Gee...classy

[greymatters]

It's one thing when a religious person is going through some pain, and asks an atheist for their prayers because they don't realize they're talking to an atheist.

Then there's the real classy version of this move (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31517_Prayers_for_Dean_Barnett/comments/#ctop), when they ask for your prayers because they know you're an atheist:

Dean Barnett is in trouble tonight (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/08/prayers-for-dean-barnett/), and he could use a few prayers (even from you godless atheists).


Note that the original article, about a guy who is dealing with a severe attack of cystic fibrosis, doesn't feel the need to attack people on the basis of their beliefs.

I'm sorry this person is going through such a rough time, especially as cystic fibrosis is particularly nasty, and I can offer my best hopes for him getting through this.

Usually, I'm tempted to post something nasty on a board like this. Then, I read 10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On (http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html), and the only thing I usually consider after that is posting a link to that article.

(I do like the specific reference to "godless" atheists. This is supposed to . . . what? Distinguish them from some other kind of atheists?)

[David Wong]

I did not pay him to post that link.

[greymatters]

I didn't even know David Wong was on here!

No, folks, I posted that link of my own accord.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I didn't even know David Wong was on here!

No, folks, I posted that link of my own accord.

All you atheists lie like that! :duck:

[jamrat]

I think the "godless atheist" part was tongue in cheek. Charles Johnson, the proprietor of LGF, is a staunch nemesis of the ID crowd and his blog has hosted some pretty heated threads over the subject. I've actually seen some religious believers change their minds about evolution on those threads.

[my_wan]

I read through those and I can agree to them. I'll go even further. The definitions we choose that lack any physical meaning in themselves can nonetheless make or break the people and/or societies based on them. From a strictly physical perspective we can't even say who hit who in an automobile accident. It is strictly a definition giving the ground frame precedence and the relative proximity of traffic control devices and byways. In fact all our laws are purely a list of definitions, not physical laws.

When you look at studies involving cooperation of higher animals (primates mainly) it's not hard to find. However, in controlled studies when the rewards of cooperation are no longer mutual the cooperation breaks down. Neither the benefactor of the cooperation inclined to share or the loser of the cooperation inclined to continue with the cooperation. There exist no moral judgment or hostilities toward the lopsided benefactor either.

This is in contrast to human cooperation. Not only do we cooperate with the assumption of mutual benefit we don't always require it. Perhaps simply because it made us feel good to do so. Surely there is a limit to the resources an individual can expend for the benefit of another. Every individual chooses the limits differently. We also pass moral judgments on those we help to benefit, either by the resources shared or the lack thereof.

Now whether we ascribe this system of cooperation to Gods law or the VMAT2 gene is immaterial. It is at the core of the success of the human race. We certainly can't compete with the bear on their terms. I, an atheist, hold our underlying sense of non-physical morality sacred and need no deity or physics to justify that.

[PixyMisa]

I think the "godless atheist" part was tongue in cheek. Charles Johnson, the proprietor of LGF, is a staunch nemesis of the ID crowd and his blog has hosted some pretty heated threads over the subject. I've actually seen some religious believers change their minds about evolution on those threads.
Yep. I've participated in a number of those. :)

I think Charles is an atheist himself.

[Cuddles]

Usually, I'm tempted to post something nasty on a board like this. Then, I read 10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On (http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html), and the only thing I usually consider after that is posting a link to that article.

Well, the article does have some fair points, but a lot of it is just full of straw men and is often just plain wrong. "Can't we all just get along" is a great sentiment, but if you try to support it my misrepresenting the views of both sides, you're not going to get anyone to agree with you.

The worst one, that explicitly states what was implied all along is:
The truth has to be somewhere in between.

Right?

No, wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong. Just because you have two possibilities does not mean they are both equally likely or that the truth is somewhere in between. A lot of the time it simply means one of the possibilities is just plain wrong. Importantly, religion is one of those times. Either god exists or it doesn't. Talking about an inbetween doesn't even make sense - there's no such thing as god slightly existing.

There cetainly are many grey areas in life, and there people who try to paint everything as black and white need this pointed out to them. However, people who try to paint everything grey also need pointed out that black and white do actually exist as well. Insisting that everything is some kind of middle ground is no better than insisting that everything lies on the extreme.

[my_wan]

The worst one, that explicitly states what was implied all along is:
The truth has to be somewhere in between.

Right?


I don't think the sentiment "the truth has to be somewhere in between" necessarily implies god as deity must be part of that "in between". The division between believers and atheist encompasses much more than simply the existence of a god. To a hard core believer denying the existence of god is the same thing as telling them they are delusional for feeling this sense of morality at the core of their being. We are all often tempted to skirt our own sense of morality, atheist or not, for personal gain. Atheist on the other hand often argue their case on purely moral grounds. I, just a few post above, have conceded that I hold my sense of morality as sacred, yet I am atheist. Is that not an "in between"? I can modify my application of that morality based on what I perceive to be better empirical data but the morality itself is pretty much fixed.

I can easily take exception to notions like his "two kinds of people who attack Christianity" yet his 10 points remains essentially valid in my estimation. It's still not going to stop me from attacking Christianity on many issues, including the existence issue.

[Rodibidably]

I don't think the sentiment "the truth has to be somewhere in between" necessarily implies god as deity must be part of that "in between". The division between believers and atheist encompasses much more than simply the existence of a god.
I'm sorry, but atheism is nothing more (or less) than lack of belief in a god (or gods).
Atheists may make claim about morality evolving withing society, but morality itself is not a claim of atheism.

What you seem to be describing are the differences between fundamentalist theists and secular humanists.
This should NOT be confused with atheism vs theism.

The only difference between theists and atheists is a simple one: god does exists vs god does not exist. Anything else that is claimed as a difference between the two groups is misleading.

(for the record, I consider myself to be both a secular humanist AND an atheist)

[my_wan]

I'm sorry, but atheism is nothing more (or less) than lack of belief in a god (or gods).
Atheists may make claim about morality evolving withing society, but morality itself is not a claim of atheism.

What you seem to be describing are the differences between fundamentalist theists and secular humanists.
This should NOT be confused with atheism vs theism.

The only difference between theists and atheists is a simple one: god does exists vs god does not exist. Anything else that is claimed as a difference between the two groups is misleading.

(for the record, I consider myself to be both a secular humanist AND an atheist)

Very good point. Yet from a believers viewpoint separating the issue of morality from the issue of existence is being very dishonest. You and I know better but believers honestly cannot make that distinction. Morality is the hand of God in their world view. When they say God spoke to me it wasn't a voice is was a moral compunction. It carries with it the same weight of a spoken judgment as jealousy does when you believe the grounds for the jealousy to be factual. In their world view when you say I'm a moral person that doesn't believe in God you are being facetious. It's an oxymoron like saying I am a moral person who doesn't believe in morals. For this reason for you to tell a believer your not arguing the validity of their morality in any way, only the existence of God, you are perceived to be attempting a facetious trick to avoid the real issue. That is also why they fear atheism so much.

You have to admit that atheist use the morality card to argue their case often enough. Again a facetious trick to the believer pretty much proving in their estimation that you are without morals. If the issue of morality is used on both sides as a central claim against the other side you cannot legitimately separate it. Yes we both know that it is a separate logical issue but morality itself has no basis in physical law, so you can't argue for morality on the same logical precepts that you are using to argue against their God. Hence the occasional threads here asking why murder is wrong. For atheist to stand in opposition to the theist it must necessarily deal with not just the issue of the deities existence but the role that deity plays in the belief system i.e., morality.

[Egg]

I think there are obviously some generalisations in the 10 Points article, and if we are being pedantic, I'm sure there are various issues we could raise with some of the assertions, but taken as what it is, and probably as it was intended, it is a heart-warming, hopeful, well intended and often amusing message which makes some very strong points.

Great work, David and thanks Greymatters for posting the link.

[greymatters]

You're welcome, Egg.

Yep. I've participated in a number of those. :)

I think Charles is an atheist himself.


Somehow, I'm skeptical of that statement (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30762_Saturday_Night_Open):
Belief in God does not preclude belief in evolution.
Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God.
Do not trust those who insist otherwise.

— Lao Stinky

(Although the quote is attributed to Stinky, not Charles)

[Pope130]

This sort of thing always reminds me of my favorite line from "The Wild Geese" (spoken by the missionary priest): "God bless you murdering heathens!"

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the "godless atheist" part was tongue in cheek. Charles Johnson, the proprietor of LGF, is a staunch nemesis of the ID crowd and his blog has hosted some pretty heated threads over the subject. I've actually seen some religious believers change their minds about evolution on those threads.

Godless defined (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/godless)god·less (gdls)
adj.
1. Recognizing or worshiping no god.
2. Wicked, impious, or immoral.

godless
Adjective
1. wicked or unprincipled
2. not religious

godless
adjective wicked, depraved, profane, unprincipled, atheistic, ungodly, irreligious, impious, unrighteousLGF's tongue in cheek aside, it's hard to be tolerant when just using the name, atheist, implies wicked depravity.

And I can celebrate the death of someone like Falwell, David, because while alive, Falwell continued to spread his intolerance generously around.

As for the cystic fibrosis, one could suggest we godless atheists consider donations to research. What good is prayer going to really do for the guy?

[Fnord]

David Wong is a JREF member?

We are not worthy.

[Egg]

And I can celebrate the death of someone like Falwell, David, because while alive, Falwell continued to spread his intolerance generously around.


Yeah! Death to the intolerant!!

:eggunsure: oh, hang on...

[brodski]

Yeah! Death to the intolerant!!

:eggunsure: oh, hang on...

no, death to everyone, mourning for some.

[Egg]

no, death to everyone, mourning for some.

not mourning = celebrating?

[PixyMisa]

Somehow, I'm skeptical of that statement (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30762_Saturday_Night_Open):

(Although the quote is attributed to Stinky, not Charles)
Yeah. Well, Stinky is just the janitor, after all. ;)

I think I may have seen Charles say that he's an atheist at one point, but I couldn't swear to it. If he is, he's not aggresively so; he's very even-handed about religion either way until your beliefs lead you to push nonsense in the classroom or blow up a bus full of children.

But that line about "even from you godless atheists" is definitely tongue-in-cheek.

[brodski]

not mourning = celebrating?

that depends how one choses to avoid mourning. ;)

The point is that there is a distinction between being glad that someone is dead and calling for their death.

[Egg]

that depends how one choses to avoid mourning. ;)

The point is that there is a distinction between being glad that someone is dead and calling for their death.

Surely, if you're is glad that someone is dead, you must have wanted them to die? As far as I see it, the distinction is only in how vocal you are about it.

[Rodibidably]

I would not be sad if W died, and took Cheney with him (*emphasis on the "and", I don't want dick running the country for the next few months).

That does not mean I WANT either of them to die...

Subtle difference, but there is certainly a difference...

[firestorm]

Yeah, 'godless athiest' is more than redundant. It's like saying 'you deity fearing Christians.'

[brodski]

Surely, if you're is glad that someone is dead, you must have wanted them to die? As far as I see it, the distinction is only in how vocal you are about it.

you do not see a distinction between being glad that someone is dead and calling for their death? You cannot see how someone can find a situation to either their personal benefit or to their personal liking without asking for that situation to be realised or working towards that realisation?

The fact is that everybody dies, some people do some god awful things when they are alive, and the fact that they are no longer doing those god awful things can be a reason to be cheerful. That is a damned sight different from calling for the deaths of those people.

[Egg]

you do not see a distinction between being glad that someone is dead and calling for their death? You cannot see how someone can find a situation to either their personal benefit or to their personal liking without asking for that situation to be realised or working towards that realisation?

The fact is that everybody dies, some people do some god awful things when they are alive, and the fact that they are no longer doing those god awful things can be a reason to be cheerful. That is a damned sight different from calling for the deaths of those people.

But how is it different from hoping for the deaths of those people?

[RandFan]

I would not be sad if W died, and took Cheney with him (*emphasis on the "and", I don't want dick running the country for the next few months).

That does not mean I WANT either of them to die...

Subtle difference, but there is certainly a difference...I've made this argument in the past. I'm not so sure anymore. I think the notion that there is a "subtle" difference is a conclusion we come to in an attempt to resolve moral dissonance. They feel differently but are they? You don't have a problem with someone not existing you just don't wish for that non-existence. Meh~

[brodski]

But how is it different from hoping for the deaths of those people?

One does not need to hope for the inevitable.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah! Death to the intolerant!!

:eggunsure: oh, hang on...Death to/is dead. Notice the difference?

Hoping for/glad it happened. Notice the difference?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Surely, if you're is glad that someone is dead, you must have wanted them to die? As far as I see it, the distinction is only in how vocal you are about it.Nonsense. You choose to frame it that way to suit your needs.

My preference would have been for Falwell to repent.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Tell me Egg, how's your tolerance of child rapists? Where do you draw the line?

[Egg]

Nonsense. You choose to frame it that way to suit your needs.

My preference would have been for Falwell to repent.

If that's your preference then wouldn't you sad that he died because now he can't repent?

[Egg]

Tell me Egg, how's your tolerance of child rapists? Where do you draw the line?
You're comparing someone exercising freedom of speech with some causing physical harm? That's not a terribly difficult line to draw. Personally, I'd still prefer to see such a person locked up than dead.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If that's your preference then wouldn't you sad that he died because now he can't repent?One deals with the course of events as they come. If he were alive, I would wish for him to recognize the error of his ways. I don't have to wish harm on him. Once he is dead, I can readjust my view and be glad he is no longer spewing hate.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're comparing someone exercising freedom of speech with some causing physical harm? That's not a terribly difficult line to draw. Personally, I'd still prefer to see such a person locked up than dead.You seem to have no idea of the extent of the harm Falwell and his Moral Majority movement imposed upon our society. It's like saying Hitler wasn't the bad guy, his minions were.

[Egg]

I can understand certain situations where you can be glad someone is dead. Perhaps a loved one suffering great pain with a terminal illness or a soldier on a mission being glad a sniper is dead and therefore not threatening his life. Perhaps in the case of someone preaching messages of hate there is a difference between wanting them dead and being glad they're dead, but there's also a difference between being glad someone is dead and celebrating their death, which is the word that I reacted to - particularly over an accusation of intolerance.

Anyway, David's Wong's first point has been pretty successfully debunked. It's not something we all agree on.

[Henners]

(I do like the specific reference to "godless" atheists. This is supposed to . . . what? Distinguish them from some other kind of atheists?)


"Godless" is an insult where Goddy types come from and, as such, it is just thrown in gratuitously for the mental comfort of the Goddy.

The Goddies actually control much of the discourse by being able to define the context in religious terms in the first place - take the very word "atheist" as an example.

A far more sensible approach is to redefine some of this vocabulary.

For example, if "Godless" is taken to mean "not a Goddy", it would be far more sensible to use the term "Goddiless".

Alternatively, if the intended meaning is "not encumbered by an imaginary relationship to a God", how about "God-Free".

Yours, etc.

The Goddiless and God-Free Henners.

[Beerina]

"even from you godless athiests"

Technical point of order, please.

We're all godless, whether you acknowledge it or not.

[Beerina]

By the way, is it allowed for me to pray to God that God take someone up into Heaven?

I could do a counter-prayer, and whatever happens, happens. I mean, it's still God's fault the guy continued to suffer horribly for months, then died, right? And not because that's what I prayed, to God, to happen, right?


Alternatively, I could simply not pray at all, and if the bad thing happens anyway, it's still God's fault, and not mine because I didn't pray, right? Right?

[westprog]

It's like all my friends are with me on the beach, looking out at the ocean. Half of them look at the water and say:
"This is Oceanis, the living Blue God! He is sacred!"
While the other half say,
"Here is a convenient place to dump our sewage."
The truth has to be somewhere in between.
Right?



No, wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong. Just because you have two possibilities does not mean they are both equally likely or that the truth is somewhere in between. A lot of the time it simply means one of the possibilities is just plain wrong.



I think that in context, the truth does have to be in between for that particular example. I don't think he was making a general assertion.

[MarkCorrigan]

Well point 2 is utterly insane.

Seriously, I don't care how you frame it, Stalin did not kill for atheism. He killed for Stalinism which had as a propety of it the lack of belief in god or gods.

He killed preachers because they detracted from and were generally opposed to Stalinistic docterine, and he killed facists for the same reason. Similarly Hitler did not kill for his religion, he killed in spite of it, oralongside it.

Noone kills for atheism because there is nothing there to kill for.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Technical point of order, please.

We're all godless, whether you acknowledge it or not.Hmmm. Good point.