The Nazis killed ~12 million people in camps, but it also promoted the legal and monetary welfare of hundreds of thousands of pureblooded Germans. Sure, killing 12 million people is bad, but helping a couple hundred thousand people is better than helping none.

  79. hotspurphd says

    Raven,
    You wrote
    Religion is also highly correlated with low socioeconomic status, and any social problem you care to name. Teen age pregnancy, child sexual abuse, divorce etc..
    It’s no accident that the most dysfunctional US states are also the most religious. The same holds true worldwide.
    Now that the kind of thing I was looking for. I’ve read that before. Now if only someone would present some evidence for religion, if there is any.

    Also not all who believe in heaven believ in hell. And among the many who do, those who believe they know the rules and are going to heaven are more than cheered by the belief. That is a positive effect, but some of you apparently would that belief is not a good thing? A lovely woman I know said one day that she was sure she was going to heaven when she died. My thought was that is a very good thing to believe, though I never could.
    Vivec, if you don’t feel dread at the thought of not existing perhaps you’ll feel differently when you hear time’s winged chariot hurrying near. I know I feel the dread, not having decades left as Raven thinks he has. The denial of death is a useful defense mechanism and as it breaks down….

  80. Vivec says

    I am convinced that it is sometimes a force for good.

    Religion is a bad thing that sometimes motivates people to do good things, at the cost of motivating others to do bad things and forcing believers to sacrifice their ability to think critically.

  81. Vivec says

    Vivec, if you don’t feel dread at the thought of not existing perhaps you’ll feel differently when you hear time’s winged chariot hurrying near.

    Eat my entire ass. I was literally just in a school shooting, and I’ve been in shootouts before.

    I’m not afraid of the fact that I didn’t exist before I was born, and I’m not afraid of the fact that I won’t exist after I die.

  82. Rob Grigjanis says

    Wow. I’m amazed that hotspurphd gets crapped on for expressing concerns about the reflexive dismissal of the role that religion plays in many people’s lives, while raven seems to get an automatic pass for dogmatic drivel, apparently because xe makes the right noises. Hulk smash! Religion bad!

    Vivec @85:

    I’m not afraid of the fact that I didn’t exist before I was born, and I’m not afraid of the fact that I won’t exist after I die.

    Well good for you, sunshine. Everyone should feel the same way, right?

  83. hotspurphd says

    Vivec
    That nazi example is so bad. The few saved is contingent on the many killed. You must know that is a terrible example. I think you are not willing to consider this fairly.
    A better example would be- 100,000 gays kill themselves vs 100,000 or any number do not kill the,selves because they find strength in Jesus( I know of one person like this and assume there are others. So an example of religion bad vs religion good. Another-lots of gays killed by religious fanatics vs lots of poor people’s lives saved because Christians went to a poor village where many people died from unsanitary drinking water and dug dozens of wells resulting in a sharp decrease in deaths from bad water.(true story of results of a Christian mission , Christian flights international. Look it up. Also built school for 1000 kids.because they believe God wants them to do this). Call this anecdotal if you must, this mission has been dping this for more than 30 years. I know some of these people and there is no doubt in my mind that religion here is a force for good producing healthy educated children. There is no question I would think here but you all I suppose will not see it that way. Or the negative is so much greater. Maybe it is. I don’t know. Neither do you. But even if the negative is greater, the good is still good. And I’m not say that it makes up for any amount of bad or any bad. I don t see how you can argue wth this.
    I hope this clarifies what I have been trying to say.

  84. hotspurphd says

    Rob Grigjanis
    23 June 2016 at 8:48 pm
    Wow. I’m amazed that hotspurphd gets crapped on for expressing concerns about the reflexive dismissal of the role that religion plays in many people’s lives, while raven seems to get an automatic pass for dogmatic drivel, apparently because xe makes the right noises. Hulk smash! Religion bad!
    Vivec @85:
    I’m not afraid of the fact that I didn’t exist before I was born, and I’m not afraid of the fact that I won’t exist after I die.
    Well good for you, sunshine. Everyone should feel the same way, right?

    Wow, thank Rob for some support. I get so tired of all this pushback and mischaracterizarion of my positions. People here often reflexively dismiss the postive role religion can play, going on land on how how since it does so much harm that it can’t be any good at all and if because you believe then you can’t be good at thinking critical and that’s the worst thing in the world. You response is a ray of sunshine. I don’t understand the person who said Collins doesn’t have good critical thinking. Apparently s/he is not aware of compartmentalization, when you think critically in one area and not in another. I think polls show most scientists in this country are Christians. Is all there scientific work to be distrusted?
    I am so tired of the insults here. Fuck you raven. And thank to the many who say so many useful things.

  85. Vivec says

    Well good for you, sunshine. Everyone should feel the same way, right?

    No, but I’m not going to pretend that an adult believing in fairy tales is a good thing, even if it comforts them.

    Further more, I was saying this in response to their assertion that it was necessarily good that religion makes people think there’s an afterlife, which is only true if you accept that an afterlife is preferable to nonexistence.

    . But even if the negative is greater, the good is still good. And I’m not say that it makes up for any amount of bad or any bad. I don t see how you can argue wth this.

    Religion is a bad thing that sometimes motivates people to do good things. It is not a good thing or a force for good because of that. Motivating people to do good things does not necessarily make something good.

  86. Saad says

    hotspurphd, #88

    I don’t understand the person who said Collins doesn’t have good critical thinking. Apparently s/he is not aware of compartmentalization, when you think critically in one area and not in another.

    The person explained what they meant. It’s perfectly fine that you disagree. They’re not going to argue over something like that.

  87. Vivec says

    Also, I never denied that religion can do good things (or rather, religious belief can motivate people to do good things), I denied that these things can only be done by religion, or are even done best by religion.

    I think polls show most scientists in this country are Christians. Is all there scientific work to be distrusted?

    No, but they are demonstrably worse at critical thinking than atheist scientists.

  88. hotspurphd says

    Vivec,
    “Eat my entire ass? For suggesting you might be afraid of death someday. Well lucky you if you are not. And won’t be , but you can’t know that. Must say I find some small comfort in the idea that I didn’t exist before I was born, but I still dread the idea of death. And even more the great Likelihood that my wife will die long before I do. And pardon the fuck out of me for suggesting that you might fear it someday. I guess you took that as an insult. Well it wasn’t. And even if it had been is that such a bad thing to say to someone. I don’t think so. So fuck you too.

  89. Vivec says

    The few saved is contingent on the many killed.

    And this is supposed to demonstrate that religion is a good thing? Sorry, can’t contort my brain enough to accept that.

    When asked to point out a good thing that can only be offered by religion, your example was belief in an afterlife. I reject that belief in an afterlife is a good thing. It’s, at best, a delusion that occasionally makes people happy.

    However, I think that the dubious benefits of believing in an afterlife can also be derived through secular means, so even by that standard, I reject that there is anything good that only religion can provide.

  90. Vivec says

    For suggesting you might be afraid of death someday.

    For pulling that same fucking tired “oh you’re not qualified to talk about fear of death” bullshit apologetic. I’ve faced it multiple times, and I still don’t see any need to seek comfort from a fairy tale about living forever with an all-powerful tyrant.

    So fuck you too.

    The feeling is mutual.

    However, I hope you never have to sit around and hope your classroom isn’t the next one to get shot up for hours, only for some asshole online to tell you that you’re not experienced enough to talk about fearing death.

  91. hotspurphd says

    Vivec
    No, but they are demonstrably worse at critical thinking than atheist scientists.
    Please demonstrate.
    I assume many people who show poor critical thinking in one area can show excellent critical thinking in another. I have a good friend who makes the most egregious errors in thinking when talking of religion but not in other areas. He has to or he couldn’t believe.

  92. says

    hotspurphd:

    For suggesting you might be afraid of death someday.

    This is what you said:

    Vivec, if you don’t feel dread at the thought of not existing perhaps you’ll feel differently when you hear time’s winged chariot hurrying near.

    I’m not trying to be mean here, but that’s not a suggestion. It’s projection, with a hint of threat. Almost an “how dare you not be terrified!”

    I know a lot of people are terrified by the thought of dying, but there are also a lot of people who aren’t. I don’t want to die, at least not right now, but the thought doesn’t terrify me at all, and I’ve been quite close to death a number of times in my life. Now I’m staring down the barrel of old age. *shrug*

    I think you put a fair amount of projection into your remark to Vivec, which is why you got a bristly response. That would have gotten a similar response from me.

  93. Vivec says

    Please demonstrate.

    Scientist A is a world class chemist that does’t believe in fairy tales.
    Scientist B is a world class chemist but also believes in fairy tales.
    Scientist’s A&B are roughly equivalent chemists in terms of knowledge
    Scientist A is better at critical thinking because they don’t believe in fairy tales.

  94. says

    Raven:

    LOL. The truth is out.
    Hotpurphd is a troll. No surprise.

    You have been told, time and time again, to knock this shit off. Hotspurphd, like all the other people you scream ‘troll’ at, is not a new person here, and has been a respected commenter.

    Last time you went off on one of your idiot sprees, you decided everyone at Pharyngula was a troll except for you. You’re a caricature, a one note failure who can only spit “troll” at people. Shut the fuck up.

  95. hotspurphd says

    Vivec,For pulling that same fucking tired “oh you’re not qualified to talk about fear of death” bullshit apologetic. I’ve faced it multiple times, and I still don’t see any need to seek comfort from a fairy tale about living forever with an all-powerful tyrant.

    I think you misunderstand me. I never said nor implied that you are not qualified to talk about death. Where did I say that? And this ” need to seek comfort…” What is you point with that sentence? Many people do have the need and they don’t see God as a tyrant. I say let them be happy if they are.Ok it’s a delusion . If it helps it helps Why is that so bad?
    However, I hope you never have to sit around and hope your classroom isn’t the next one to get shot up for hours, only for some asshole online to tell you that you’re not experienced enough to talk about fearing death.
    Where did I say that? My assumption is that most people are afraid of death and will be more so as it approaches even many of those who believe they are going to heaven.
    Apparently you thought I insulted you, saying you were unqualified, etc, etc. I did say or imply those things. So since you thought I insulted you, which resulted in you saying “eat my entire …” I retract my insult. Unfuck you. Sorry about that.
    hotspurphd
    23 June 2016 at 9:24 pm

  96. Vivec says

    Why is that so bad?

    Because it needlessly requires them to suspend important parts of our brains in order to accept something nonsensical, when there are secular means to do the exact same thing.

  97. hotspurphd says

    Correction. In the previous note I meant to say I DIDN’ T say or imply those things.
    I’m not all all sure of why offense was taken. My assumption is virtually everybody is afraid of death or will be when the time comes.

    Apparently you thought I insulted you, saying you were unqualified, etc, etc. I DIDN’T say or imply those things. So since you thought I insulted you, which resulted in you saying “eat my entire …” I retract my insult. Unfuck you. Sorry about that.
    hotspurphd

  98. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    My assumption is virtually everybody is afraid of death or will be when the time comes.

    What fucking load of shit you are saying. Nobody in their right mind, which excludes those with religious faith in a mythical afterlife, is worried about that. You have a problem with your mortality? Keep it where it belongs, to yourself.
    I don’t have any problems with mortality, and most of those here don’t either. Why are you so fucking obnoxious with your delusional belief that we should have a problem?

  99. hotspurphd says

    Caine. Thanks very much. About Raven. And a respected commenter? Me? I think I’m going to faint. The best anyone has even said about me here is I’m not a troll. My oh my!
    And the other.Its not so much projection as an assumption about most people. Yes I should have worded it differently . Very differently. Ok, there is a lot of projection. I’m scared to death. Really.
    Also vivec, the fact that there are other ways to get to a place, like not fearing death,does not negate the helpfulness of religion. It seems that for some anything is better than religion. I think some use it just fine.
    Also studies in psychology have shown that people who are most realistic in their appraisal of the world are more prone to depression than those who are less aware. An argument for the helpfulness of a bit of denial. My bet is you will say better to be completely aware and depressed. I’m look for a reference.

  100. Vivec says

    An argument for the helpfulness of a bit of denial.

    Helpful =/= Good.

    As I’ve said like five times before, something is not necessarily good simply because it motivates people to do good things.

    The school shooting I was in motivated me to mend my relationship with my extended family, but the fact that it motivated me into doing something good doesn’t mean that the school shooting was a good thing.

  101. hotspurphd says

    Vivec
    23 June 2016 at 9:26 pm
    Please demonstrate.
    Scientist A is a world class chemist that does’t believe in fairy tales.
    Scientist B is a world class chemist but also believes in fairy tales.
    Scientist’s A&B are roughly equivalent chemists in terms of knowledge
    Scientist A is better at critical thinking because they don’t believe in fairy tales.

    Well, sure. Somehow I thought we were talking about the quality of critical thinking scientific areas. That’s what I meant. Of course if you are going add in the areas of bad critical thinking. Then you are correct. Obviously. What I meant, but guess didn’t make clear, is that in their areas of scientific expertise, the religious scientists may be as good as the atheist scientists in critical thinking. When I said “please demonstrate” I meant demonstrate the atheists are better at science. I hope they aren’t . If they are then we may have a lot of bad science since most scientists are Christians in this country, except in the NAS, when only 7% believe in God.

  102. hotspurphd says

    denial.
    Helpful =/= Good.
    As I’ve said like five times before, something is not necessarily good simply because it motivates people to do good things.
    I agree. I also think a bit or a lot of denial can be a very got thing. Or a bad thing. As a psychologist I’ve seen people use denial in ways that were helpful and ways that were not.

  103. Vivec says

    I agree. I also think a bit or a lot of denial can be a very got thing.

    You don’t agree with me if you think that believing in delusions can be a good thing. I think they can have good effects, but delusions are not therefore good things because of that.

  104. Rob Grigjanis says

    Nerd @102:

    Nobody in their right mind, which excludes those with religious faith in a mythical afterlife, is worried about that.

    Have I told you I think you’re an idiot lately? If not, let me update. You’re an idiot.

    You have a problem with your mortality? Keep it where it belongs, to yourself.

    Ah, compassionate atheism. The best thing since compassionate conservatism.

    I don’t have any problems with mortality, and most of those here don’t either.

    You and raven seem to share this need to speak for “most of those here”. The handful of times I’ve been faced, in an immediate sense, with my own (or someone else’s) mortality, I (they) have been scared shitless. Guess we were out of our right minds. Fuck your glib dismissal.

  105. chigau (違う) says

    How strange.
    I haven’t really thought of it in terms of fear but the few times I’ve been in close proximity to almost-death, I didn’t feel fear. I’m not sure what I felt.
    The protagonists were unconscious, so I don’t know what they were feeling.

  106. Rowan vet-tech says

    I do have to say that I am abjectly terrified of the fact that I will one day cease to be. Still an atheist, though. But I’ve been preternaturally aware of my own mortality from an unusually young age and I had nightmares about it from at least 3 or 4 days old up until I was about 12. Every single night. Same nightmare. This tends to make me anxious about things with relatively high potentials for causing my death. It’s why it took me so long to learn to drive, why I’m a super cautious and defensive driver, and why I always drive myself. It’s why, even though it’s ridiculous, I avoid flying as best I can (no possibility of me being able to do something to save myself).

    And I find it extremely hurtful to be told that I’m apparently ‘not in my right mind’ as if I’m literally crazy for this thing.

  107. Vivec says

    For the record, it’s not my stance that people are wrong for being afraid of dying. My particular stance is that believing in an afterlife is not a good thing just because it assuages that fear for some people, and that it’s kind of skeezy to go “Yeah well maybe you’ll fear it when your life is in danger” when someone doesn’t seem to fear it.

  108. hotspurphd says

    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
    23 June 2016 at 9:48 pm
    My assumption is virtually everybody is afraid of death or will be when the time comes.
    What fucking load of shit you are saying. Nobody in their right mind, which excludes those with religious faith in a mythical afterlife, is worried about that. You have a problem with your mortality? Keep it where it belongs, to yourself.
    I don’t have any problems with mortality, and most of those here don’t either. Why are you so fucking obnoxious with your delusional belief that we should have a problem?
    It now becomes clear that Nerd, while not unintelligent, is an unusual person . He/she has shown in the past an hysterical need to see trolls when there aren’t any(also paranoid) and also a need to vilfy people . As a relatively normal person who has been around more than 70 years and who as a psychologist has studied normal and abnormal thoughts,feelings , and behavior, I know ,as most people do, that fear of death is the normal response in most people. I am shocked that anyone would question that. I don’t understand why someone who says it is attacked. Called an idiot. Please shut the fuck up.perhaps we could take a poll here. Who is afraid to die? Glad to see someone else that thinks Nerd has his head up his ass. I guess that nerd is male since women are not usually so obnoxiously aggressive. Thanks again Rob.
    Nerd pleas don’t speak to me again. Thanks.

  109. Vivec says

    I guess that nerd is male since women are not usually so obnoxiously aggressive.

    Yeah, don’t do that, thanks.

  110. chigau (違う) says

    HTML lesson

    Doing this
    <blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
    Results in this

    paste copied text here

    <b>bold</b>
    bold

    <i>italic</i>
    italic

  111. Rowan vet-tech says

    Whoops, caught a typo. 3 or 4 *years* old. Not days. That would be an impressive feat of memory.

  112. Rob Grigjanis says

    hotspurphd @113:

    I guess that nerd is male since women are not usually so obnoxiously aggressive.

    Seconding Vivec, that’s not called for.

  113. hotspurphd says

    I’m sorry to have offended. I am a male and it is my observation that men are on average more aggressive than women, verbally and physically. It has seemed to me for a long time that men have a number of problems that women don’t have as much which prompts th em to behave in obnoxious ways. That’s all I’ll say about it. I’m sorry if anyone is offended. There are difference between men and women and I thnk it shoul be ok to talk about that, but if it frowned on here I’ll refrain. One thing we can agree on is that men are more likely to commit mass shootings. Is it ok to say that?

  114. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I am shocked that anyone would question that.

    I’m shocked that you are shocked that somebody would say you might be wrong.

  115. hotspurphd says

    Well, this more than 2 options I’m still getting used to. I did note that someone here (pz?) noted that mass shooters are usually men without mentioning gender. I’m not sure what one would say. Nothing I guess.
    Re: the universality of the fear of death- I would also be shocked if someone denied that men are on average taller than women. Speaking here of sex at birth, not gender.

  116. hotspurphd says

    There are some interesting results if you google “fear of death universal”. I have no doubt that the fear of death is universal and that is from my reading and observation not projection. There is a famous book ” The Denial of Death” By anthropologist Ernest Becker

    “Is the fear of death universal? Anthropologist Ernest Becker (1973) seems to think so, arguing that “the idea of death, the fear of it, haunts the human animal like nothing else; it is the mainspring of human activity—activity designed largely to avoid the fatality of death, to overcome it by denying in some way that it is the final destiny for man” (p. ix). There is much about death to fear: Whether by accident, disease, or intentional infliction by another human, the path to death for all but a few fortunate humans is accompanied by pain. Death can also be a lonely and isolating …”

    I think most psychologists would agree that the fear of death is universal among humans. If someone is unaware of it it could be that he has found ways to deny it. Denial being an unconscious defense mechanism the person would not be are of that. Such denial could serve a useful purpose reducing anxiety and depression perhaps. I suspect that there are few who report as two people did here that they have not anxiety about their own death and really don’t mind dying. I find this very interesting and am going to research it. Ian very surprised at the vehemence expressed by one person about me talking about death anxiety. Why so upsetting? One hypothesis-the person is in great denial about his or her ( and other possibilities,what are they called?) own fear of death and the anxiety takes the form of rage against the person evoking it.

  117. chigau (違う) says

    Nerd
    Could you give it a rest?
    hotspurphd requested that you not speak to them.
    You could find something else to do.

  118. hotspurphd says

    Chigau. I am a man. You may use the pronoun singular pronouns he and him when referring to me. I am aware that the plural pronoun they is not only common by considered acceptable by grammarians but it seems unecessary when you know the sex or gender f the person. ”

    I found an interesting article on the denial of death:
    https://www.northampton.edu/Documents/Subsites/HaroldWeiss/Death/UniversalFearofDeath.pdf
    The book The Denial of Death is quite good. Is one one list of the best books of the 20th century.

  119. Vivec says

    Hypothesizing about the motive behind peoples actions is a kind of rude “just asking questions” I’d avoid, especially if you’re not going to let them respond.

  120. Lofty says

    hotspurphd

    I have no doubt that the fear of death is universal

    No.

    My mother, life long atheist, was absolutely not afraid of dying because she knew with certainty that there was no afterlife so nothing to fear. She was more afraid of not being allowed to die when her brain was gone. When she went to hospital for the last time I made absolutely sure that the emergency dept had a copy of her Advanced Care Directive, signed by her while in sound mind, asking for life support to be not needlessly extended. A day after that she was dead, a total of 3 days after she was definitely sane and quite sure of her feelings on death.

    As for me, I’d be more like a little annoyed about dying, having so much still to learn and do. Afraid? definitely not.

  121. Lofty says

    Shovel: for the digging of the metaphorical hole you are standing in, ever deeper and deeper.

  122. chigau (違う) says

    Lofty
    Yes, “annoyed”.
    If I died right now, I’d be annoyed.
    It is my turn to take out the garbage. The roommates would be annoyed.

  123. chigau (違う) says

    hotspurphd #127
    That article at your link was amazing.
    I read stuff like that in the 1970s.
    I am gobsmacked that any journal still publishes that kind of thing.

  124. hotspurphd says

    Re the universality of the fear of death, the fact that someone says he is not afraid or is unaware he is afraid does not necessarily mean he does not have an unconscious fear of death. According NIMH http://www.statisticbrain.com/fear-phobia-statistics/
    the most prevalent phobia is necrophobia, excessive fear of death . There will be many other who fear death but are not phobic. I wonder if those who say they are not afraid would find they feel differently in threatened with extinction. If it’s not universal it is so widespread i think to be close to it. Perhaps there is not much sympathy here for the ideas about denial and repression.

  125. Rowan vet-tech says

    Erm… to be pedantic… necrophobia is a fear of dead things and of things associated with death. Thanatophobia is the fear of (one’s own) death. I know this because… well, as I’ve already said.

  126. Vivec says

    Perhaps there is not much sympathy here for the ideas about denial and repression.

    It’s a fundamentally untestable hypothesis (how do you intend to prove the contents of someone else’s mind over the internet?) and simply serves to try and win an argument by asserting that you know someone’s thought processes than they do, which yes, comes off as kind of douchey.

    That, and a common presuppositional apologetic is the whole “atheists are just suppressing the knowledge of god they all have” thing, so we’re all a little burnt out on people claiming to know our brains better than we do.

  127. hotspurphd says

    Vivec 138

    About denial and repression.-it is not, as you say, douchey, to assume that peoples’ defense mechanisms work the same whether or not they are present. I assume everyone engages in denial and repression and may not always be aware of what is denied or repressed. If you don’t agree with that, fine. But whether you like it or not, there are things about yourself you are not aware of. I am not saying I know your brains better that you do. I have no way to know what is goin on with you. Just speculating about what may be going on. I would hope hypotheses are ok. You sure are touchy. I, on the other hand , welcome educated and intelligent hypotheses about my mental workings.
    Vivec
    “That, and a common presuppositional apologetic is the whole “atheists are just suppressing the knowledge of god they all have” thing, so we’re all a little burnt out on people claiming to know our brains better than we do.”

    I am not saying anything like that. I’m sorry if I seem presumptuous. I do believe in these defense mechanisms and my hypothesis that those who say they are not afraid of dying may someday have some very different feelings is a reasonable onee and should not to my mind offend. If I were with a bunch of psychologists no one would be offended at such talk. We usually assume there are unconscious elements and are not offended by the idea.

    137. You are correct about necrophobia and thanatophobia. ” Death anxiety” is the term used most. I could find data only on necrophobia. I’m assuming that these phobics are also afraid of their own deaths. If I’m correct about that then it would seem That most people fear their own deaths. I will look for the prevalence of death anxiety.

  128. Lofty says

    There are people genuinely not afraid of death. Some people were afraid of dying as small children, then they grew up, learnt about real world stuff and stopped worrying about it. Have you grown up yet? Know anything about reality yet?

  129. Sastra says

    hotspurphd #57 wrote:

    Someone here said the truth is most important. For you maybe but not for others.

    I think that’s a reference to me, way back at #55 — but I don’t think you quite took my point. I wasn’t focusing on happiness and whether or not people would be happier knowing the truth. I was talking about what people value most — including the religious.

    If you were to ask people of faith whether it matters to them whether or not God exists — or if their religious beliefs primarily function as a form of personal therapy, social community, or psychological prop for urging them to do their best — very, very few are likely to throw out the importance of God. Individual by individual, when it comes to themselves they believe they care about what is true, first and foremost. And consider the possibility that that may mean they do. You and I may be prepared to sit back and assess what really motivates the simple folks and judge what they can or can’t handle, intellectually or emotionally. But if we treat them as our equals and assume they’re more like us than not, then I think we ignore them at our peril.

    You’re not so much giving the religious respect as urging our forbearance. Not in a single instance where the believer is particularly weak, or burdened, or simple-minded — but as a general principle, as the default. Live and let live and don’t care what they believe; care about what they do. Only extremism should trip us into action and spur on our arguments for the truth. Or, maybe, not the truth. Maybe just a plea that the religious agree to measure God against the standards of humanism and we’ll leave them alone.

    I apologize if that’s not what your saying. But if that’s more or less what you are saying, then I’ll bring up the danger of shifting the topic from truth to comfort. The religious themselves don’t want it. And treating them as if they DO want this because THEY can never face death with the strength we do, is not as compassionate as it sounds. How are we supposed to view our capacity then to ‘handle the truth?’ Are we unique, better, braver, wiser, smarter?

    I doubt it. Give those who are religious more credit. We humans are often surprisingly resilient.

    The existence of God is not supposed to function like a personal therapy. It’s supposed to explain the universe and our purpose in it. Faith is not supposed to function like personal preferences. It’s supposed to grant insight into objective Truth and impel you to live it out regardless if it makes sense in the world. In fact, if it made sense in the world then why is it needed? I think that grants believers the freedom of gods. That this thirst for certainty and absolutes doesn’t misfire more often than it does can’t be credited to religion. It’s partly I think a function of the existence of the Outsider, the nonbeliever urging caution and the rational search for truth-with-a-smaller-t.

  130. hotspurphd says

    Hotspurphd #57 wrote:
    “Someone here said the truth is most important. For you maybe but not for others.”
    Sastra, I take back what I said. I agree with you that religious people “believe what they care about is true, first and foremost”. I really don’t know what I meant by my statement. What I would say ,again, is that, to disagree with others here, if some religious people are happier and more productive and helpful to others because of beliefs that we atheists are sure are not true, then that is a good thing. Ah I think I see what I meant earlier when I said “Someone here said the truth is most important. For you maybe but not for others.” I’m saying that it’s not important to me that others know the truth. Everyone can’t know the truth, and who can say what it is anyway. What I’m saying is that it is just fine if people are helped by e.g., believing in Heaven. If it gives them joy and doesn’t lead to bad things then that is a good thing. And we cannot prove it doesn’t exist. And to those wh have said it it is not a good thing if you believe what is not true no matter how much good it does- I ask how do you know what is true and not true?
    Sastra, I must say you last post seems rather masterful to me. I need to read it a couple more times to understand it better. I hope my statement makes some sense. It seems a bit disjointed. Chigau, I will try again to master the HTML code. I tried before when you tried to help me with it but couldn’t do it.

  131. hotspurphd says

    Gavin Stevens from “Intruder in the Dust by William Failkner

    “Some things you must always be unable to bear. Some things you must never stop refusing to bear. Injustice and outrage and dishonor and shame. No matter how young you are or how old you have got. Not for kudos and not for cash. Your picture in the paper nor money in the bank, neither. Just refuse to bear them.”

    Seems like a good motto for PZ and this blog

  132. Sastra says

    hotsdpurphd #143 wrote:

    I’m saying that it’s not important to me that others know the truth. .. What I’m saying is that it is just fine if people are helped by e.g., believing in Heaven. If it gives them joy and doesn’t lead to bad things then that is a good thing.

    And I think that what a lot of us are saying is that what works fine for individual situations (relatives, friends, coworkers) isn’t a good approach to use when it comes to the issue as a whole. When religion is supposed to inform one’s entire life — and there are no inherent brakes on what might or might not be true — then the line between ‘doesn’t lead to bad things’ and ‘leads to bad things’ is arbitrary and likely to shift in directions which don’t fit in well with what a reasonable atheist considers harmless.

    God is not supposed to be a humanist. Humble belief in God is supposed to set one above the world. You are accountable to God, God is accountable to no one, and the unreliable communication network is seen as part and parcel of the trust you place in God. This goes wrong, and, regardless of whether God exists or not, it starts out wrong. The desire to submit to unquestioned authority in order to gain immortality is a dangerous bargain. As a cultural virtue, combined with faith, it’s dangerous for everyone.

    Again, I’ll make an analogy with pseudoscience. What difference does it make if Great-Aunt Edna believes in astrology? After all, that column in the newspaper is innocuous. It’s all advice about “think before you speak” and “today is a good day for getting to those old projects you’ve been meaning to do. She’s happy. What’s the harm?

    The answer to that is not a slam-dunk. It’s not that obvious that sweet old Edna won’t switch from the newspaper column to getting advice from a con artist or, maybe worse, a True Believer who will create major upset in her life. It’s not a given that more and more folks won’t fall for it and suddenly astrology has become mainstream and dark and dangerous. And what does it say about Edna, that we condescend to her so easily? That’s a kind of harm, too, I think — even if we choose to let it go.

  133. hotspurphd says

    You are very persuasive. You are saying, I think, that we have a better chance for things being good if we push for truth( there is no good evidence for God ). But how does that “truth” result in better outcomes than belief in God? You are saying that false belief is dangerous. So atheism and no belief without humanism .We have plenty of evidence for godless people and regimes doing great evil. The argument that godliness has led to bad outcomes is not sufficient. Perhaps we are back to trying to find a metric for good outcomes from religion and non-religion. Also it seems that there is a near universal need to believe in a hi,ther power. It may be impossible to counter that. If so would it be better to study the way religion can lead to good outcomes?

  134. John Morales says

    hotspurphd:

    But how does that “truth” result in better outcomes than belief in God?

    Perhaps consider the expression ceteris paribus.

  135. Sastra says

    hotspurphd #146 wrote:

    You are saying, I think, that we have a better chance for things being good if we push for truth( there is no good evidence for God ). But how does that “truth” result in better outcomes than belief in God?

    It won’t always. Nothing always works for the best outcome, all the time. We struggle with compromises and work for improvement.

    Perhaps the question of truth vs. utility is ultimately best approached on general principle by both believers and nonbelievers. That is, when it comes to the most important questions of who we are, how we live, what we know, and what we believe — is it better to try to seek out and work within what we can best discern to be true? Mold ourselves into the reality and change when needed? Or is it better to ‘conclude’ what seems to suit us best — and hold on to it fervently against opposition of the world?

    When it’s put like this — and it’s clear that we’re not just talking about personal choices and preferences like careers and lifestyles, but the facts of the matter within which we make these choices — I suspect the religious divide doesn’t really exist anymore. The Jews both did and did not die in the Holocaust; evolution is and is not a fact; the earth is and is not heating up; God both exists and doesn’t exist and is a God of both love and vengeance (or vengeance alone.) It would take the most relativistic, postmodern, and (my guess) unreflective position imaginable for someone to agree that everyone having their own “truths” would work for everyone else and lead to the ‘best’ outcome for all. And the same goes for just allowing oneself alone to believe reality into existence. Unless we’re either completely uninterested in the topic or breaking down and admitting weakness, it seems to me that for ourselves we want to seek what’s true.

    It’s the other people we feel sorry enough for to let them flourish under delusions. And we’ll only feel sorry for them if we think they’re too weak and powerless to effect us in any significant way. That might be true for a pious aunt; it won’t be true for a pious society that closes ranks and proclaims “In God WE Trust.”

    When “good” outcomes can only be measured against humanist standards — how reasonable, universal, and tempered are they? — then it looks to me like reality/truth is going to win on the moral level, too. There are all sorts of universal needs, and many of them can cancel each other out. Atheists can’t expect the mystical magic of sudden universal conversion. But we can probably make use of the practical magic of slower thinking and gradual improvement.

  136. hotspurphd says

    “The Jews both did and did not die in the Holocaust; evolution is and is not a fact; the earth is and is not heating up; God both exists and doesn’t exist and is a God of both love and vengeance (or vengeance alone.) ”
    What do you mean?
    Since the need for God has existed in all societies and it provides great comfort to some I think there is a limit beyond which secularism cannot go. Perhaps a majority of humans will always be religious. And maybe that can be a good thing. Even if the religious don’t realize some truths. Also may Christians pick and choose what to believe and some will be choosing on a humanistic basis. I know an evangelical who hates homosexuality but tries to love the sinner. That’s a lot better than some. And there are many believers who think hat being gay is no sin at all.

    You wrote:

    Perhaps the question of truth vs. utility is ultimately best approached on general principle by both believers and nonbelievers. That is, when it comes to the most important questions of who we are, how we live, what we know, and what we believe — is it better to try to seek out and work within what we can best discern to be true? Mold ourselves into the reality and change when needed? Or is it better to ‘conclude’ what seems to suit us best “.
    That sounds really very good but it is very abstract and I cannot think of anything concrete to attach it to. So again, what do you mean? Any examples?

  137. Sastra says

    hotspurphd #149 wrote:

    What do you mean?

    I meant that when we care more about what’s useful to us than we do about what’s true, all beliefs become valid as long as they “work” for someone. There’s no longer any real fact of the matter or way to resolve conflicts. It seems to me that the religious are as concerned about this as the skeptics are. It’s common ground.

    Since the need for God has existed in all societies and it provides great comfort to some I think there is a limit beyond which secularism cannot go.

    Not all societies have had gods, though the supernatural and superstitions seem to be common to the majority (with ‘God’ being just one variation.) And it may be far too soon to decide what the limit is. Keep in mind the old adage “Christianity cuts you and gives you the bandage.” Religions often augment, foster, or create the needs which they fulfill. It’s like anything else. If you are not taught or encouraged to believe in an afterlife, for example, it will be easier to accept.

    That sounds really very good but it is very abstract and I cannot think of anything concrete to attach it to. So again, what do you mean? Any examples?

    I’ll try this. Imagine you are very successful at selling your own invention, a product which does not work — meaning it does not do what it claims to do. Here are the scenarios:

    1.) You never find out it doesn’t work and keep on selling it, happy to think you’re genuinely helping others.

    2.) You find out it doesn’t work and stop selling it. You try again.

    3.) You find out it doesn’t work but refuse to believe it. No evidence can or will convince you.

    4.) You find out it doesn’t work but that most of your customers never figure that out. You keep on selling it, happy to think that you’re pleasing others.

    Which one is best? For you … or for your customers?

  138. Kevin Terrell says

    “Of course, then we have to ask, if it isn’t a god that’s uniting these people, what is it?

    That’s also clear.”

    Your tirade which follows
    drips with a hatred no evangelical can muster.
    People like you, secular leftist, were responsible for most of the ideological motivated exterminations of humans in the latter part of the 20th century.
    Your hatred of those whom disagree with you is so great you can’t see this, or maybe you can, you just see nothing wrong with it.

    Like most simple minded people, you believe those who disagree with you are stupid or evil.

    And you call yourself a scientist, Ha!

  139. Sastra says

    Kevin Terrell #151 wrote:

    Your tirade which follows drips with a hatred no evangelical can muster.

    Oh, I think you grossly underestimate evangelicals.

    And I don’t think your connection between “ideological motivated exterminations of humans in the latter part of the 2oth-century” and thinking ‘Trump-as-president is a very bad idea’ is a very good one. After all, Trump himself seems to believe that those who disagree with him are stupid or evil. And your comparison means you think PZ is stupid or evil. And you call yourself … well, no, that’s not clear.

    Are you defending Trump or are you just mad at PZ?

  140. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    People like you, secular leftist, were responsible for most of the ideological motivated exterminations of humans in the latter part of the 20th century.

    Assertion without evidence, dismissed without evidence. Like the rest of YOUR tirade.

    And you call yourself a scientist, Ha!

    I am a scientist. Where is your evidence, not your presuppositional thinking?

  141. Kevin Terrell says

    Nerd@153
    “I am a scientist. Where is your evidence, not your presuppositional thinking?”

    As for as my evidence, need I rehearse the history of the third world since 1950?
    As for your being a scientist, did you call P.Z. on his presupposition concerning what unites the religious right?
    Or do you share the same presupposition?