Krystalline Apostate over at biblioblography wrote “Why ARE Atheists So Darned Disagreeable?  There are only so many times…,” detailing some reasons why atheists can tend to seem “disagreeable.”  One of the first reasons I’d come up with, that is not discussed in that post, is that disagreeability is in the eye of the beholder.  Many times, filtered through an anti-atheist bigot’s intense bias, anything we say looks disagreeable whether it truly is or not.  Despite this oversight, many important reasons are discussed, such as the frustration of constant repetition to those who refuse to give your explanations even a cursory glance, and the infuriating balls of those who dare tell us what we believe, i.e., “Deep down you really believe in God!”.

Although SDR is dedicated to reporting on prejudice and discrimination against atheists, it also has a second purpose, to promote understanding about our reasoning to those who do believe.  This is why I shy away from confrontation or criticism of believers as a whole.  I will happily and brutally criticize those who attack, insult, and discriminate again us simply for daring to express our theological disagreements.  Good atheists, just like any good people, will not demonize you personally simply for believing, and we expect the same.  I understand, though, that these people are not all or even the majority of religious people.

This post is for you, the religious who although we disagree, do no demonize us.  Hopefully, this post can be useful to show a small sliver of our reasoning when we reject religious dogma, and therefore help religious readers understand us a bit better.  This is not meant to be a complete refutation of the bible, but simply an expression of why we reject the Bible’s authority with direct examples from it.

The Questions

P.Z. Myers brought to my intention an interesting and humorous quiz, “Do You Have Biblical Morals?“  Looking at the type of questions that are asked, I suggest that practically any modern American, religious or not, would score 0% on this quiz.  It’s clearly not written from the pro-religious viewpoint.  There is admittedly bias in the questions, but they are consistent with the evidence from the Bible itself.  It shows parts of the Bible that it would be very difficult for anyone nowadays to accept.  These questions show good examples that probably won’t in themselves make someone reject the religion they hold, but can show the religious some examples of why we reject the authority of the Bible.

For example, here are the first two questions (emphasis added):

1. Two strangers visit your home, and you are kind enough to provide them with accommodations for the night. They tell you they are angels appearing on behalf of the Lord. However, later in the evening, an angry mob turns up seeking to sodomize your guests. Do you:
Protect your guests and call the police.
Expel your guests and call the police.
Turn your preteen daughters over to the crowd to be raped.

2. Your elementary school child discovers that she can get your attention by using profanity. In a fit of rage, she directs a stream of profanity at you that would make a sailor blush. Do you:
Send her to her room to cool down, take a deep breath and carefully assess the situation, and work out your differences when cooler heads prevail.
Explain to her that profanity is never appropriate, and take away television for a week.
Put her to death.

Read the rest of this entry »

“Blog Against Theocracy” is an event happening on blogs of those who understand the importance of defending our constitutionally required separation of church and state.  From April 10-12, look out for posts all over the blogosphere, including here on SDR, concerning varied issues relating to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  This is not an atheist blogswarm, per se, but is open all who support Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation.”

I recently wrote a very long comment to a post on an anti-atheist bigot’s hissy fit insulting atheists, “Atheism is for Fifth Graders“.  It would be fine if he just expressed his opposition to atheism, that’s a valid opposite viewpoint.  From even his title, he insulted all atheists.  That’s the hallmark of someone who has nothing of substance to say, of someone who can’t intelligently defend one’s position – straight bashing.

Feel free to read it if you’re a masochist, but it’s just the standard tripe: atheists are “smug fuck[s],” “childish,” and he even threw in a claim that we “casually drop [our] beliefs in the middle of a conversation to look cool.”  That’s a new one; I wasn’t aware being atheist was cool now.  All the apparent bigotry against us sure fooled me!  I guess we should just shut up like good little heathens.  Only the religious have the right to have opinions.

My Response

I figure the comment I left him would be useful here.  It covers many important points as to atheists demanding our place is the marketplace of ideas, and tears down his dubious “scientific” (and I use that term loosely) logic.  But more to the point of this blog, as he unsuccessful tries to claim atheists are intolerant, it points out his own bigotry.  I show that he, while criticizing atheists, is the one using ad hominem attacks – attacking the people instead of the ideas.  It’s not surprising though, when he has nothing of substance to say.

I don’t expect my comment to have any effect, he’ll just ignore it as bigots do no matter how valid the points made are, or he’ll use it as an excuse to bash me, a “smug fuck” atheist.  It was just somewhere to write it before I brought it here, and sort of a – since he likes profanity – fuck you, being an atheist expressing my views which he despises oh so much.  My comment from his blog follows (edited a bit for SDR):
Read the rest of this entry »

Anti-atheist religious bigots have quite a knack for projection – projecting their faults onto those they are prejudiced against.  Take for instance serial atheist-basher Ray Comfort and his new book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics. He claims we are angry, yet he is the one constantly bashing a large population.

There are good and bad people, atheist and religious.  Atheists, in general, don’t go around bashing religious people for simply being religious.  We criticize religion and the beliefs themselves, but since when are those beyond criticism?  We disagree with and criticize their beliefs, but we don’t bash the people.  Now, this is not to say we don’t criticize religious people, but it is for their actions.  When actions that deserve criticism are religiously based or religiously justified, then are we not to bring that up?  A bigot is a bigot, people should expect to be criticized for damaging, dangerous, and disgusting public actions justified religiously.  Those are individual people, not all the religious.  Comfort doesn’t make the same distinction when talking about atheists.  He can’t get by his bigotry.

Read the rest of this entry »

Back in January I wrote on the first of a two part defense of the nonreligious civil rights movement, responding to the claim that atheists do not experience major prejudice and discrimination in the United States.  This post, part 2, is a response to the second common criticism, that although atheists may experience some measure of prejudice and discrimination, it is not as extreme or openly codified into our government and culture, as it was against blacks, and therefore we have no right to call our fight a “civil rights movement.”  I was recently asked by a law student for information as to what form the nonreligious civil rights movement takes.  This post is adapted from my response.

For the record, when I say atheist in this post I am for simplicity’s sake referring to the nonreligious as a whole, not necessarily only those who would self identify as atheists.  I know this isn’t very specific, but the community is not united in the way specific religious groups are because we don’t necessarily share any specific philosophy.  We simply (passive) lack belief in any supernatural deity, or (active) deny the existence of a supernatural deity.  With that said:

Clearly, the atheist civil rights movement is very much different from what is seen as the model of a civil rights movement in our country: the black civil rights movement.  Atheists are not segregated from the religious in public schools; we are not forced to sit at the back of buses; we are not barred from eating in the same restaurants as theists, using the same water fountains, etc.  This issue is used constantly to argue not so much that there is no atheist civil rights movement, but that we have no right to call it such.  This is patently ridiculous considering the plain definition of the words.  With the assumption the movement exists, is it concerned with “civil rights?”  Clearly, it is concerned with the legal and human rights of atheists.  I’m not a lawyer, or even a law student, but by what other reasonable way can we define civil rights?  Now, is it a movement?
Read the rest of this entry »

Last month, I wrote about the six states that disallow atheists from running for public office.  In at least one of these states this might change.  P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula pointed out that Rep. Richard Carroll introduced a bill in the Arkansas State Assembly to allow atheists to run for public office and testify as witnesses in court.  If you live in Arkansas please contact your representatives in the Assembly and let them know you support the bill.

I just got this email from the Secular Coalition for America [secular.org].  Any of you activists who answered their call to write your senators and say that you don’t want your tax money going towards religious groups should be proud of yourselves.  Let’s use this success, and every future success, as a springboard to future victories for our constitutional rights.

February 18, 2009

Dear Supporter,

Congratulations! Yesterday, President Obama signed into law an economic stimulus package that DID NOT include funding for the Compassion Capital Fund.

Because you took a few minutes out of your day and wrote to your Senators, you helped to stop $100 million from being funneled to religious organizations that otherwise would have been permitted to engage in discriminatory hiring practices.

The Secular Coalition for America is proud of you and the U.S. Senators who worked on the conference report for making sure that faith-based funding was not included in the stimulus package.

We have had several great victories so far this year: an attempt to use taxpayer dollars for divinity schools and other religious buildings on college campuses was rejected, as was an attempt to re-instate the Global Gag Rule that President Obama had overturned a week earlier.

Please continue to support the work that we do by taking action and by supporting us financially.

Congratulations again!

The Secular Coalition for America

My second article since I became a writer for Suite101.com has just been published.  Like the last one, it has to do with skepticism – evidence based critical thinking, a form of epistemology many nonreligious ascribe to.  This article is about Skepticism and the Art of Magic.  I have been interested in the art of magic since I was little.  I have also practiced the art as an amateur magician throughout my life, as well as performing here and there professionally.  Through my study of magic I have found that the knowledge of how to fool and skepticism go hand in hand.  This new article discusses that link.

Like many atheists, I am a skeptic – one who accepts of rejects factual claims by evidence based critical reasoning.  I recently became a writer for Suite101.com.  My first article is a short primer on some basics of skepticism.  Although not inclusive of every single important aspect of skepticism, it is a good primer for those interested in either what skepticism is or starting the road towards becoming a skeptic.  If you’re interested, check it out.