funny. i've never had an atheist try to ram their disbelief down my throat. i confess i don't know many - but not a one has ever tried to convince me. however, plenty of born-agains have told me i'm going to hell. which of those sounds militant to you....atheists are also not raising an army for christ....hm.

I constantly draw people who want to talk/harangue/brag about their atheism - just because they see I'm religious.

I NEVER start these conversations, sticking to the rule of not talking about religion or politics at work or casual social encounters (which is not always adhered to here in Israel, but that's another story).

Here on this blog, the Goddess herself has a standard "evidence-free Guy-in-the-Sky" line that purposely gets religious faith wrong because it serves her opinion. And she trots it out instead of engaging evidence-based arguments about things like gay dysfunction.

So is that "militant" - besides being intellectually dishonest?

I usually see Militant Atheist in those socially-autistic people who feel the need to inflict their views on others at every turn, to the point of violating civility and decorum, and also outright rejecting facts. There's a big difference between having your beliefs (and Atheistm is a belief) and being happy with them, having your beliefs and feeling better than everyone else in the room, having your beliefs and sharing them, and having your beliefs and needing to hedge your bets and ensure that everyone's tied together in the same bundle in the off chance that you're wrong and need a whole big bundle to go to hell with you. Militant Atheists always strike me as so vehement because they are, perhaps like Richard Dawkins, only a 6 out of 7 on the surety scale, and think that only, "God probably doesn't exist, but if God does exist, best to make sure there's a big bandwagon to perdition."

Here's a great example of a militant atheist -- an angry, drive-by-emailer named Uber Dawks who has a OCD-style compulsion about emailing Vox Day periodically:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/07/mailvox-return-of-uber-dawks.html

People can interact with those of a differing belief system -- you can get along with Atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, what have you -- if people remain relatively civil.

There's fundamentally no difference, however, between the "I must kick out the crutch because you're so damn happy" attitude of angry evangelistic atheists like Uber Dawks cited above, Christians who think that constant upbraiding of "The Bible says it" to people who do not believe in the Bible is going to change them, and Muslims who go on and on about the same old 1,000 reasons why Jesus wasn't Jesus and Paul was the biggest charlatan of history to win converts.

I'm looking for the reference, but I was reading something recently linked from VD, and the comment included a slam from a self-described "free thinker": In short, he described Paul of the New Testament as "a man I despise", Jesus as "a man that did not exist", and he said he had dedicated his life to tracking a particular pastor's views (I can't recall; this was an article about some American protestant pastor with some new book about something like the CFR being the NWO of the Anti-Christ.)

It struck me as odd that someone whose core philosophy is that those people with medieval beliefs are wrong should be so hung up on the insecurity of his beliefs. Why dedicate his life to tracking a particular pastor's view? Why so actively despise Paul (does he beat up Hari Krishna at the airport? does he punch Mormons?)? Why need to hold the ahistorical position that there was no actual Jew named Jesus, when even the Roman emperor remarked (paraphrase): "Is this the cult around that criminal we executed out in the provinces?"

By the way, back to the VD thread: there's a whole gaggle of reasonable atheist commentators over there who also mock Uber Dawks and his kind for their inability to actually talk civilly to others. If you don't like militant, they're trying to make irrational the modifier.

Oh, here we go about "atheism is a belief" again.

Well, here's the standard rejoinder: "Atheism is a belief like bald is a hair color."

I sure wish I got to define what other people do and feel righteous about it.

Instead, what I do is very, very simple: I point out that the affiant, whether it is the claimer of extraordinary beer capacity or the one of prophecy, has the burden of proof.

No, you cannot set that aside.

Want to go on about a "great Flood"? Sorry. I have three things you can see immediately that show that not only was there no such thing, they show that ordinary processes went on, uninterrupted, instead. Ditto for claims of a "young" Earth and quite a few cited activities in the Bible™.

The views of English Protestants are responsible for the success of the USA as we see it today. The message of Jesus, in that the unheralded sacrifice for another is your highest calling, is key to that success.

But as any third party familiar with logic can see, mankind can't agree on who, what, why, when or how to worship - and that doesn't stop them from claiming superiority as their own.

It doesn't keep them from interfering in the efficient operation of government business, demonstrably best conducted by strict logic. It doesn't keep some of them from violence because their personal feelings of offense are so great as to blind them to the central tenets of their religion. Then, it doesn't keep them from cherry-picking justification from their collection of irrational citations, and rationalizing anything they can to support what they think already.

Such as claiming "atheism is a belief".

While I don't mind religious types with the door to door approach (it's memetic warfare, but polite memetic warfare), yes I know some religious types who will bring up "Jesus" etc. at the most inopportune times. So obviously there are "militant" religious types. Heck, one guy told me "Star Wars" was evil because it promoted eastern mysticism!

That said, I also knew atheists (also rare) who decide that it doesn't matter the occasion, they're going to pick on you for it. I understand the memetic warfare of Dawkins, etc. doing debates and articles - but when you get to people like Madalyn Murray O'Hair... well. Asshats are hardly the province of atheists, but pretending they don't exist, and aren't militant about it is somewhat intellectually dishonest, no?

"I constantly draw people who want to talk/harangue/brag about their atheism - just because they see I'm religious."

Exactly how in the hell can people tell by looking at you that you are religious? How in fact do you look so religious that it draws the ire of atheists’ “constantly” as you go innocently about you business? This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy that religimites exude on a regular basis. Thou shall not lie is number 9 on the old commandment list but no reason to adhere to it if it doesn’t suit your purpose.

Ben-David there are 3 things that your statement makes abundantly clear :

1) you are a hypocrite
2) you are a liar
3) you are a homophobe

Seems you did learn quite a bit from your faith however. You clearly don’t mind making unfounded whimsical claims and then expect everyone to accept it as fact just because you said so……

And thanks, Ed. Nice job.

Cramming one's beliefs, or lack thereof, down another's throat is ill-mannered.

Do you notice just how obtuse the fanatics are? They never shut up and they never go away. It's really too bad that violent physical assault is frowned on these days. It would make for a more polite society.

I agree that there are militant atheists. These are the people who go on the offensive at any mention of religion. I refer to the as fundamentalist atheists.

Of course, the only reason we have them is because there are so many militant/fundamentalist religious people.

Any time people sit and argue about things that cannot be proven, and I say one cannot prove there "is no god" any more than they can prove "there is a god". I think it's safe to assume there isn't one however. Nor can I understand the rationale behind the assumption that there is one, just because of the "complexity of the eye" for example.

Religion will be with us longer than taxes. Whatever science claims as their own, simply uncovers greater mysteries which are then attributed to god.

I believe that religion is about to undergo an evolution though, and Darwin will become accepted doctrine. Just like at one time, the geocentric solar system was the established doctrine, and that gave way to a heliocentric solar system. At one time it was a heretical hypothesis that the Earth revolved about the Sun, and not the other way.

Church leaders feared that people would lose faith and question the bible if it were the other way. And yet, here we find ourselves, going to church AND believing the planets orbit the sun.

Religion will eventually admit that Evolution is the Most Intelligent Design. Building systems that are self-adapting is smarter than building things that are unchanging.

I'd say that that Madalyn Murray O'Hare was a militant atheist, and Bill Maher is, but I don't know any personally.

I think the same double standard applies to Christians in secular academia. If you are a Christian and you want to get or keep a position, it's best to shut up about it. BTW,not all Christians believe in a young earth or that evolution is invalid.

You're welcome Amy.

I find it ironic that this windbag would say you're "intellectually dishonest" when he is clearly lying about his experience with atheists. I have zero tolerance for such shenanigans from a liar and a homophobe, he has no credibility what-so-ever. He clearly represents the lowest common denominator in any conversation about this subject.

I don’t harbor any ill will towards anyone who chooses to believe in god. I just feel they’ve been misled and often their intellectual ability to reason has been retarded by a fairytale that cannot be effectively argued to persons that need proof that the water isn’t cold before they jump in. Ben is simply showing his frustration that his belief is impossible to prove, so your thought process is just as unjustifiable as his. Arguing with him and people like him is moot, pointing out their hypocrisy however is not…..

From what I've seen on Vox's site and elsewhere, it seems that militant atheists don't merely say that God does not exist; they also insist that religion is evil. These are two entirely separate claims, a distinction which people on both sides of the argument often fail to make.

Myself, I don't believe in God, but I think religion often influences people in a good way. (Some religions, anyway; Islam definitely excluded.) Based on the people I've known in my life, I'd rather live in a neighborhood full of Mormons than among atheists.

Here is what wrong with the whole idea of equating "militant atheists" with religious militants.

Think of the most radical, extreme, militant atheist you can.

Now think of the most radical, extreme, militant member of a religion you can think of.

See?

Here is a sign you will never see:

"Behead Those Who Insult Darwin!"

"Do you think Muslims would be hanging gay teenagers but for their evidence-free beliefs?"

Yes, and you're terribly naive to believe otherwise. Totalitarian systems are ferociously anti-gay whether they claim to be acting in the name of God or not. The Soviet Union was more hostile to gays than Tsarist Russia by a wide margin, and it's not like the Eastern Orthodox Church was warm & welcoming. Stalin's Article 121, under which countless homosexuals were sent to Siberian labor camps to freeze & die, was enacted in 1933 and not repealed until after the fall of communism in 1993. Closer to home, after the 1959 revolution, Fidel Castro declared that faggots were the diseased products of bourgeois decadence and capitalism, and quite deliberately set out to exterminate them from Cuba. Simply looking effeminate in the eyes of some Communist Party official could get a teenager sent to a labor camp for "rehabilitation", where he would be damn lucky not to be killed or subjected to medical experiments worthy of Dr. Mengele. Absolute savagery, and God had nothing to do with it. Fidel mellowed on this in later years, and of course his army of apologists is eager to whitewash away, but it's all there in the historical record.

Here's an interesting quote from GK Chesterton on the subject:

"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."

"I don't say that god doesn't exist -- I say that I see no proof that god does." - Amy

I believe that makes you an agnostic rather than an atheist.

Exactly how in the hell can people tell by looking at you that you are religious? How in fact do you look so religious that it draws the ire of atheists’ “constantly” as you go innocently about you business? This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy that religimites exude on a regular basis. Thou shall not lie is number 9 on the old commandment list but no reason to adhere to it if it doesn’t suit your purpose.

He probably wears a kippah/yarmulke. Maybe has the fringes on his tzitzis out. With Orthodox Jews like Ben-David, it's really very easy to tell that they are religious.

BTW, there is no "thou shalt not lie" in the 10 commandments. Number 9 is bearing false witness, which is not the same thing.

... and while we're on the subject of Stalin, let's look at their official state religion, or lack of, and just what they did to those who professed otherwise... including churches stamped out and converted to museums, services heavily oppressed, people shipped off to gulags.

I'm no fan of fundies of any stripe, but the whole "religion = evil / athiests = good, rational people" meme needs a solid reality check.

FWIW - funniest quote I heard (from a Wiccan) - "Only thing I hate more than born again Christians is born-again pagans, and born-again atheists."

Thus speaks one of your local neighborhood semipagan / semiagnostics.

:-)

Here is a sign you will never see: "Behead Those Who Insult Darwin!" - Gordon

Unless we see a repeat of the French Revolution and the Cult of Reason. Those who stubbornly clung to the old ways (especially religion) were imprisoned and often executed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

Gordon,

Thanks for the laugh!!! That's some good stuff.

You aren't going to see atheists taking up arms, blowing up innocent people or chopping off heads in their non-belief in god any more than you're going see them taking up arms etc... in their non-belief in scientology.

Another headline you'll never see:

"Terrorism linked to non-belivers contempt for believers"

Militancy about religious matters serves no purpose except the reinforcing the self-righteousness of the militant, whether militant atheism or fundamentalism (of any religion).

In the end, as long as you're not forcing your belief on me, whether through laws or cocktail party chatter or making me your next human sacrifice to Cthulhu, it doesn't matter to me what your personal beliefs are.

Are you "agnostic" about the giant? god?

Like Kinky Friedman, I'm a Jehovah's Bystander. We believe in God, but we don't want to get involved.

Another headline you'll never see:

"Terrorism linked to non-belivers contempt for believers"

Hmmm.. Red Brigades?

"BTW, there is no "thou shalt not lie" in the 10 commandments. Number 9 is bearing false witness, which is not the same thing."

Are you daft, bearing false witness is lying. How in the hell can you bear false witness and not lie? Explain that one to me.....

My oh my do you take a leap of faith (pun intended) assuming that Ben is an orthodox Jew, based on what exactly? His name? I guess we should assume than that priests and nuns can’t even go outside for fear of being hounded by all those evil atheists attempting to change their minds. How completely absurd your defense of him based on absolutely zero evidence. Well why not, there’s your religion on a nut-shell…..

"Terrorism linked to non-belivers contempt for believers"

Except for say Muslims who believe in their God and terrorize non-believers of their God.

I consider myself agnostic but I get damn tired of the constant desparagement of people who believe in a "sky god" while many of those athiests turn around and venerate the immortal state. See the healthcare bill and the notion of a "right" to healthcare. Criticize public schools... watch out, you're a nutter for attacking their houses of worship, the schoolhouse.

Addition to Amy's position: I find that what people argue about is not "God", but "God™" specifically endorsed by the version of the Bible they're carrying. They even prefer it to study of the Earth itself, which is more likely not to have been faked (nod to Slartibartfast). If religious people had even seen the cover of any decent book on the physical sciences, they'd simply disregard what the Bible™ says in hundreds of cases. They actually do, and constantly, but pretend they don't - there's no ROI on that. It's emotionally distressing to look at how the real world is built!

Heck, one guy told me "Star Wars" was evil because it promoted eastern mysticism!

I got the full set of Harry Potter books, in new condition, free, because a "concerned" relative took them away from their niece. Because they have magic in them.

I have great fun with this.

If Harry had waved a cross instead of a wand while defeating evil, protecting his friends and teaching valuable lessons, I wouldn't have those books. They would be just dandy!

The red brigades that stopped operation in 1984 and were an extreme communist activist group started at the catholic university in Italy in the sociology dept. is your example?

Hmm....indeed.....

If you are going to assume that all communists are atheist and their atrocities are based on their atheism, then can we also conclude that all believers who commit crime base it solely on their belief. Arguing communism equal atheism and therefore their crimes against humanity are because of atheism is absurd.

Part of the French revolution was against the church. Not because of their belief in god but because of the churches unbridled power and corruption. If you don’t know the difference between the two try reading a little more.

These arguments have no substantive value what-so-ever.....

"I get damn tired of the constant disparagement of people who believe in a "sky god" while many of those atheists turn around and venerate the immortal state."

There is only one congressional/senate member who espouses to be an atheist, Fortney Hillman "Pete" Stark, Jr. so where are all the atheists that want you to worship the state exactly? Seems to me that what you are complaining about has been done by politicians, that have on record, claimed faith in god.

I’m an atheist, I’m also a conservative libertarian. I fail to follow your logic that state worship is an atheist ideology. In fact it is a progressive ideology, the vast majority of which believe in god…..

Ed: We know Ben David is an Orthodox jew because he mentions it in his posts all the time.

Heh.

Y'know, I completely agree that the church TM has had too much power, and that fundies (of any stripe) are bad juju.

But you're rather sensitive to the prospect that avowed, self-described ideological athiests might actually be terrorists, etc. (and please, please look up Marxist-lenenist ideology on this, as well as the associated revolutionary ideology, and how these governments of the people treated anyone who was not properly athiest).

Given the current round of islamic wars started before 1984.... the Red Brigades are "current" enough.

Their very existence, as well as that of people like Ms. O'Hair, nicely puts paid to the "myth" of militant atheists. Are they currently a problem like muslims are? No. Neither are, by and large, Christians, who not only fail to go beheading people and murdering relatives of famous artists when someone maligns their religion, but are pretty vocal about dealing with the fringers who even begin to think like that.

Atheists and Xtians can usually manage to argue with each other with no more than bruised feelings.

--"In argument with Rooster, grasshopper always loses." (Hail Eris!)

"And she trots it out instead of engaging evidence-based arguments about things like gay dysfunction."

"Gay Dysfunction" Please explain to me why God would allow scientists to turn fruit flies gay by modifying their genes.

I personally know a gay man who can not accept he is gay. He is stereotypically straight looking and straight acting and the biggest homophone in the world. He has never slept with a woman (mind you women throw themselves at him) and has only slept with men. He insists it's a phase. He hates being gay and can't accept it. Of course to the religious folks being gay is just a dysfunction that we can cure how???

Part of the French revolution was against the church. Not because of their belief in god but because of the churches unbridled power and corruption. If you don’t know the difference between the two try reading a little more.

For many peasants, the revolution against the Church was a revolution against a rich church by a poor peasantry; a rich Church that they viewed as actively in collusion with the nobility in keeping them poor. France's poor rejected the Church, but were much less enthusiastic than the Revolution in rejecting God.

For the "enlightened minds" of the Terror, the revolution against the Church was in order to impose a "reason-based" system of government and belief on the ignorant peasants. Not only was organized religion suppressed, but belief in God (or any god but reason) was suppressed, often violently. Tolerance of others' belief systems was not permitted and often punished.

And the Revolution was militantly exported. Wars with other European powers, the invasion of Egypt, and the conquest of the Vatican (and kidnapping of the Pope) were all intended to export the reason-not-religion system of the Revolution to the rest of the world.

Even the calendar was reorganized with a ten-day week to remove any day of worship. When it turned out that the ignorant peasants kept track of when Sunday occurred anyway and prayed inside their homes, the old calendar was restored and the Cult of Reason morphed into the Cult of the Supreme Being (with belief permitted, but with an un-named supreme being, no religious hierarchy, and no actual religious rites). Non-state organized religion was still suppressed.

"Given the current round of islamic wars started before 1984.... the Red Brigades are "current" enough."

With the tiny little exception that they no longer exist. They are not only not current but they are irrelevant given the fact they disbanded. Islam on the other hand is alive and well and growing stronger.....

Marx actually said very little about religion directly; in all of his writings, he hardly ever addresses religion in a systematic fashion, even though he touches on it in books, speeches and pamphlets. The reason is that his critique of religion forms simply one piece of his overall theory of society, understanding his critique of religion requires some understanding of his critique of society in general.

The corruption and forced servitude of religion made them part of the bourgeois. He was ok with abolishing the church as part of the bourgeois but he did not advocate that you or anyone else could not believe in god. There is a distinct difference between the two.

*shrug* We've moved the goalposts quite a way from "Militant Atheists are a Myth" haven't we? Let's see. "THOSE militant atheists. Well they existed but they're not relevant anymore. And Marx didn't say much about religion no matter what the official policy of most supposedly communist regimes was towards religion and religious people."

I stay out of most of Amy's religious postings. Most, even the ones against christians (particularly the official religious attitude toward gays) are well deserved.

That said, like the scene in the Abyss where Lindsey tells Hippie to stop taking her side, I feel obligated to point out a blatant, provable falsehood such as there being no militant asshat atheists.

Admittedly, most are still in the "move out of your parents house while you still know everything" phase. Unfortunately many of those are legally considered adults.

Well, here's the standard rejoinder: "Atheism is a belief like bald is a hair color." - Radwaste

To expand on that a little bit, by paying a little attention to meaning.

There are many words prefixed with "a" or "an" which are defined solely with regard to what they are not. Atypical is not typical; asexual is not sexual; etc. Unless there is some definable thing, the negation of that thing simply doesn't exist.

So, atheism, properly understood, is the negation of theism. In other words an atheist believes that a set of theological statements is objectively false. With respect to Islam, all Christians are atheist: in order for their affirmation of Christianity to make any sense, they must actively believe that the theology that defines Islam is wrong; that all the revelatory statements it makes on its behalf have no basis in fact.

Of course, Islamists believe the same about Christians, as do all adherents of any religion about the adherents of any other religion.

The difference between atheists and theists boil down to this one thing: an atheist believes all theologies are objectively wrong; a theist reaches that same conclusion for all but one.

But declining to accept the validity of all theologies does not require adopting yet another theology.

Of course, it is possible for someone to be an atheist, yet not anti-religion (if you scratched much under the surface, I suspect you would find a lot of Episcopalians and Catholics like this). Many people believe that religion's benefits outweigh its costs. One may disagree, but that doesn't contradict the fact that atheism need not be anti-religion.

So, the better term to use, instead of "militant atheist" is anti-theist. Christopher Hitches is outspoken in his opposition to religion; that makes him an anti-theist. However, calling him "militant" seems a real abuse of the term, particularly when we so freely use the term "militant Islamist" in reference to people becoming very killed.

"I don't say that god doesn't exist -- I say that I see no proof that god does." - Amy

I believe that makes you an agnostic rather than an atheist.

At the risk of speaking for Amy, there is another distinction worth making here.

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "God" that exists independent of religion. By saying this, Amy is saying that it is decidable that all the Gods posited by all existing religions do not, in fact, exist.

That is not the same as saying there is no such thing as some entity outside material existence that would, in some sense, meaningfully accord to the concept of "god" (lower case on purpose).

If she was to make that statement, then she would be an adeist. But she isn't.

It is perfectly possible to be an atheist while simultaneously being agnostic as to whether some god-like entity exists.

Keeping in mind that to be agnostic is only saying that a question is undecidable.

Take a look at this: "I'm no fan of fundies of any stripe, but the whole "religion = evil / athiests = good, rational people" meme needs a solid reality check."

Comparing the two groups, the best you can do is defeated by the Two Wrongs fallacy you use. If you know what was wrong with that, you'd recognize silence as a better answer.

Of course some atheists suck, are full of themselves, etc. You can look at Pharyngula commenters, or the people at Sadly, No and see that.

Rubbing on the dirty don't make you clean.

Based on the people I've known in my life, I'd rather live in a neighborhood full of Mormons than among atheists.

No you wouldnt, trust me on that

*shrug* We've moved the goalposts quite a way from "Militant Atheists are a Myth" haven't we? Let's see. "THOSE militant atheists

Acctually the article was about how militant was a term aplied to ANY atheist who acctually spoke out, no matter how mildly, and how no such doregetory terms were applied to even the boisterious reilgious advocates.

Based on the people I've known in my life, I'd rather live in a neighborhood full of Mormons than among atheists.

No you wouldnt, trust me on that

Yes, I would. I know this because I have. They were the best neighbors I've ever had, hands down.

There are principled and unprincipled atheists, just as there are principled and unprincipled scientists. In my experience, the unprincipled atheists turn to atheism because of some combination of (1) it's their way of rejecting moral systems altogether, or (2) they never got past the teenage-rebellion stage.

Are you daft, bearing false witness is lying. How in the hell can you bear false witness and not lie? Explain that one to me.....

Are you slow? Yes, all bearing of false witness constitutes lying, but not all lying constitutes bearing of false witness. This is utterly obvious. You really should not need to have it explained.

My oh my do you take a leap of faith (pun intended) assuming that Ben is an orthodox Jew, based on what exactly? His name?

No, on his own statements to that effect.

Well, then, I think you have left yourself in a hole of your own digging.

It is one thing to reject the existence of God / Allah / Thor / Vishnu / Thetans et al, because they each have specific attributes which are famously at odds with reality.

However, in denying the existence of some non-specific god like entity, you run headlong into the problem of existence.

No harder, of course, than do deists and theists.

A god like entity is simultaneously essential and impossible. On the one hand, there can be no existence without creation; on the other, invoking a creator just elevates question begging to the status of an answer.

That is why it is undecidable: there is no refuting one answer without refuting the other. "Evidence" is of no help here.

Besides, your posts on this subject uniformly take a position against religion (and whichever God happens to be in play).

Being an agnostic atheist is easy to defend; being an adeist requires arriving at a conclusion for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

What's more, saying "dunno" with regard to the larger question puts absolutely no limits on your ability to criticize religion.

(IIRC, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris all take the same approach.)

Darn. Forgot to put in what I was responding to.

Should read:

I'm not saying [god's existence] "undecidable." I don't believe there's a god just like I don't believe there's a green giant sitting on my house. I explain that if I am presented with evidence of either, and it seems likely that I am not drugged and hallucinating, it would make sense for me to believe. -- Amy

Well, then, I think you have left yourself in a hole of your own digging.

It is one thing to reject the existence of ...

There are principled and unprincipled atheists, just as there are principled and unprincipled scientists. In my experience, the unprincipled atheists turn to atheism because of some combination of (1) it's their way of rejecting moral systems altogether, or (2) they never got past the teenage-rebellion stage. -- Posted by: Cousin Dave at February 21, 2011 5:11 PM

CD,

I have been agnostic to atheist since the early '80s. I also grew up in a very religious area. Let's discuss the devout Christians I grew up around.

• One family had dad putting a recording device on the family phone that recorded whenever the phone was picked up. He didn't trust his devout wife. He also had no explanation on why the family's hardware lit up on a Sunday while the family was at church. The store lit up 21 hours after the store had been closed on a Saturday. The old term was <Jewish Lightning> but I would never use it today.
• Another family attended church every Sunday. The oldest kid never graduated. The middle son ended up working low end jobs. The youngest (a daughter) ending up as a teenage mom.
• When I was five my mother had my step-father take us to church on Easter Sunday, while she skipped it to get ready to go to Granny's house (Ukranian Catholic). She never saw the hypocrisy. Later my mother became a Born-Again, after I left for the USAF. I was literally getting 1/2 inch stack of bible tracts for years. To this day -- I just ignore her religiosity.

These are just quick examples.

When the JW's show up at my door -- I say "thank you, but no thanks." Even my co-workers now don't really know that I'm on a very atheistic bent -- even with jokingly being called a "heathen" because I eat hamburgers on Lent Friday's.

I was able to pass with My Lady's ex-FIL pastor that I was acceptable. I will leave 98% with their beliefs unless they push.

The day that someone comes at me with you "Need To Believe!!" is when I ask for some simple explanations. Explain the Koala and the Great Flood? Explain to me why the Old Testament no longer applies? Explain to me why we should no longer observe Kosher?

Oh and if I touch pigskin (a football) am I unclean?

Ed gives a classic example of "progressive" hubris:

"I constantly draw people who want to talk/harangue/brag about their atheism - just because they see I'm religious."

Exactly how in the hell can people tell by looking at you that you are religious? How in fact do you look so religious that it draws the ire of atheists’ “constantly” as you go innocently about you business? This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy that religimites exude on a regular basis.

Note that:
1) The "progressive" always knows better - in this case, he knows better than myself who I am and what I've experienced, and knows better than the other posters who have read repeated posts by me that confirm my knowledge of/commitment to traditional Judaism.
2) Ed's own posts - and those of others - are great examples of the lack of live-and-let live on the part of many "progressives". The Goddess writes:

I don't go knocking on doors to tell people what to believe, but if you read my site, you'll hear what I do. But, I'm all for people talking about atheism and trying to persuade others to it, because religion is one of the most damaging forces in human history. Just look above: It leads Ben-David say ugly things about gays. If you're a man who wants to have a boyfriend, that's none of my business.

See the double standard? The my-way-or-the-highway "tolerance" for "diversity"?

I'm intolerant for posting factual data about gay promiscuity - but it's not intolerant to get into religious people's faces, or to assume they disagree with "progressive" atheism because they are stupid or irrational.

That would fit the description of "militant atheism". No?

BIG HINT: if you answer to that boils down to, "Because I know I'm right" - you shouldn't be lecturing any religious believers about tolerance or diversity.

3) Like most "progressives" Ed, Amy, and other posters resort to name-calling and labeling - as I said, to avoid engaging in real discussion.

It's not homophobic to look at actual data about gay promiscuity - data from Ministries of Health around the world.

But I've already been slotted onto the "progressive" B-list - I must-must-must be a neanderthal, despite my history of posting here, and the facts can be safely dismissed by dissing the source.

Tolerance, eh?

"On the one hand, there can be no existence without creation; on the other, invoking a creator just elevates question begging to the status of an answer."

Sorry, you're begging the question in a way you've not seen. Can you point to any example of this, "creation"? Because everything around you was converted from something else, not "created". It's a human vanity. There isn't really anything concrete to show that even the "Big Bang" wasn't cyclic. As it is, it's a poor picture - the "bang" didn't happen at a point. That's hard to think about, but it should be thought about.

"But I've already been slotted onto the "progressive" B-list - I must-must-must be a neanderthal, despite my history of posting here, and the facts can be safely dismissed by dissing the source."

I will again point out that you have yet to address the data you can find regarding androgen insensitivity syndrome, and the related question, "how can a citizen of the USA be denied any of its benefits based on how they are built?" So far as I can tell, you still think being gay is a choice, and cannot admit the clear evidence - there are pictures - that gender is not binary.
So now it's "gay promiscuity" that's a problem? Ah, can I now count on seeing you back the idea of "gay marriage", with its State-backed disincentives for same?

Somehow, I don't think so. That would mean that whatever goes on in Elton John's house isn't your business.

“I'm intolerant for posting factual data about gay promiscuity - but it's not intolerant to get into religious people's faces, or to assume they disagree with "progressive" atheism because they are stupid or irrational.”

Cherry picking data that supports your claim does not make it factual. Using that data to promote homophobia is disingenuous. There is an equal amount of promiscuity in the hetero community. You know, Christians and Muslims have used “factual data” to try and eliminate Jews from their very existence.

I don’t have the slightest idea what your life experience is but I say with conviction that if you are sitting on a park bench minding your own bees wax that no one is going to come running up to you (because you look so religious) and start cramming atheism down your throat. On this I still call BULLSHIT!!!

I guess to an orthodox Jew any enlightenment would be considered “progressive” because anything that progresses past the old testament is blasphemous. So I can assume that Christianity is also progressive given the fact that they progressed past the old vengeful god that didn’t want freewill to the sublime god who now allows his followers free will.

Darius, I love how you think that any communist despot or radical organization who is led by an atheist, is in fact, doing their despicable deeds because of their non-belief. If it is true that 90% or more of the worlds population believes in some sort of god then I guess we can conclude that every single criminal act that they engage in, is in the name of their belief. Which of course is utterly ridicules as is your assertion to the former.

Kishke, You’re splitting hairs and you know it. “Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.” Proverbs 12:22
If you want the Christian perspective on this matter follow this link:

http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/ninth_commandment.html

This will clear up any misconceptions you have about the old number 9.….

"It's not homophobic to look at actual data about gay promiscuity - data from Ministries of Health around the world"

Gay promiscuity is a nice little term used by you for your homophobia. It is not gay promiscuity my dear, it is male promiscuity which your GOD so programmed the males of most species to be. Gay men are promiscuous because they are MEN not because they are GAY. Get it? I see how you fail to mention LESBIAN data from Ministries of Health around the world. By the way LESBIANS have the lowest incidence of HIV/AIDS and transmitted sexual diseases. Want to know why? Because they are WOMEN or should I in turn use the excuse that it is because they are GAY?

If heterosexual men could get sex from women the way gay men could get sex from other gay men we would have an argument. However as the data stands it points to the fact that men, given the opportunity are naturally promiscuous regardless of sexual orientation.

Ed keeps slinging - hoping some of his shiite will stick to the wall:

Cherry picking data that supports your claim does not make it factual.

Data is, by definition, factual. My earlier posts (which you don't seem to have read) quoted statistical surveys conducted by the Ministries of Health in Holland and Sweden, and the Health Departments of New York and San Fran.

They all tell the same story - so no cherry picking, and yes it's factual data from reliable sources. Yet the "progressives" dance away from inconvenient fact while kicking up a cloud of diversionary dust such as:

Using that data to promote homophobia is disingenuous. There is an equal amount of promiscuity in the hetero community. You know, Christians and Muslims have used “factual data” to try and eliminate Jews from their very existence.

So we have labeling (Homophobe!) and two desperately false non-sequitirs: There is in fact no parallel in the hetero community for the levels of promiscuity in the gay "community" - where people in "committed relationships" have upwards of a dozen sexual partners a year. And Christians and Muslims hate Jews for pretty irrational, doctrinal reasons last time I checked - isn't that what you folks are crowing about, how irrational religious people are?

But in time of need, progressives just chuck everything not nailed down up in the air. So you admit that:

I don’t have the slightest idea what your life experience is

and yet, in your Progressive Omnipetence, you are confident that:

I guess to an orthodox Jew any enlightenment would be considered “progressive” because anything that progresses past the old testament is blasphemous.

Boy, you really have not read my previous posts - and you should get out a bit more.

Sorry to burst your bubble - but we're on our 4th generation of college educated Orthodox Jews here in America. I work in hi-tech. And yes - I do get harangued by atheists and other "progressives" who cannot contain themselves when they see me in my beanie and fringes. Such great defenders of tolerance and diversity are they!

If you "don’t have the slightest idea what my life experience is" - treat yourself to a double helping of STFU.... or at least stop braying about how religious folks live in fantasy and judge others to make themselves feel omnipotent... pot, kettle.

Benny old pal. You failed to read my post. Please provide current data that states the rate of infection of sexually transmitted diseases is the same in lesbians as it is in gay men. Because all the data Ive read states that Lesbians are the group with the least amount of sexually transmitted diseases even below your beloved monogamous heteros.

Go on crowing about gay male promiscuity. If straight women had the sex drive of straight men the numbers would be the same. I find it curious your obsession with what gay men do with there time. Why do you care? How does it effect your life? Why would you blog about it? What is your agenda in regard to gay men? I notice you don't bring up lesbians. I guess because their numbers don't support what ever it is you have against homosexuality. You accuse me of intolerance but see none in your crusade against homosexuality. And I don't have a grip on reality, fricking hilarious.

Your either homophobic or have been battling your own demons in regard to sexual orientation. Finding facts to support any given agenda is hardly a difficult process. Here are 2 that say otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html

Your condescending act doesn't work on me. I personally could give one rats ass about your religion or sexual orientation. What I fail to understand is your interest in the sex lives of anyone other than you own. You are the one who brought homosexuality into an unrelated subject, seems more than a little odd. You would think that an OJ would have a little sympathy for a group of people being ostracized based solely on a way of life. You really are one deranged individual. Seek help…..

"There is in fact no parallel in the hetero community for the levels of promiscuity in the gay "community" - where people in "committed relationships" have upwards of a dozen sexual partners a year."

Wow. You haven't been out at all. Why do you think the hetero bar is named, "Cheaters"? Who generates the most porn?

And, to turn the lens another way, who is it trying to justify their position with a Two Wrongs fallacy, again?

Gay marriage will decrease promiscuity, via state sanctions.

You should back it. These people adopt, they don't spit out litters of unwanted children, they don't abort.

But that won't happen until you think about what rights are in America.

Sorry you're getting picked on - but you just identified how it is that people engage you. You advertise, nothing more than that. I hope you can show more class than your challengers IRL. Here, not so much.

You want a militant atheist?

Easy.

A soldier in my office had some free time on the nightshift. Being a devout methodist, this person decided that they would use some of their time to read a bible.

There was no reading aloud. There was no preaching. There was no condemnation or calling for hellfire to consume the unbeliever. There was no attempt at conversion of any kind.

But a nearby atheist in the same office was so offended by the mere pressence of a bible, and that this soldier should presume to read it for their own sake could not be tolerated.

The atheist told the soldier they had to stop reading it. The atheist did not out rank the soldier, they were in the same rank and position. But the atheist presumed to have authority to tell them they had to stop because the bible offended her.

Obligingly, the soldier did...but this did not satisfy the atheist. The atheist soldier went and informed the chain of command, specifically the noncom in charge of the section, and at the next meeting it was instructed that no religious texts were to be read during duty hours, regardless of the level of work going on at the time.

THAT my friends, is a militant atheist. The willingness to use force, whether physical or legal, to silence the very appearance of faith in public.

It is that same mindset that changes the word "Christmas Vacation" to "Seasonal vacation", that bars Christmas trees in town squares, or tries to cite carolers with noise violations. Or demand the use of Xs on roads in place of crosses to mark the place where a drunk driving fatality occured.

Yes, there are militant atheists, and they are every bit as obnoxious, noxious, annoying, braying, and preachy as the loudest bible thumper.

Side note regarding "Gay promiscuity":

If gays are not more promiscuous than straights, then pray tell why was it that it was the gay community so predominantly cut down during the early years of aids?

Look here's the thing.

Whether all supposedly religious people, predominantly Christians in the U.S., actually adhere to their stated moral codes or not with regards to sexual fidelity, the fact is that they do exist. And if not all manage them absolutely, it is nonetheless rare for straight men and women to engage in a great deal of random sexual encounters with one another, even for those outside of the Christian community.

Gays by contrast, are much less commonly affiliated with Christianity, and, when it comes to men at least, well if you take a segment of the population that is already thinking of sex all the time, and then make it attracted to others who are equally eager...(hint: Men, and then throw attraction to other men just like them into the mix) and remove the common prohibitions on wanton sexual behavior, then you are creating a population which engages in much more high risk sexual behavior, which is to say, it is much more promiscuous due to the increased opportunities available.

So, while I must question Ben David's motives on raising the issue, it is impossible to argue with the historical events that killed off so much of the S&M old guard and other members of the gay community during the early years of my youth.

Its why so much education went into convincing kids in school that aids was not just a "gay problem", that it could happen to us to.

Its why the progressives who argued that a similar epidemic in scale was going to hit the "straight people" in the same way, had very little to point to when it simply did not happen. This isn't to say no straight people got aids, but it was nothing like what happened to the homosexual community.

I don't really see how it was at all relevant to this discussion though.

Jim P, I didn't intend to imply that there are no unprincipled Christians. Clearly there are. I'm sure you can find unprincipled people within every religion and belief system.

"that it was the gay community so predominantly cut down during the early years of aids?"

A gay is a gay is a gay right Robert?

AGAIN! GAY WOMEN are the least likely to get ANY sexually transmitted disease out of ANY GROUP including heterosexuals. The only explanation for all of this is because women as a whole do not engage in risky sexual behavior that is common in men of any sexual orientation.

Repeat after me dykes are the least likely to get STDS out of any group, dykes are the least likely to get STDS out of any group..............

How many Christian lesbians have been caught soliciting gay sex in bathroom stalls hmmm?

Kishke, You’re splitting hairs and you know it. “Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.” Proverbs 12:22

More like splitting logs. The difference is obvious. The sin of false witness is not one of mere lying; it's one of damaging your fellow by perverting justice. Lying is frowned upon but it's not one of the big ten. The verse in Proverbs is irrelevant. It says nothing about the Ten Commandments.

Gee. It looks like somebody is working on making excuses for lying.

Why is that?

It looks like somebody is working on making excuses for lying.

Bullshit. Just keeping the record straight. Why does that bother you?

Robert whomever issued that command was a moron, no recerational reading should be going on durring duty hours, you are after all on duty.

As for your holiday season snipe -

1. there is christmas, kawanza, hanukkah, witer solstice, yule(had the catholics not coopted this festival in order to conver the gemanics they werent able to murder you wouldnt even be celbrating christmas), festivus, new years, soyaluna, ashura, and bhodi day

2. the counrty is bankrupt, municipalites shouldnt be paying for any holiday decorations, let alone just one religions holiday

3. it states quite clearly in the bible that having chritmas trees inside the home is tantamount to idolitry and punishable by eternity in hell

Robert, read this http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/washington/01church.html This is a article about forced Christian bible study and prayer enforced by the US military. There are numerous Supreme Court rulings against the military’s forced Christian mantras. The military persists however. Your story is 3rd party communication and bears no weight as an example. The simple fact of the matter is the military has a proven history of forcing Christian ideas.

Christians are so temperamental about anything that doesn’t align with their belief. I have heard Christians cry about the 9th circuit court and that the words “under God” are being contested. They never seem to care at all that it was never written that way and that the word god was added in the 1954 because of a feared communist insurrection . They simple cannot stop being offended by the removal of god from anything in the public sector. They also can’t see the disconnect between the two because they want, what they want.

God fearing people by and large take offense to atheists because our non-belief runs in direct opposition to theirs. Why, I ask, should we take any less offense to them? The very idea that there is a great militant atheist conspiracy to convert believers into non-believers is absurd. However, I see no evidence that Christians, Muslims, Jehovah Witness, Mormons etc… will ever stop trying to convert people of any belief that runs contrary to their own. Now exactly who’s militant again.

One more thing, Christmas trees in town squares, happy holidays as opposed to merry Christmas etc… is and was not created by atheists. It was a politically correct backlash by people of other “God fearing” religions that wanted equal representation during the holiday season. It had nothing to do with atheism or alleged militant atheists…..

Robert:
THAT my friends, is a militant atheist. The willingness to use force, whether physical or legal, to silence the very appearance of faith in public.
- - - - - - -
Yep.
Similar pre-emptive attempts to smack me down - or make it clear that I am "allowed" in my workplace on the sufferance of "progressives" - happen all the time.

I am often also subjected to ideological litmus tests by "progressives" who have deputized themselves as gatekeepers of acceptable opinion.

.... and typically Ed quotes a 2-rights-make-an-airplane counterexample - and acts as if one side's intolerance justifies intolerance by others.

Hey Ed - I think you should practice admitting that you "don’t have the slightest idea what your life experience is" when you meet religious people. It's the only true thing you've posted here.

In the whirl of family and community, and the challenge of personal growth - you'd be amazed how little time we spend fretting about you heathens...

/eyeroll

"Bullshit. Just keeping the record straight. Why does that bother you?"

Because insisting that "Thou shalt not bear false witness" ONLY applies to "witnessing" implies that other lying is OK.

If that is not what you intend, well perhaps you should set that record straight.

By the way, I have dealt with numerous people on line who profess to be Christians, but who have no problem demeaning and lying to others at any time.

Fortunately, I know others who behave well, and a couple who are wonderful examples of humanity, of whom Jesus, if he existed, would be proud.

Hey Ed - I think you should practice admitting that you "don’t have the slightest idea what your life experience is" when you meet religious people. It's the only true thing you've posted here.

Except for all those little annoying links that I have provided to back up what I’ve said. I have noticed however that you have been challenged by numerous people on this thread to provide same and have ignored ever request to do so. Ben says it is true so therefore it must be so. What a joke you are, you have provided zero evidence to support any claim you’ve made. Evidential facts never seem to get in the way of your incendiary and poorly framed arguments. All you do is posture, you offer nothing credible to the discussion. I find your homophobia distasteful and your obsession with it frightening.

But I’ll ask again, why oh why Benny, would you bring male homosexuality into a discussion about alleged militant atheism. Why are you obsessed with gay male promiscuity? Why are you so concerned with what happens in anyone else’s sex life? How long have you had this pathology towards gay men? How long have you been struggling with your own sexuality?

.... and typically Ed quotes a 2-rights-make-an-airplane counterexample - and acts as if one side's intolerance justifies intolerance by others.

I did no such thing; I quote myself “God fearing people by and large take offense to atheists because our non-belief runs in direct opposition to theirs. Why, I ask, should we take any less offense to them? It’s framed as a question. I never even used the word intolerance. Do you just make shit up as it suits your needs. So along with a deep-seated hatred for gay men you also have problems with reading comprehension. Seek help as fast as you can…..

I've watched this discussion with interest and am dismayed that no one (unless I've unintentionally missed it) has responded to Ppen's exposure of the elephant in the room.

Why won't Ben-David in particular respond to the lack of promiscuity in lesbians, and how that contributes to "gay promiscuity"?

Jessica,

Ppen, Amy, Radwaste and myself have all challenged Ben to back up statements. He cannot, so he just postures and uses half truths or information taken out of context as truth. He has offered zero evidence to support his claims.

Amy is correct, this is a male issue in regard to promiscuity, not a male homosexuality issue. Ben uses world health ministries reports to back up his claims. But what he fails (purposely) to acknowledge is the agenda behind their findings. The more outrageous the claims the more monies that are provided for preventative advertising, free condoms, free STD examinations etc... not to mention all the organizations looking for a handout. He uses a progressive sociopolitical agenda driven report and calls it factual because it suits his needs. While at the same time he espouses his contempt for progression. In these reports there are claims that over 25% of the gay men polled have had over 1000 sexual partners. That’s 1 different partner a week for 20yrs. It’s ludicrous and any person with half a brain can see it’s so. That’s why he has been brought to task by numerous people on this thread and it’s also why he never answers the questions asked of him. Because he has an abhorrent hatred towards gay men but simply isn’t man enough to admit it. Why else would you even bring gay male promiscuity into an unrelated subject. The answer to that is Ben is obsessed with gay men and unclear about his own sexuality (why else would you obsess over it).

1) Since all single men are promiscuous, single gay men have far more opportunities.

2) If single heterosexual women were as promiscuous as single heterosexual men the
numbers would be similar.

3) Because women, regardless of sexual preference, are less promiscuous there numbers
are going to be lower and two lesbian women would be the lowest.

Ben knows this (or he’s an idiot), it just doesn’t fit into his homophobic ideas. Bens been blinded by his hatred for homosexuality, which I find incredible ironic given the fact that he’s an Orthodox Jew and should have far better insight than most to the plight of people assumed different then others. Arguing with someone who bases their assumptions on emotion is moot, pointing out their hypocrisy so no one else takes them seriously is fun…..