Why Are Atheists Cowards?

[Shady]

Professor Markuze...Tisk tisk...

You have'nt given us a Depeche Mode video...

Or threatened anyone with decapitaion...

Are you mellowing?

Is the Prozac kicking in?

Still dodging huh? I'm not suprised.

[dre]

Still dodging huh? I'm not suprised.

[Bonam]

Cool. Then show me the anti-Hanukkah ads then. So me the mocking of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. If there's no issue, then it shouldn't be very difficult.

It isn't. Like I said, every ad that says anything about there not being a god is equally referring to the god(s) spoken of in all these religions. Your whole supposed "issue" in this thread was refuted in the first two replies back on page 1.

By the way, it is not the obligation of any group to make their ads say what you want them to say. If you feel there aren't enough ads "mocking" Judaism, feel free to go and buy some.

Oh, and even if there was such a bias as you claim there is (which there isn't), still, it would be a non-issue. You agree with the right to freedom of expression, do you not? These people have the right to critique whatever religion(s) they want and not others, if they so choose.

By the way, you mentioned you are not a Christian. Clearly, you are also not an atheist. So... what are you exactly? Just curious.

[Black Dog]

These particular atheist groups take the easy way out. That's a fact. I'm sorry you're bothered by it. But that's not my fault. They run ads publicly against Christianity, but let every other religion get a pass. Prove me wrong. Where are the ads mocking Judaism? Where are the ads mocking Islam? Where are the ads mocking Hinduism. For God sake, they have a god with 8 arms!!!! It's not difficult! But it's not about all religions. It's about Christianity. Face facts. You're part of a group that follows political correctness when it comes to denouncing faith. Following the path of least resistence. Now in the face of facts, and reality, I'll save you the time and trouble.

Thanks. Yep, the keep ignorning the obvious underlying PC issue. Probably on purpose. Because that many people can't all be that dense.

Yeah, can't understand why a werstern-based organization would run ads targeting Christianity during Christmas time. What does it mean?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the group in question also probably doesn't have an unlimited amount of funds to run ad campaigns, so it's probably wise to pick one's spots.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Black Dog

[Jack Weber]

It isn't. Like I said, every ad that says anything about there not being a god is equally referring to the god(s) spoken of in all these religions. Your whole supposed "issue" in this thread was refuted in the first two replies back on page 1.

By the way, it is not the obligation of any group to make their ads say what you want them to say. If you feel there aren't enough ads "mocking" Judaism, feel free to go and buy some.

Oh, and even if there was such a bias as you claim there is (which there isn't), still, it would be a non-issue. You agree with the right to freedom of expression, do you not? These people have the right to critique whatever religion(s) they want and not others, if they so choose.

By the way, you mentioned you are not a Christian. Clearly, you are also not an atheist. So... what are you exactly? Just curious.

He's a "Professorian"...

It's a "faith" of one...

[Jack Weber]

Still dodging huh? I'm not suprised.

Dodging what??

The fact that your a self immolating fool constantly being made fun of???

It seems I'm spot on....

[Shady]

Dodging what??

You know what. I've asked several times. Dodge away my friend. Dodge away.

It isn't. Like I said, every ad that says anything about there not being a god is equally referring to the god(s) spoken of in all these religions. Your whole supposed "issue" in this thread was refuted in the first two replies back on page 1.

As I've already mentioned a dozen times now, I'm not referring to the not being a God ads. I'm asking for the hanukkah is a myth ads. Or Ramadan is a waste of time. Or anything that targets a non-Christian holiday.

By the way, it is not the obligation of any group to make their ads say what you want them to say. If you feel there aren't enough ads "mocking" Judaism, feel free to go and buy some.

Why? I'm not an athiest. But in this case, they absolutely do have an obligation. Athiests should speak out against all religion if they wish to have any credibility. Speaking out against one, while giving the rest a pass, is completely balless. Attacking Christianity has been done to death. It's the only accepted form of religion bashing. You don't have to worry about being called islamophobic or anti-semetic. It's the path of least resistence. It's time these particular groups man-up.

These people have the right to critique whatever religion(s) they want and not others, if they so choose.

They absolutely do. As do we to call them on their hypocrisy, cowardice, and lack of credibility.

By the way, you mentioned you are not a Christian. Clearly, you are also not an atheist. So... what are you exactly? Just curious.

I consider myself agnostic. To believe there is no God is the same type of faith as to believing there is one.

[Bonam]

As I've already mentioned a dozen times now, I'm not referring to the not being a God ads. I'm asking for the hanukkah is a myth ads. Or Ramadan is a waste of time. Or anything that targets a non-Christian holiday.

So one set of ads that uniformly targets all religions is insufficient? You now want them to make multiple sets of ads that talk exactly about what you want them to talk about? Sorry, no can do.

By the way, we don't get Ramadan as a statutory holiday, so it's not a waste of time, since no time is wasted.

Athiests should speak out against all religion if they wish to have any credibility.

They do. Even if that one group didn't take out enough ads to satisfy your hunger for criticism of Islam and Judaism, plenty of other atheists have savagely ripped into all these religions.

Speaking out against one, while giving the rest a pass, is completely balless.

No one is giving the rest a pass.

Attacking Christianity has been done to death.

And will continue to be done until Christianity's death, which it richly deserves, just like other religions.

It's the only accepted form of religion bashing. You don't have to worry about being called islamophobic or anti-semetic.

Islam sucks and is stupid and its followers are mostly morons. *Bash* *Bash*. Capiche? Criticism complete. Go ahead and call me Islamophobic if you want to.

It's the path of least resistence. It's time these particular groups man-up.

Why do you care about the manliness of one specific group of atheists? Maybe they are gay and don't want to be manly? Stop being such a homophobe!

They absolutely do. As do we to call them on their hypocrisy, cowardice, and lack of credibility.

Yes, and we can make fun of you for how wrong you are.

I consider myself agnostic. To believe there is no God is the same type of faith as to believing there is one.

No, it's not. A negative statement and a positive statement about a proposition for which there is zero supporting evidence are very different things.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Bonam

[Black Dog]

As I've already mentioned a dozen times now, I'm not referring to the not being a God ads. I'm asking for the hanukkah is a myth ads. Or Ramadan is a waste of time. Or anything that targets a non-Christian holiday.

If i'm a group with a limited budget (AFAIK, this campaign was funded in large part through donations), I'm going to pick the biggest target to get the most bang for my buck in terms of exposure. Going after Ramadan or Hannukah just doesn't make sense from a cost/benefit standpoint.

Why? I'm not an athiest. But in this case, they absolutely do have an obligation. Athiests should speak out against all religion if they wish to have any credibility. Speaking out against one, while giving the rest a pass, is completely balless. Attacking Christianity has been done to death. It's the only accepted form of religion bashing. You don't have to worry about being called islamophobic or anti-semetic.

This is the stupidest fucking thing you've written since the last thing you wrote. Not running adds specifically targeting those holidays is not "giving those other religions a pass" since, as has been pointed out before, knocking them is implicit in the whole "there's no god" thing.

It's the path of least resistence. It's time these particular groups man-up

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and run your own ads, then? Come on: grow a set and man up.

[The_Squid]

And will continue to be done until Christianity's death, which it richly deserves, just like other religions.

Amen brother!!!

[bloodyminded]

I consider myself agnostic. To believe there is no God is the same type of faith as to believing there is one.

To be atheist doesn't mean you have to "believe there are no gods."

Most atheists are agnostic; there is no inherent disparity.

[The_Squid]

I have no idea if there is a god or gods... I've never seen any evidence, nor has anyone been able to convince me otherwise (although they come to my door and try)....

I'm an atheist, but if Zeus does happen to show up, or someone can take pictures, I will certainly believe after that.

[LonJowett]

I like the idea of going online anonymously and calling people cowards. There's something inherently...oh...cowardly about that that.

[dre]

I have no idea if there is a god or gods... I've never seen any evidence, nor has anyone been able to convince me otherwise (although they come to my door and try)....

I'm an atheist, but if Zeus does happen to show up, or someone can take pictures, I will certainly believe after that.

Theyre no evidence against the existance of a god or at least the concept of a god.

But theres plenty strong evidence against the existance of the specific gods that humans believe in. That evidence is the very fact that humans believe in them.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But theres plenty strong evidence against the existance of the specific gods that humans believe in. That evidence is the very fact that humans believe in them.

Are you denying the existence of the Sun?

[dre]

Are you denying the existence of the Sun?

Lets try again...

Theyre no evidence against the existance of a god or at least the concept of a god.

But theres plenty strong evidence against the existance of the specific gods that humans believe in. That evidence is the very fact that humans believe in them.

[Bonam]

Theyre no evidence against the existance of a god or at least the concept of a god.

If there is no evidence for something, and no evidence against something, there is no reason to believe in that something or even doubt your non-belief in that something. I could imagine a million fantastical propositions, each of which with no evidence for or against. Would believing in any of these propositions be worth the same respect as people show to belief in god? And yet how are they different, except only for the number of people that believe them?

A person whose position on god is "I don't know whether god exists or not because there is no evidence either way" is someone who just wants to appear agreeable and moderate to both believers and atheists, but has not actually given their position any serious thought.

Personally, I am fully convinced that there is no god. The lack of evidence against the existence of god doesn't matter, because there is no evidence FOR god. You need positive evidence for the existence of something in order to have a reason to doubt its non-existence. Nonetheless, if tomorrow Thor descended from the plane of Asgard, I would accept that I had previously been wrong.

[dre]

If there is no evidence for something, and no evidence against something, there is no reason to believe in that something or even doubt your non-belief in that something. I could imagine a million fantastical propositions, each of which with no evidence for or against. Would believing in any of these propositions be worth the same respect as people show to belief in god? And yet how are they different, except only for the number of people that believe them?

A person whose position on god is "I don't know whether god exists or not because there is no evidence either way" is someone who just wants to appear agreeable and moderate to both believers and atheists, but has not actually given their position any serious thought.

Personally, I am fully convinced that there is no god. The lack of evidence against the existence of god doesn't matter, because there is no evidence FOR god. You need positive evidence for the existence of something in order to have a reason to doubt its non-existence. Nonetheless, if tomorrow Thor descended from the plane of Asgard, I would accept that I had previously been wrong.

I could imagine a million fantastical propositions, each of which with no evidence for or against. Would believing in any of these propositions be worth the same respect as people show to belief in god? And yet how are they different, except only for the number of people that believe them?

Which is exactly the evidence against the existance of any of the gods in human religions... The fact that humans believe in them. After all... we know humans are naturally pre-disposed to inventing these kinds of stories, and theyve worshipped just about everything over the centuries. We know these stories are false.

However... theres 800 billion stars just in our galaxy... statistically speaking its likely that there are hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of races more advanced that us, just in the milky way alone... some of them very well might seem omnipotent to us, and the idea that one of these thousands of races might have had something to do with our evolution or creation is not completely unthinkable. I dont believe thats the case but its at least vaguely plausible.

Humans know virtually nothing about anything. Weve barely scratched the surface when it comes to knowledge about our own existance and this only tiny rock we live on. Our theories on what else might be out there are about as relevant as a two day old babies understanding of advanced math theory, or quantum physics.

[Bonam]

However... theres 800 billion stars just in our galaxy... statistically speaking its likely that there are hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of races more advanced that us, just in the milky way alone... some of them very well might seem omnipotent to us, and the idea that one of these thousands of races might have had something to do with our evolution or creation is not completely unthinkable. I dont believe thats the case but its at least vaguely plausible.

Good points, and I agree that such things are a possibility, if a remote one. I say remote because a race capable of influencing events in solar systems other than its own would likely have colonized the galaxy itself rather than staying at home while toying with evolution of other races. After all, when human civilization becomes capable of interstellar travel, colonizing other star systems will be the first thing we'll do. Any species capable of developing advanced technology will necessarily also be similarly expansionist in nature, after all, being able to travel through space means they would have had to harness and exploit the resources of their world, to spread all over its surface to make maximum use of them, as we have.

In fact, there is a plausible argument to be made that we may well be the most technologically advanced species in our galaxy. Barring civilization-ending catastrophe, and considering the rate of technological progress, we are at most a few hundred years from beginning our expansion out into the galaxy. Given that our civilization has reached this point after billions of years of evolution and that colonizing the galaxy should take at most a few hundred thousand years after (slower than light) interstellar travel becomes possible, if a species were more technologically advanced than us by, for example, a mere million years, a tiny instant of time on an astronomical scale, we would be living within their dominion.

Perhaps such a civilization would follow some prime directive, as in star trek, where they do not interfere with lesser forms of life and remain hidden from us, but if there are many such civilizations, it seems unlikely that they all would have developed a similar morality. Moreover, given that we have searched our galaxy extensively for electromagnetic emissions that could originate from advanced civilizations and found nothing, together with the above reasoning, leads me to believe that it is unlikely that the Milky Way contains advanced civilizations capable of having influenced events on Earth, besides humanity itself of course.

This all may seem very unlikely, but hey, some planet, some civilization, in this galaxy had to be the first, no matter how unlikely it would seem to them. Who knows, it may be us.

If that is the case, we ourselves may in a few hundred years be the Gods, seeding life across other worlds in this galaxy and converting inhospitable planets to Earth-like gardens of paradise.

In any case, whether advanced alien civilizations far beyond our technological capability exist in our galaxy or not, that is not what people generally mean when they talk about a god or gods. Tell a religious person that you believe there might be a god, in the form of an extraterrestrial civilization that toyed with human development, and they will look upon you no more kindly than they would a militant atheist.

Humans know virtually nothing about anything. Weve barely scratched the surface when it comes to knowledge about our own existance and this only tiny rock we live on. Our theories on what else might be out there are about as relevant as a two day old babies understanding of advanced math theory, or quantum physics.

True, we certainly have much left to discover, and certainly we may encounter phenomena far beyond our understanding today. But, such things are in the realm of science and direct observation, if not that of today, then of tomorrow. These are natural forces, natural events, the results of understandable processes within our universe, not some supernatural and unknowable power.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Bonam

[dre]

Good points, and I agree that such things are a possibility, if a remote one. I say remote because a race capable of influencing events in solar systems other than its own would likely have colonized the galaxy itself rather than staying at home while toying with evolution of other races. After all, when human civilization becomes capable of interstellar travel, colonizing other star systems will be the first thing we'll do. Any species capable of developing advanced technology will necessarily also be similarly expansionist in nature, after all, being able to travel through space means they would have had to harness and exploit the resources of their world, to spread all over its surface to make maximum use of them, as we have.

In fact, there is a plausible argument to be made that we may well be the most technologically advanced species in our galaxy. Barring civilization-ending catastrophe, and considering the rate of technological progress, we are at most a few hundred years from beginning our expansion out into the galaxy. Given that our civilization has reached this point after billions of years of evolution and that colonizing the galaxy should take at most a few hundred thousand years after (slower than light) interstellar travel becomes possible, if a species were more technologically advanced than us by, for example, a mere million years, a tiny instant of time on an astronomical scale, we would be living within their dominion.

Perhaps such a civilization would follow some prime directive, as in star trek, where they do not interfere with lesser forms of life and remain hidden from us, but if there are many such civilizations, it seems unlikely that they all would have developed a similar morality. Moreover, given that we have searched our galaxy extensively for electromagnetic emissions that could originate from advanced civilizations and found nothing, together with the above reasoning, leads me to believe that it is unlikely that the Milky Way contains advanced civilizations capable of having influenced events on Earth, besides humanity itself of course.

This all may seem very unlikely, but hey, some planet, some civilization, in this galaxy had to be the first, no matter how unlikely it would seem to them. Who knows, it may be us.

If that is the case, we ourselves may in a few hundred years be the Gods, seeding life across other worlds in this galaxy and converting inhospitable planets to Earth-like gardens of paradise.

In any case, whether advanced alien civilizations far beyond our technological capability exist in our galaxy or not, that is not what people generally mean when they talk about a god or gods. Tell a religious person that you believe there might be a god, in the form of an extraterrestrial civilization that toyed with human development, and they will look upon you no more kindly than they would a militant atheist.

True, we certainly have much left to discover, and certainly we may encounter phenomena far beyond our understanding today. But, such things are in the realm of science and direct observation, if not that of today, then of tomorrow. These are natural forces, natural events, the results of understandable processes within our universe, not some supernatural and unknowable power.

Perhaps such a civilization would follow some prime directive, as in star trek, where they do not interfere with lesser forms of life and remain hidden from us, but if there are many such civilizations, it seems unlikely that they all would have developed a similar morality. Moreover, given that we have searched our galaxy extensively for electromagnetic emissions that could originate from advanced civilizations and found nothing, together with the above reasoning, leads me to believe that it is unlikely that the Milky Way contains advanced civilizations capable of having influenced events on Earth, besides humanity itself of course.

This all may seem very unlikely, but hey, some planet, some civilization, in this galaxy had to be the first, no matter how unlikely it would seem to them. Who knows, it may be us.

Its easy to hide from the blind. We look for things that we think such a civilization might make. But that itself is an absurdity. Picture a snail inside a cardboard box looking for signs of other life, and saying "nope... didnt find any".

leads me to believe that it is unlikely that the Milky Way contains advanced civilizations capable of having influenced events on Earth, besides humanity itself of course.

Its possible, but it would a extremely rare statistic anomaly. As you say though its plausible.

Any species capable of developing advanced technology will necessarily also be similarly expansionist in nature, after all, being able to travel through space means they would have had to harness and exploit the resources of their world, to spread all over its surface to make maximum use of them, as we have.

Maybe but thats speculation. They could exist on an entirely different level than we even have the capacity to understand, and they could possess a completely different kind of intelligence and a completely different type of technology. We see everything through the lens of human development which is why you picture a race breeding on a planet like we do, using resources like we use them, then building machines to explore space. A billion of these life forms could possibly fit on the head of a pin, or one of them might be larger than our solar system. All we can do is take wild guesses from within the human context. Theres hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy alone, and hundreds of billions of galaxies in only the fraction of the universe that we can observe.

In any case, whether advanced alien civilizations far beyond our technological capability exist in our galaxy or not, that is not what people generally mean when they talk about a god or gods

I think an advanced race capable of doing things we cant understand would fit the definition PERFECTLY. In fact we have see this exact scenario play out before.

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

These people worshipped the Americans and Japenese, and their airplanes as gods, simply because they were a more advanced civilization that could do things they couldnt understand.

Its at least plausible.

[WIP]

Dawkins has addressed the positive aspects of religion pretty well in his books.

But, he still considers religion to be an overall, negative influence...and he doesn't make any distinction between the two primary aspects of religion: supernatural belief systems and how they function as social organizations; he just lumps everything together under the category of religion. There are positive and negative aspects to both.

Because thats what people do. They divide up into groups based on virtually any critiria available and then they mock each other. Americans mock canadians, liberals mock conservatives, capitalists mock socialists, christians mock muslims, religions people mock non religious people, and vice versa.

Its group-think, and its one of the reasons why humans are predisposed to religion in the first place.

What I dont understand, is why atheists... a tiny persecuted minority would be expected to abstain from this when no other group does?

No one's talking about abstaining; it's a matter of how much someone is willing to understand other perspectives before criticizing them. If atheists are supposed to reason-driven, and using evidence to arrive at valid conclusions, then group-think should be the last thing we are using!

Some atheists who have taken an antagonistic, anti-theist viewpoint, and even drive away progressive and liberal believers, rather than maintain a harmonious relationship with the moderates, are guilty of doing the same thing that many fundamentalist cults do -- deliberately drive a wedge and isolate their small communities from the mainstream. Persecution is interpreted as validation by cultists, and small atheist groups that seek to close themselves off from contact with religious believers are acting like just one more cult.

[WIP]

I understand the difference but its not central to the question I was answering which is "why mock them"?

The answer is self evident. Its our NATURE to mock others with beliefs we find to be silly. As a matter of fact thats what 90% of the activity here on MLW is comprised of.

I guess that must be why I avoid 90% of the activity!

[WIP]

Yes, you're all about mocking beliefs you find silly, except when it comes to Islam. That's where you draw the line. In that case, when somebody wants to burn some paper, or draw a cartoon, your attitude becomes quite different.

Don't think that many atheists haven't noticed how anti-theists like Hitchens, Ayan Hirsi Ali, or PZ Myers, are welcomed at the rightwing neoconservative table as long as they point their guns at Islam! The ones who join the neocons and support U.S. empire-building in the Muslim World, like Hirsi Ali, are even given membership at clubs like the American Enterprize Institute for their service. No doubt that her support for converting Muslims to Christianity has also been a rewarding experience for book sales and paid lectures! She is almost as useful as Foxnew's frequent atheist contributor - S.E. Cupp!

But most atheists don't want to serve as pawns for global capitalists who want to continue the occupation of the Middle East, nor the Christian theocrats who want their religion to dominate the whole world. I would prefer a strategy of turning down the heat, so that moderate Muslims have a better chance to combat the reactionaries and fundamentalists that use violence, intimidation and over-the-top rhetoric to force their agenda.

[WIP]

And some of us think that belief in nothing,or even worse,faith in Man is a hopeless system doomed to failure...

With hubris like that,Satan could be described as the ultimate humanist...

I think that every set of rules and ethics is from human origins. The difference between secular humanism and Christian humanism for example, is that Christian humanist claims his principles are from a divine source. But Christian ethics (even among fundamentalists) has been shaped and molded over the eons by political and economic conditions. The secular humanist system may have borrowed from Christian philosophy as much as from the Ancient Greeks, but it is no more arbitrary than Christian ethics....which has also changed over the centuries.

Slavery for example, was a universally approved social institution before the concepts of human rights and freedoms were considered. Over time, a consensus of opinion developed that slavery was an immoral institution, and the church leaders who led the fight for abolition could dress their arguments in religious language, but they did not have scripture or Christian tradition to support the change in attitude on slavery.

The issue is more about applying ethics than developing lofty sounding principles. Some atheists will be ethical, while others will be selfish hedonists. But almost the same thing will go among the believers who think that the rules they learned at church are divine and unchangeable. If people feel that they need the security of believing in an underlying intelligence and purpose, that's fine; but not everyone sees a reason for having these beliefs, nor that they are essential for having a good life.

[WIP]

I've responded to a few posts from before Christmas, but rather than getting into the back-and-forth that's gone on since then, I'd like to make a general statement that the problem seems to be that fundamentalists have defined religion and their religious dogma as empirical scientific theory. So, every new scientific discovery that conflicts with a literal reading, from evolution to modern neuroscience is fought against as an attack on religious faith......if you're wondering why most atheists have arrived at where they are now, this is the precise reason!

Most atheists are former Christians of one fundamentalist denomination or another, and when we were developing a curiosity about the world, we were told that we had to accept biblical creationism as our science. Most people don't really give a damn, but for the minority who want to believe in things that are real, that often meant abandoning our churches, and turning against religion entirely. Even though I later took the time to learn about religious views that do not try to dress themselves up as pseudoscience, I still did not see any reason to go back to supernatural beliefs.....but that's what's best for me! Many people have a strong inclination to believe in a purpose-driven universe, and I don't see any problem with this way of understanding, as long as it doesn't demand denying scientific discovery. I don't believe that everyone should be a believer....in whatever....nor that everyone is cut out to be a rationalist. There are enough problems in this world without creating extra ones for no good reason.