When an atheist tackles the charge that “Atheists are arrogant”, it’s always much more interesting than when theists level that accusation against us. Not because the defense is excellent (it is!) but because it is covered so thoroughly, and so eloquently. Unlike, say, theists who whine, more or less ad nauseum, “Atheists act like they’re smarter than us!”

Check out the end of a lengthy post, included in the Humanist Symposium #3, from the Evanescent blog:

With or without the reference to jeebus, his points are perfectly made.

We win!

(The title is completely tongue in cheek, as it implies there was an author to our entire story, and that is obviously not true.)

Cartoon courtesy of Jesus and Mo.

As I’ve stipulated before, I’m not a moral relativist. Also as I’ve stated before, I think these discussions about morality are pretty much a waste of time. The last time I posted on this, an individual named Beowulf and I had a bit of a soiree about the whole thing (read it here).

So again, despite the protestations of my fellow atheists, I say it again: I reject moral relativism. It isn’t (nor does it need to be) the default position for those of us who profess an absence of belief.

I find the system bankrupt, to be blunt.

There are is one good reason for doing so.

It has no solid basis for criticizing the actions of others. If there’s a genocide being perpetrated in another country, regardless of the rationale behind it (be it race, color, religion, etc.), it blinds the critical eye and softens the hard word to a voiceless whisper.

A moral relativist cannot, for instance, find fault with biblical events, as said events took place in a time and an environment that was exclusively set ‘back in the day’. By the epistemology of it, projecting our mindset and cultural values on another culture in another age would be primarily anachronistic.

To verify that we’re all on the same page, this is the definition I’m using:

In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

However, to infer that I’m a moral absolutist would be ridiculous as well, since that would involve a false dichotomy (or even a dilemma, to be pedantic and redundant), as there are multiple -isms to choose from.

Most theists I’ve engaged proclaim themselves to be absolutists (I’d give you an example, but since they’re a dime a dozen in the blogosphere, I leave that to the reader to come up with a few), but tend to veer wildly to the relativism aspect when confronted with obvious contradictions in their wholly bibble book (we’ve probably all heard it on more than one occasion: “Hey, that was then, this is now!” Or some variant thereof. My all time favorite is, “gawd changed his mind!”).

Like most people, I tend to borrow a few values here, a few ‘don’ts’ there, and come up with my own version of ethical stew.

So mix in six parts value pluralism, two parts moral naturalist, some secular ethics, a liberal helping of the Moral Razor, a goodly smattering of reciprocal altruism, and voilà! Apostate soup is served! (The ‘krystals’ are what make it crunchy, hehehehe.)

I’ve said this before; it is harm inferred and harm incurred. It takes no degree to see, that when we willfully harm another, the ripples that disturb the pool of our existence take on a cumulative effect that can be felt for years, even centuries in some cases, and have an ethical impact akin to the butterfly effect in the world around us.

Any questions?

One concept I couldn’t ever quite accept even during my years as a Christian was that of a terrible place called Hell where even very good and kind people would be sent along with unrepentent criminals and murderers for simply not believing in an invisible god, or for not believing in the correct form of Christianity. (But, illogically they believe that murderers who say the magic words at the end of their lives will go up to Jesus when they die.)

Fundamentalist Christians and Christian extremists believe that non-believers, and also those Christians who do not take the concept of Hell literally are also going there when they die. So, even if I were to go back to my Presbyterian-type faith, I would still be going to Hell according to the beliefs of evangelicals and fundies (this includes a couple of very close family members) because I would still not be a “True Christian” who believes in the literal interpretation of some ancient book.

I have been going through very much grief lately because a very close member of my family has shut me out of her life because I openly reject her faith and openly speak out against fundamentalism on my personal blog, which is pretty mild compared to GifS, and isn’t even totally about atheism. (She even asked me to get rid of it, which, of course, I refuse to do.) As many of you know, I post a hodge-podge of subjects like astronomy, politics, biology, politics, and I also post a lot of “sacreligious” cartoons that even some Christians can’t help but laugh at. But I guess the religious posts I have written have somehow hit home because it really bothers this person, as well as other fundamentalists who take my words as a personal attack against them, because if you attack god, you attack them. This family member is so obessed in worrying about what will happen to me after death and the belief she won’t get to see me after I die, that she is throwing away what was otherwise a great relationship that we have had since birth.

I have never done anything to this family member directly, never told her to give up her beliefs, nor have I ever asked her to stop praying for my heathen soul in her church as if I were some kind of criminal who has done something terrible to her or others. It’s all so unnecessary as we have never had any disagreements on anything else in our entire lives. My heart hurts that I am being treated this way only because I do cannot believe in her god, her hell or whatever other fundamentalist fantasies that she says are “everything” to her. I was there to help support her through some of the most terrible and difficult times of her life when her god wasn’t enough, yet that doesn’t matter. It’s all about her, all about death and afterlife and to hell with the present.

If a person lives a good life, doesn’t kill, murder, steal…is kind to his neighbors, friends, animals. If a person is forgiving, loving and cares for others, is compassionate, helpful, and obeys the law, it is ludicrous to believe that person is still deserving of some kind of eternal torment, especially when this god is supposedly a “just” god, and also when this god is not making his/her/its existence obviously apparent. Here is an excerpt from ex-minister, Dan Barker’s essay For Goodness Sake

Theology has given us hell.

The threat of damnation is designed to be an incentive to right action; but this is a phony morality. Humanists think we should do good for goodness’ sake, not for the selfish prospect of reaping individual rewards or avoiding punishment. Any ideology that makes its point by threatening violence is morally bankrupt. (Hitler’s ovens, at least, were relatively quick. The torment Jesus promised is a “fire that shall never be quenched.”) Anyone who believes in hell is at heart not moral at all.

If the only way you can be forced to be kind to others is by the threat of hell, that shows how little you think of yourself. If the only way you can be motivated to be kind to others is by the promise of heaven, that shows how little you think of others.

Most atheists will say, “Be good, for goodness’ sake!”

Dan Barker, a former evangelical minister, is a staff member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

In the mainstream press — and even in much of the leftysphere — commentary about atheism routinely boils down to this:

1. Atheists question religion, which has caused many wars, acts of terrorism, and so on. Hmm, maybe they have a point…
2. Nah, using little or no documentation, I’ve decided that atheists are a bunch of angry freaks. Unlike the people who cling to ancient supernatural beliefs, atheists are unreasonable. Screw ‘em!

Canadian writer Andrew Potter beautifully illustrates this formula in his article, “At what point does belief in religion constitute a threat to others?”

Hey, that sounds like an important and interesting topic — asking whether religion is a potential hazard. It’s not too interesting to Potter, though, who wastes no time careening over to point #2. The piece is subtitled “Radical atheists are wrong not to find common cause with religious moderates.”

This cycle repeats in the body of the article, with the cadence resoundingly completed at the end.

The only quote he offers is from a relative of the accused plotters of a terrorist attack on Fort Dix:

“It’s fine to be a religion man. But if you get too much of the religion, you get out of your mind and do stupid things.”

Potter continues to validate the rationalist viewpoint:

I entirely agree with the substance of the atheist critique, that religious belief of just about any sort is intellectually lazy and that there is no more reason to believe in God or saints or angels than in ghosts, goblins, or the tooth fairy. It’s all infantile magical thinking as far as I’m concerned, and any rational person should be embarrassed to believe any of it.

But it just wouldn’t do to conclude with that perspective, now would it?

Without any citations from their work whatsoever, Potter declares that skeptics such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens are too extreme in seeing religion as generally problematic.

… if I had to choose between the overheated ranting of Hitchens’ God is Not Great and the mannered sensibility of Murat Duka, I know whose side I’d choose. As Duka might say, it’s fine to be an atheist man. But if you get too much of it, you get out of your mind and write stupid things.

So, despite the fact that religion is “intellectually lazy” and “infantile magical thinking” that drives some people to horrific acts of mass murder, who is the target of Mr. Potter’s critique?

Just remember rule #2: when in doubt, shoot the atheist. Even when there is no doubt, and you totally know that religion is a sorry farce, still, you shoot the atheist.

After all, atheists are “militant.”

How militant are they? Very militant, it seems.

A Google search finds 90,500 citations of “militant atheist” or “militant atheism,” and the same number of pages citing “Richard Dawkins” and the m-word.

Aside from “militant Muslim” and “militant Islam,” with an impressive 991,000 citations, atheism is the point-of-view on faith most painted with the “militant” brush.

Other results include:

• “militant Christian, “militant Christianity,” “militant Christianist”: 32,868
• “militant “Hindu,” “militant Hinduism”: 23,550
• “militant Jew,” “militant Judaism,” “militant Zionist,” “militant Zionism”: 11,868 (about 1,300 without Zion/Zionism)
• “militant Buddhist,” “militant Buddhism”: 3,520
• “militant Quaker”: 240
• “militant Baha’i”: 4

A handful of the “militant atheist” references are from people who have claimed that epithet as a badge of honor. But typically, it’s a pejorative meant to caricature those who think widespread, institutionalized irrationality can and does cause major problems.

Even though these authors tell us we’re right, we are still adjudged as wrong, and our writings are “stupid,” unlike those sensible stories where a guy houses every species of flora and fauna in the world for over a month on a homemade boat, or where a virgin’s resurrected son ascends bodily to heaven.

If this were happening in the US, some ambitious young lawyer out to make a name for herself might be able to argue it as a clear case of violation of freedom of religion:

Council bans boy, 6, from flying Jolly Roger at pirate party – because it is ‘unneighbourly’
by DAVID WILKES – More by this author »

Last updated at 19:35pm on 5th June 2007

Comments (71)

As his sixth birthday approached, Morgan Smith’s parents thought hoisting the Jolly Roger would be the perfect way to make the pirate-mad youngster’s day.

The flag was duly run up the pole in the back garden, leaving Morgan looking forward to a party on Saturday with lots of friends wearing eyepatches and wielding toy cutlasses.

But little did the family know that out on the treacherous high seas of bureaucracy, trouble was heading their way.

Council officials branded the skull and crossbones flag “unneighbourly” and banned Morgan’s parents Richard and Sharon from flying it.

The couple must apply for planning permission at a cost of £75, and then an assessment of the 5ft by 4ft flag’s “impact” on the surrounding area of Stone, Staffordshire, will be undertaken.

[snip]

For years, the patriotic family have flown a Union Jack or a St George’s flag on the 18ft-high flagstaff at their detached home without a problem, but a neighbour complained to the council about the Jolly Roger.

Mr Smith said: “When the lady from the council came to see me she said that it was no problem flying any of the other flags, it was the Jolly Roger that was of concern.

[snip]

Mrs Smith, 43, said: “It strikes me as very petty. Who would complain about it? Obviously someone with too much time on their hands.”

Councillor Richard Stevens said the council had objected to the flag because “it was unneighbourly and could open the doors for all kinds of flags”.

Folks, we never thought this day would come, but all new religions go through their periods of oppression and persecution. We must not falter in our devotion to the freebooter philosophy; we cannot allow the giant machinery of established dogma to crush our fledgling faith!

For yea, though we be forced to cower in cobwebby catacombs wearing Ye Olde Holy Eyepatch and sipping the saintly spirit of grog, we shall keep our piratical pride. For lo, though we dine alone on the sacred spaghetti in the darkest corners of our besieged homes, we shall hold our headscarfed-and-tricorn-hatted heads high.

We shall fight on the Internet, in the blogs and by the watercoolers! And we shall never surrender!

ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! Ramen, and may His Noodly Appendage touch you.

(via Pharyngula)

Thank you, Heywood Banks!

Last week’s topic on Newsweek/WaPo’s noxious “On Faith” forum was “In the controversial new book, ‘God is Not Great, author Christopher Hitchens argues that ‘religion is man-made.’ How would you respond to that statement?”

Apparently, simply posting “No shit” doesn’t bring in the banner-ad revenue. So, they turned the question over to their blue-ribbon panel of logic-starved apologists (plus a few realists).

The first attempted rebuttal is by Sherman Jackson, who’s credited thusly:

Co-founder, American Learning Institute for Muslims, Sherman A. Jackson is a professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, a visiting professor of law, and a professor of Afro-American Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has served as Executive Director for the Center of Arabic Study Abroad (CASA) in Cairo, Egypt, is a member of the U.S.-Muslim World Advisory Committee of the U.S. Institute of Peace, and a co-founder of the American Learning Institute for Muslims (ALIM).

With all those credentials, you’d think he could do better than bite off the farcical sub-topic, “Critique of Religion Far More Man-Made.” It’s farcical because a) one doesn’t expect critiques of religion to be heaven-sent (but you never know) and b) if the critiques are correct, it’s hard to figure why they’re more artificial than the fantasies they repudiate.

Let’s break it down paragraph by paragraph to see if there’s any there there.

1. “As I read it…” — Jackson says it’s a raw deal if religion is deemed false on account of its being “man-made.”

2. “This is interesting…” — the Constitution and science are man-made, and they’re alright.

3. “At any rate…” — religion is “fundamentally a relationship” between God and believers.

4. “In this context…” — a religion isn’t a religion without people who practice it.

5. “This corporate effort…” — not everyone agrees on the meaning of scripture.

6. “In the end…” — there is a “human element,” but that doesn’t mean religion is wrong.

7. “But neither is s/he infallible” — religion is subject to “interpretive error.”

8. “Religions may seek to resolve this problem…” — unlike individuals, large religious organizations, such as Islam’s Unanimous Consensus and, possibly, the Catholic church provide a means for religions to be infallible.

9. “In the end…” — religion is what the practitioners make of it, so don’t quibble about flaws in the Bible or the Qur’ân.

10. “This brings me…” — man-made aspects of religion = good; man-made criticisms of religion = bad.

11. “When I read…” — there is no validity in any complaints about religion that are based upon an unflattering reading of sacred texts.

Quite an argument. There simply is a God (#3), though people are actually what make a religion what it is (#4). While individuals may be imperfect (#6), large groups of religious people are infallible (#8), and (#11) fuck you if you find anything disturbing in our dogma.

Anyone want to deconstruct any of the other fine arguments made in this forum? No doubt, they’re just as rigorous and compelling and are guaranteed to make us ashamed of our silly man-made skepticism.

This is a threat. We need to take it seriously.

And no, there’s no ’secret conspiracy’ in this regard, no cabal secretly planning to annihilate the unbelievers.

In their efforts to ’save us from ourselves’, the effort to prove any sort of ‘Intelligent Design’ will likely get the species slaughtered.

You see, we have a big problem. One that no one seems to have considered: in the ongoing battle of evolution vs. creationism, serious resources are being diverted to combat the intrusion of religion.

If the religious succeed, then we will all be forced to sit on our hands if and when some oversized meteor plants a killing kiss on our planet.

Think about it.

Instead of actively preparing for an upcoming collision of spheres, the religious will (if they take enough power) insist that we leave it all in the hands of some cosmic babysitter. We die? Then it will somehow be all our fault anyways, and the ‘chaff’ will be separated from the ‘wheat’.

I was watching Hyperspace a while back (its original title was Space, but renamed for distribution in the U.S), and apparently there’s quite a few threats posed to us from the vacuum of space.

We are long overdue for a major hit from free-range asteroids, for one thing. Luckily for us, Jupiter tends to suck most of them in (all hail, Zeus!), due to its powerful gravity.

So thus far, we’ve been lucky. However, Jupiter hasn’t caught every single one, as evidenced by the Barringer Crater (shown above) or the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event.

(I won’t go into detail about how many black holes pepper the universe – save that there’s at least a hundred million of those pea-sized doomsday devices around.)

The religious, of course, believe that all is in ’gawd’s hands’, and we live or die at their deity’s will.

Time better spent planning our escape (eventual or otherwise) from planet Earth. Likelihood is, it won’t be in our lifetimes, but the thought of our beloved species going into the trashbin of history saddens me to no end.

And while today, it’s biology, tomorrow it’ll be quantum physics, or some other scientific discipline – the invasive nature of the Abrahamic religions (one in particular: can you guess which one?) will get a foot in the door, and next you know, we’ll be wallowing in our own garbage (and hey! It’s all GOD’S plan!), and claiming the hurtling death is a form of divine retribution.

And the bleat goes on – but there will come a time of silence, one we collectively should avoid.

Once more into the breach, dear friends…