We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

i-40619c18cd0722ed1e920522e1fee0ce-bamyan.jpg

When the Buddhas of Bamyan were dynamited, it wasn’t an atheist who lit the fuse. These modern atheists that have stirred up so much resentment among the apologists for religion are not destroyers who seek to demolish the past or who want to advance a destructive ideology — they aren’t philistines who reject literature and art and music, and they aren’t monsters who will exterminate people to achieve their ends. We aren’t out to eradicate the world of ideas or obliterate the vestiges of our religious history in art and architecture, although we have been accused of such nefarious plans; such claims are easy to dismiss as the ravings of the delusional.

Stanley Fish doesn’t go quite so far in damning these “new atheists,” perhaps to avoid the easily ridiculed paranoid martyr-complex of the mob. Instead of being the ‘new communists’ who are planning to march the orthodox to Siberia, we’re merely unlettered, unschooled near-illiterates with no appreciation of the depths of religious thought. We don’t understand the nuances, he cries; we dismiss all of the texts and traditions as “naive, simpleminded and ignorant.” We just don’t understand, period.

[Read more…]

Thirty eight commandments? I can’t even keep the first one!

The Carnival of the Godless is full of new commandments I’m supposed to follow, but that seem to be getting broken at a frenetic pace. We don’t need any more; I have a suggestion for the Christians. Pick one of the good ones in the original 10. Not an easy one, like “Thou shalt loaf about on Sunday,” but one that might actually make a difference in the world. I suggest “Don’t kill.”

You’d think they would have gotten the message by now that they’re doing something wrong.

Sniveling milquetoast rebukes mean atheist!

Now this is a different categorization of the differences between bold, brave assertive atheists and the spineless, gutless apologists for religious lunacy: we’re “mean”, and they’re “nice”.

When the mean atheists and the nice atheists get together, it’s not so much that it annoys the mean atheists to be asked to play nice. It’s more that they just want to be able to call the nice atheists names like “sniveling milquetoast” and the like. Y’know, while they’re at it. Because when it comes right down to it, the mean atheists just want to have fun. And I respect that.

Yeah, we just want to have fun, like a cat with a mouse. And we do feel obligated to earn those titles assigned to us.

Sunday in the Park

The first of three potluck picnics sponsored by one of our regional godless groups is being held Sunday, 10 June, at noon, at Columbia Park—Skatje, my wife Mary, and I are planning on being there. Come on out and join the freethought community in the Twin Cities area!

By the way, it’s weird how we’ve got all of these infidel organizations here — the Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists at the University of Minnesota, the Humanists of Minnesota, the Minnesota Atheists, and the Atheists for Human Rights (who in this case aren’t participating in the picnics). The Twin Cities has an embarrassment of riches, while the rural parts of the state are just embarrassingly pious. We have a few students who are going to try and start up a CASH chapter here in Morris next year, and we’ll see how well that goes—if there are any other atheist groups in outstate Minnesota, let me know…and if there are any lonely, isolated atheists scattered here and there (and I know there are), let me know that, too. We should try to build a wider community.

Militant atheists are a cliché

Jeffrey Shallit explains why. It is rather peculiar, when you get right down to it: isn’t it remarkable how just criticizing religion gets people flustered and cowering in a corner?

Now look at this otherwise unnoteworthy article by Associate Press religion reporter Rachel Zoll, about the reaction to recent books by atheists Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Notice anything, well, trite about the title? Yes, it’s the “militant atheist” platitude. Atheists must never be described as intelligent, thoughtful, friendly, questioning, or thought-provoking. Instead, they must be described as “militant”.

From the meaning of “militant”, you might expect that Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are burning down churches, or at least leading protests, stirring up crowds with their fiery rhetoric. You would be disappointed, of course. What Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens have done is write books. Hitchens is more of a curmudgeon than a militant, and Dawkins and Harris are both rather mild-mannered. Nobody is leaving their public events carrying torches and singing the atheist analogue of the Horst Wessel song.

We need a complementary cliché for the theists. I vote for “goofy”.

They were only athier, we’re the athiest!

Historical perspective certainly does change one’s views of our current little struggle with theism. Kieran Healy identifies the original atheists—those horrible people who were defying cultural mores and denying the traditional deities.

It was those uppity Christians.

Matters were very different with the Christians, who had ex hypothesi abandoned their ancestral religions … The Christians asserted openly either that the pagan gods did not exist at all or that they were malevolent demons. Not only did they themselves refuse to take part in pagan religious rites: they would not even recognize that others ought to do so. As a result … the mass of pagans were naturally apprehensive that the gods would vent their wrath at this dishonour not upon the Christians alone but on the whole community; and when disasters did occur they were only too likely to fasten the blame on to the Christians.

So, if they had a poll around 250AD, the most untrustworthy group in the Empire would have been those Christians? At least this is a historical example that shows the atheists can take over! Let’s just be sure we don’t make the mistake the Christians did.

Part of Ste. Croix’s larger argument is that pretty soon the boot was on the other foot, the persecuted became enthusiastic persecutors.

How the heathen rage

If the Creation Museum carnival hasn’t got you completely carnivaled out yet, it’s also time for the Carnival of the Godless #67. Maybe if we started serving Hurricanes in a 44 oz. cup and tossing bead necklaces around, we could get through it all. And where’s the marching atheist jazz band when you need ’em?

The WaPo has roused some ire with its defense of fundamentalist agnostics/humanists against us bold, militant freethinkers. Revere addresses the distinction between militant and non-militant atheists and Ophelia covers the same beat. Can’t we all just get along and agree that the weak-kneed apatheist accommodationists need a good kick in the pants? And I also agree that the Vichy Humanist Chaplain at Harvard, whatever his name is (I’ve forgotten already), should be ignored.

Testing…

You scored as Scientific Atheist, These guys rule. I’m not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future.

Scientific Atheist
100%
Militant Atheist
67%
Angry Atheist
50%
Spiritual Atheist
50%
Apathetic Atheist
42%
Agnostic
42%
Theist
17%

What kind of atheist are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

(via Wilkins, who is more agnostic and less militant than I am)