What Atheists Want

The Washington Post ^ | Chris Mooney

[TXLibertarian]

Excerpted from a longer op-ed. Author discusses the danger of legal proselytizing by a few firebrand secularists. Worth a read, IMHO.

What Atheists Want

By Chris Mooney

....

Unfortunately, in my experience, the U.S. atheist and secularist communities contain a number of activists who are inclined to be combative and in some cases feel positively zestful about offending the religious. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, easily America's most famous atheist firebrand, wasn't dubbed "the most hated woman in America" for nothing. Despite her landmark 1963 Supreme Court victory in a case concerning the constitutionality of school prayer, O'Hair's pugilistic and insulting public persona hurt atheists a great deal in the long run. A head-on attack on the pledge seems to epitomize the confrontational O'Hair strategy.

....

[MissAmericanPie]

Atheists are like homosexuals, they can't leave it alone. No one cares what they are, just don't expect to stomp around and change the culture to suit themselves against the will of the majority. If they don't like the way the USofA is set up, take a hike.

[charmtrap]

Atheists are like homosexuals, they can't leave it alone. No one cares what they are, just don't expect to stomp around and change the culture to suit themselves against the will of the majority. If they don't like the way the USofA is set up, take a hike.

Wow, I'll bet you're fun at parties.

[microgood]

There are several theories of abiogenesis. Time will tell which hold up.

This is exactly why I am not an atheist. I do not buy these theories. They are dead ends and until they can show us how it is done, it is just wild speculation which can be neither proven or disproven.

I don't think that starting with the assumption of a supernatural creator is going to get us there, however.

If you are working on abiogenesis research, you wouldn't be assuming that they would make that presumption.

[chindog]

Sorry, but you can't be neither an atheist nor theist. You either believe in a deity, or you don't. Who made that rule?

That would have been Freya, Queen of the Valkeries. Have you heard her theme song? It is rather impressive when played over a sound system with a big woofer.

[Ronin]

Especially when attached to some Hueys coming in on a hot LZ in Nam, I would imagine.

[charmtrap]

This is exactly why I am not an atheist. I do not buy these theories. They are dead ends and until they can show us how it is done, it is just wild speculation which can be neither proven or disproven.

Fair enough, then. Though I'm not sure what atheism and abiogenesis have to do with each other.

If you are working on abiogenesis research, you wouldn't be assuming that they would make that presumption.

Try as I might, I can't seem to make this sentence parse.

[walden]

He's right, you know. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, which is just as big a leap of faith as belief in God.

Actually, the one exception, now that I come to think of it, is agnostics. The agnostic position is "I don't know", which is reasonable.

[LiteKeeper]

INTSUM

[charmtrap]

He's right, you know. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, which is just as big a leap of faith as belief in God.

That's a common misperception among theists. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It is not a positive statement at all. Hence the "strong/weak" distinction. I would never state that there are no gods. Without knowledge of every corner of the universeand every possibility, how could I know?

There are atheists who state that there are no gods, but I don't find their arguments very persuasive.

However, the default position of atheism is lack of belief.

Actually, the one exception, now that I come to think of it, is agnostics. The agnostic position is "I don't know", which is reasonable.

Actually, the Agnostic position goes a bit further. Not only "I don't know", but with the added "and the question is unknowable." A fine distinction, but an important one.

[singsong]

..It's time for you to give it up then because for you to say that you don't deny someones right to not do a particular thing says absolutely nothing. It's simply meaningless.

You still don't get it. I'm saying that atheists deny someone's right to do something. BTW the Constitution guranties yor right not to talk and incriminate yourself, NOT to quarter soldiers, etc. In short it guaranties us rights to do or NOT to do certain things, in a sense that no one should force you to do them. Thus atheists' right NOT to practice religion IS respected. But they DON'T respect the right of religious people to practice. Just because you can't grasp the meaning of something does not mean that it is meaningless.

[Cultural Jihad]

You are wrong. Atheism states categorically that there is no Supreme Being.

Perhaps your language is other than English, but my Merriam-Websters dictionary defines 'atheism' as:

1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

[Mushinronshasan]

He's right, you know. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, which is just as big a leap of faith as belief in God.

You've got it wrong, bucko. Atheism is the lack of belief. Period. End of Leaps. When you try to insert the assertion that it includes any kind of faith in any kind of theistic entity, you are barking up the wrong tree.

[microgood]

Though I'm not sure what atheism and abiogenesis have to do with each other.

To some atheism implies you need to provide an alternate explanation of how we got here. Abiogenesis is one of those possible explanations.

Try as I might, I can't seem to make this sentence parse.

Meant to say that I agree it would not be productive for a abiogenesis researcher to figure it was created since he is the one trying to figure out how to create it or something like that.

[singsong]

A government actor leading a pledge that implies god-belief is wrong, on principle.

Only if the principle is atheistic. This right is guarantied by the Constitution if the people involeved are not forced to do it, ie they can 'opt out'.

There's also the principle of 'captive audience'.

Another atheistic principle that has nothing to do with the Constitution.

[singsong]

Try replacing God in the 'Under God' with Allah, and tell me if you approve.
I would not mind at all because me and family would not be in this country if this was the pledge. I certainly don't mind Iraqies doing it in their pledge. I don't mind a Muslim prayer in a school with Muslim majority. As long as their is a willing majority, the teacher leading the students is acceptable.

[stands2reason]

I think living morally is inherently logical. No need for religion to point out living a moral life leeds to a fulfilling life.

[Centurion2000]

OK, what deity is it you want us to think exists? Can you describe it's attributes?

Without using ANY faith and mere observation it is possible to deduce that SOMEONE created/designed the universe.

He's God.

Example: Using observation of physical universal constants. Observing biochemistry in action.

[MissAmericanPie]

What's a party?

[charmtrap]

You are wrong. Atheism states categorically that there is no Supreme Being. Perhaps your language is other than English, but my Merriam-Websters dictionary defines 'atheism' as: 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity>

Who are you gonna believe, those chaps or an actual atheist? :-)

The operative word there is 'disbelief'. In usage, it sometimes means someone who denies the existence, but the bottom line is 'disbelief'.

[charmtrap]

You are wrong. Atheism states categorically that there is no Supreme Being. Perhaps your language is other than English, but my Merriam-Websters dictionary defines 'atheism' as: 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity>

Who are you gonna believe, those chaps or an actual atheist? :-)

The operative word there is 'disbelief'. In usage, it sometimes means someone who denies the existence, but the bottom line is 'disbelief'.