Before I continue hurling abuse at Richard, I thought I should first set the record straight and provide some foundations to build on.
Richard Dawkins looked at the world, and saw a bunch of atheists that were unhappy. So he decided to go play Messiah to those. He provided them with a Bible they could cling to, some truth they could swallow. And they are happy, finding happiness at the expense of “all the stupid people that don’t believe what we do”. Dawkins provided his masses with an opiate, so that they can be happy with their worldview and continue contributing to this culturally diverse society we call “humanity”, instead of battling their own internal demons. God bless Richard’s soul. 
So, now that each of us has found our opiates, shall we lend each other a hand and continue exploring this three dimensional universe of ours?
32 responses so far ↓
1 Auke // Jan 15, 2008 at 5:25 pm
With a defence like that, who needs a prosecutor!
2 Ben // Jan 16, 2008 at 3:35 am
Get off the crack, Hugo, seriously.
3 Ben // Jan 16, 2008 at 7:36 am
Alright, I really should post a longer response.
Can you point out some atheists citing TGD as Christians cite the Bible? I haven’t seen it. I found TGD a mediocre book.
You’re going to have to explain this one to me. I don’t get what you’re trying to say.
As above, explain.
I’m not yet legally allowed to fully contribute. That’s one of the things that made writing TGD necessary.
4 Hugo // Jan 16, 2008 at 10:31 am
What’s wrong with recreational crack, anyway?
The first question is, “who is this post aimed at?” And I don’t really know the answer to that one. To the moderate Christians, or the anti-atheists? Or maybe it is addressed to myself?
I have seen atheists quoting TGD. Luckily not as often as Christians quoting The Bible, but that depends largely on where you live and who your circle of friends are.
There are “atheists” (where I am, anyway) who find their happiness in claiming they know more than the non-atheists around them. Unless that is satire, of course, in which case this post is satire also…
In terms of an opiate, we are all on a drug of some kind. Many of “us scientists” like the empirical drug. And it’s a good one, it’s produced some useful tech, so I stick to that when I’m working. I reserve the right to do what I want with my recreational time though.
Now on that last point, I am quite concerned. In what ways are you not legally allowed to fully contribute? That’s really stupid, and needs to be corrected ASAP. I’m with you all the way on that one… I think…
5 Ben // Jan 16, 2008 at 11:39 am
It’s not nearly as bad as most minorities, by a really, really, long shot. A really, really, really long shot. But:
Atheists & agnostics cannot join the Boy Scouts Of (some of) America. They are considered to be incapable of being good enough citizens. See here:
http://www.bsalegal.org/duty-to-god-cases-224.asp
The Pledge of Allegiance was modified from “…one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” to “…one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” in the 1950s during McCarthyism. It now serves as a de facto religious test for office - David Habecker was recalled from his office as town trustee for refusing to recite the pledge.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100018248&docId=l:720684493&isRss=true
The new Pledge of Allegiance and National Motto (In God We Trust, also adopted in the 1950s) both imply that atheists are not part of the nation and not to be considered ‘we.’ This is reflected in poll after poll showing atheists incapable of being elected for president and reflected in the fact that the first openly atheist congressperson only outed themselves in 2006, long after openly gay, women, black, Jewish, etc. people were elected to Congress. It’s obviously not the sole cause but it definitely contributes. 15-27% of the population being represented by 0.2% of the Congress.
In child custody cases, lack of religion is often seen as a significant negative, costing atheist parents their kids. For example:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/256589.htm
6 Hugo // Jan 16, 2008 at 12:07 pm
In terms of the pledge, my suggestion is that you mentally redefine God in such a way that you can recite it. Should you really want to be a boy scout, that is. (Do you?)
Presidents should be able to lie without too much trouble, they’re politicians, and need to know how to negotiate.
In the child custody cases, I’m afraid you’re on your own. I haven’t got the time to look into US laws and that particular case (which seems much like anecdotal evidence to me).
These are, of course, merely my suggestions, the way I might have tackled it if I were in your shoes, which I’m not. Good luck with your battles… I’ve gotta get back to mine.
7 Gericke Potgieter // Jan 16, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Ben, out of curiosity - why is it so important to be part of any country? By all means modern countries simply reflect the same organisational mechanics as the modern church. Leaders assume homogeneity in the group they lead and set the law accordingly.
Who cares though right? Does the fact that some law states a belief in the existence of God actually impede your ability to live a full life? If so, who is in control of your life anyway?
I find is ludicrous every time an atheist screams “good Einstein, they say God as if God exists…oh noes!”
Of course, I get a big ol’ cringe when Christians scream “in all that is holy…they say God does not exist, whatever shall we do!?”
Nobody can prove or disprove belief. That is implicit in the very definition of belief. Why not mold your identity around what you believe and carry the consequences of your choices like a man?
8 Ben Dreidel // Jan 16, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Oh, please. It is absolutely clear what the meaning of the words is. You’re advocating lying.
I lied when I was a Cub Scout / Boy Scout and when I was confirmed. At the time, it didn’t seem like anyone took religion seriously. Boy Scouts do have opportunities that non-Boy Scouts don’t, though; automatic promotions when entering the military, local city recognitions, etc.
It affects my life; I wouldn’t classify it as impeding my abilitity to live a full life. I have no interest in running for public office but the stigma re-inforced by the motto and pledge does affect me daily. For example, people who bring BSA or church fundraising stuff to work raise money pretty well; my fundraising attempt for an AIDSwalk as a project of our atheists & agnostics meetup group garnered zip.
And if I ever hear someone utter the ‘no atheists in foxholes’ when I’m around…
Nobody can prove anything real. The only things that can be proved are dependent on axioms that themselves cannot be proved. Point?
Where am I doing otherwise?
9 já // Jan 17, 2008 at 3:10 am
why do you say all atheists were unhappy?
10 Hugo // Jan 17, 2008 at 9:31 am
Ben:
Hmm… yea, if you consider it lying, I would seriously discourage it. I don’t want you to lie. On the other hand, I hope you’re not calling me a liar. We can discuss this further if you’re interested, but whatever. It seems I have a somewhat different understanding of the word “God” than you do.
já:
Say wha? I never said that.
11 Hugo // Jan 17, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I should have linked to The Problem with Empiricism somewhere in this post. In the language of that post, what I’m saying in this post, is that TGD is helping those living in a Garden of Eden to refrain from taking a bite of the apple. So nice of Dawkins to do that for them. It basically means Dawkins is fighting the snake that says “go on, bite that apple!”
Of course, I have yet to finish reading his book… so who am I to talk.
12 Negate // Jan 17, 2008 at 2:21 pm
>TGD is helping those living in a Garden of Eden to refrain from taking a bite of the apple.
In what way?
13 Ben // Jan 17, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I have no idea how loose the definition of the word is in common usage in South Africa. Here, it’s pretty straightforward.
I don’t think you understand ‘us.’ I can’t imagine anything short of brain damage - causing me to be someone other than me - would cause me to start adopting mysticism. So TGD, the daily newspaper, the Bible, and Maxim magazine would all get equal credit for ‘helping me to refrain from taking a bite of the apple.’ If I’m understanding your analogy correctly.
14 Gericke Potgieter // Jan 17, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Ben - for a guy who (and this is pure deduction) is rather serious about the principle of free choice, you seem adamant that your choices are affected by statements that may or may not reflect actuality.
You may not be able to change the words in the law, but I must agree with Hugo - you have 100% control over your response to it. It seems (as an overall deduction) that your line of argument centers around your inability to “delete” God from society (and the resulting unfairness thereof).
This is a rather typical and implosive type of argument. You want God removed from society, yet this shows an immense intolerance for people who want God in society. People believe in God in some way or another in far greater numbers than those who proclaim atheism, so this is quite simply a fact that you may need to accept - whether you belief in Him or not God will be present in society for a long time to come.
More importantly though, I am sensing a degree of indignation - as if the mere mention of God may be offensive to you. This, of course, is your own interpretation of things. If the law states a belief in the existence of God it isn’t necessarily forcing you to believe in God. If there was a law saying “you better believe in God or face jail time and even death” then I would concur that something is truly wrong. But there is no such law.
So if your imaginary boy scout refuses to pronounce a belief in God by implication of the Pledge of Allegiance, then that is his full right. As for the consequences (which you may be familiar with by now), he may have a whole lot of people promising to pray for him (standard normalisation in society, often leading to a degree of ostracism).
That is what I mean by carrying the consequences of your choice.
However, your beliefs and related axioms notwithstanding, there is a small lesson in the bible that may indeed be of some future use to you: do unto others as you want done unto you. In practical terms this means that you may have to start accepting that other people believe differently than you do, so that you may claim that same respect from them. Nobody owes you anything because f your convictions after all (and this is true for all people).
Problem solved.
15 Ben // Jan 18, 2008 at 4:46 am
I want the separation of church and state maintained. The addition of ‘under God’ and the changing of the National Motto were both laws passed by Congress that violated the First Amendment. I am not asking for God to be removed from society - for churches to disappear or for them to change the Nicene creed, for example.
Change the National Motto to “In God Some (or Most) of Us Trust” and I’ll be happy. It is not the mere mention of God that is the problem.
The Pledge of Allegiance is to the country - nothing to do with the Scouts. The BSA (if you follow the link from my previous post) has a policy that atheists & agnostics cannot do their ‘duty to God’ and therefore cannot be good enough citizens to join. Since atheists and agnostics are not considered real citizens anyway, this is not seen as a problem by very many theists. For example: the city of Philadelphia is ending their subsidized rent of a building to the BSA because the BSA discriminates against homosexuals. By BSA standards, homosexuals cannot be ‘morally straight’ and therefore cannot hold leadership positions. In the city resolution ending the subsidy, NO MENTION of discrimination against atheists & agnostics is given even though the discrimination is worse (we can’t even be regular members.) If the BSA ended their discrimination against homosexuals they might be able to get their subsidized lease back; no real people are being discriminated against.
Absolutely. Hence the advocacy is to remove ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance and restore the National Motto to ‘E Pluribus Unum’ (from many, one) instead of changing the Pledge to ‘one nation, over fictional gods’ or changing the National Motto to ‘in fictional gods we don’t trust.’
16 gerhard // Jan 18, 2008 at 11:58 am
hugo:In terms of the pledge, my suggestion is that you mentally redefine God in such a way that you can recite it. Should you really want to be a boy scout, that is. (Do you?)…
ok, so how about you got and get rid of the term god all together , if you dont want to be seen as someone stupid enough to believe in zeus or in your own personalized version of the lord of the rings?
seriously , your main compliant is the fact that atheists are orginizing themselves as atheists and that what they say , irrespective of how mild , is opposite the ‘god based’ world view.
you go asfar as advising (for your comfort) that they should abandon their world view completely by accepting the ‘concious creation’ idea… oh wait… you are actually asking …. ‘redefine your world view to suit my world view’ based on nothing other than ‘want and feels’ , regretably, the world view being actually promoted by atheists is , ‘here are the tendencys that we can view as facts’ make up your own view, you keep your view just dont believe for the sake of belief…. the reason dawkins and co were able to start this wasnt because he wanted to be the new massaiah , it was a reaction to the de-secularization of the modern world (ie. putting ‘this is a theory stickers’ in evolution books, presidents that reacts to religions using his own etc… ) that caused all this atheists also wanting to give their say… i find it incredibly offensive that your solution to the problem is …oh shut up.. or .. talk to us in our terms… and talk to each other in our terms…
its saying , be gay, just not around us…
that my friend is the opposite to what you are promoting … ‘understanding’ or ‘compassion’
if you truely believe your jesus stuff and strive to act like itetc … then act like it ..
its not an opiate to try and define your world.. esp on sound ideas .. it’s not like we’re in the business of inventing a story every couple of thousand years to explain the contemporary world for the contemporary audience to dull reality..
(giggle)
btw, this is much like the evolutionist vs feminist debate…. a taboo subject not because of the reality but because of what people feel comfortable in believing…
atheists are comfortable with theists as long as their existance and status isnt limited by the theists (which in almost every way it is .. )
need my to pull up for you the cnn debate on atheists ? they openly took the stance of ’sure atheists are being forced out of communities but thats their own fault for not having a god and so they should just fucking shut up…’
17 Hugo // Jan 18, 2008 at 12:00 pm
That sounds good. How does the future look for that attempt? I like “E Pluribus Unum”, the theists would be welcome to believe that it refers to the “trinity” or something? Or a “we, the body of Christ” kinda thing… Have you got theists joining in that advocacy? (I love it when theists fight for separation of church and state…)
18 Hugo // Jan 18, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Gerhard, sorry, I think you misunderstand me. I’m sure that’s my fault, of course, as my posts do not all target the same audience. Maybe I should add a disclaimer to each post stating who it is aimed at, for those that do not want to try to figure it out for themselves? (But hey, where’s the fun in that?)
*sigh*
Any questions, rather? Instead of going directly for my throat?
19 gerhard // Jan 18, 2008 at 12:35 pm
hahahaha, yeah , sorry about that … but when i think about how the world has changed between the 90s and now , we need to go more for the throat … before we end up with the ‘this is a theory label’ in text b0oks..
i honestly don’t care who you are aiming it for.. nor do i think anyone is really going to take a disclaimer serious.. if you say something that misrepresents what is being said then well.. where is the jugular?
what do you have against less compromising for the sake of political correctness , and more calling an asshole an asshole because of their inherent assholeness? you know why you need atheists to compromise , because right now , theists as you put it ‘all the stupid people that don’t believe what we do’ not because of prejudice , but by implication…
atheism doesnt make the differentiation between your belief and others so from their view point, its all human made fantasy induced by need… irrespective if Scientology or liberal Christianity..
why not take comfort in the fact that chances are atheists will fight for your right to believe even tho they consider it stupid?
or when Rousseau finally arrived, Voltaire said, “I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”
the only time we (re)act differently is when threatened …
being told ‘my suggestion is that you mentally redefine God in such a way that you can recite it’
will cause that reaction btw… ‘
20 Ben // Jan 18, 2008 at 12:42 pm
The Pledge case looks better than the National Motto case. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the most vocal and theist-friendly org of which I’m aware (its head is Reverend Barry Lynn), takes a position of it being a hopeless battle:
http://au-oc.org/pdf-files/AU%20Position%20on%20In%20God%20We%20Trust.pdf
21 Hugo // Jan 18, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Ben, sounds good to me.
Gerhard… are you going for my jugular though, where we fight each other in a battle to the death, or are we merely sparring as a form of training in preparation for going for the jugular of those that seek to undermine education?
But yes, good, my suggestion was misguided. I was pondering out loud, and not thinking enough. Methinks. I love the Voltaire quote.
22 gerhard // Jan 18, 2008 at 1:09 pm
right now for atheists is a fight to the battle of death, because right now we’re ‘gays’ or ‘blacks’ or ‘women’ etc… our very existance in the world is threatend.. need i remind you of mike huckabee’s want to rewrite the us consitution to be in line with god thought? (however sick and twisted that may be…)
is it really the case of you pondering out loud? it would seem to me , from other posts about language and how atheists should be acting that it seems more like a overarching theme…
namely , what atheists are doing by organizing is bad and they should change their language to communicate on our terms between each other..
23 Hugo // Jan 18, 2008 at 2:34 pm
(btw, You’ve got some sentence structure problems there.)
Mike Huckabee won’t win this thing. (Excessive confidence, hehe…) I think it’s time for a democrats victory. Obama is my favourite. Go Obama.
Seriously, atheists’ very existence is not threatened. Unless that’s what you believe, in which case you’ve doomed yourself. Let’s look to the future…
If the last few posts seemed to follow an anti-atheistic theme, my apologies. So the pendulum swings. I guess I should go tackle the fundamentalistic Christians some more, instead.
The thing is this: “fundamentalistic” atheism (apologies) and “fundamentalistic” theism are polarising one another. Unless you can figure out how to side-step, how to do the yin/yang thing, how to “turn the other cheek” or “walk the extra mile” (hmm, ok, more on that in my next post), this will remain a cold-war. Some side will need to start disarming.
Right now it seems I’m making the mistake of accepting a head-to-head confrontation with e.g. you. Pointless, it seems. I must not let myself get sucked into such silliness.
So… maybe ignore my comments on this post, cancel the lot of them, and focus only on the post. Anything you want to discuss about the post, per se, or should I rather be looking towards making my next post?
Probably, it’s been some time. I’ve been hacking at a couple of posts and thinking about a third. Maybe I should post the third one… ponder…
24 Ben // Jan 18, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Agreed, though I would love to see him win the Republican nomination. Romney (’freedom requires religion’ and ‘we need a person of faith to lead this country’) might win the nomination also. I don’t think Romney could win the general election either.
25 gerhard // Jan 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm
i think obama is a snake in the grass… think he is _the_ candidate for corporate america
ie.
what worries me is the fact that the biggest voters block in america is going to vote uniformly for huckabee …
just thinking out loud here , but is there a way for someone to be “non-fundamentalistic” atheist by your use of fundamentalist?
think about it , a key ingredient to atheism is being fundamentalist about science method and skepticism and examining religion from that point of view?
what do you think about the argument that because there is no fundamental and hence central doctrine surrounding atheism and that it can’t be fundamentalist because of that?
personally , i doubt fundamentalism is the appropriate way of describing it , simply because it would be like saying someone is fundamentalist about gravity.
what about replacing the word fundamentalist with .. say .. militant? (which is in my opinion closer to the idea of intolerant philosophy that you seem to want to achieve with it.)
26 Hugo // Jan 18, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I believe everyone is fundamentalistic about something. Scientists might be fundamentalistic about empiricism in their work, and try to keep their emotions out of the picture. But that is while “working”… That should not stop them from being passionate, emotional humans though.
If you’d like to be an empiricist and an atheist without being “fundamentalistic” about it, you just need to recognise that not all people are empiricists, and that not accepting empiricism as an axiom leads to some different conclusions. Some people enjoy philosophically pondering “so where did the universe come from?”
Being fundamentalistic about science and skepticism is not a key ingredient of “atheism” per se. Some Buddhists could be labelled “atheistic” as well, you know. I also like Jodie Foster’s approach to religion. Apparently she tells her kids they are welcome to choose themselves a religion when they are eighteen, if they like. She’s not particularly anti-religion, she just happens to have an atheistic worldview? And yes, she teaches critical thinking. (Sorry, referring to a page I read before I started using del.icio.us to save my bookmarks, so I don’t have a URL for you. I could do some searches in Google Reader though?)
Many “militant atheists” also don’t like the “militant” word, because they don’t resort to violence. Or so they claim. (Intellectual and memetic violence does exist.
) Either way, thanks. I will use the “militant” adjective again when I think it will be effective. I also sometimes distinguish between atheist and anti-theist.
BTW, I don’t think I have any excessively fundamentalistic atheists reading my blog. (Do I?)
27 Ben // Jan 18, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Given the wiggle room in the Hugo definitions of fundamentalist and atheist, how would anyone know?
28 Hugo // Jan 18, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Touché!
29 Gericke Potgieter // Jan 18, 2008 at 7:04 pm
The problem with having to do some work during the hours that others apprantly do not work is that one falls out of the discussion :/
Ben, I hear your problem and I agree - no law should limit choice by discrimination.
As a personal point of view, I don’t pledge allegiance to any country as such. It is kinda silly because the physical location doesn’t care whether you exist or not. So when we ally ourselves we do it towards other people.
As such, if those people do not share (at least to an acceptable degree) my values, and even more so, f their values counter what I regard as “a good life” then I find it silly to pledge any form of allegiance.
This is how I feel about the South African government - not my people, don’t accept their values (and in some instances I even reject the laws, even though I don’t break them).
Oh, and even though it has no direct effect on my life, I do like Obama
30 gerhard // Jan 20, 2008 at 3:02 am
buddhism is a creed that never really had a god like being in it , it was quite a cool guide for ‘how to experiance existance’ that was turned into a religion by idolising its creator and by ‘converting’ religions people who wanted a bit of ‘magic’ to hang on to which sounds alot like god is in the abstract thing ‘nuChristians’ go on about.
quite neat wouldnt you say? didnt even require a thou shall not blaspheme or threat of death / damnation:)
they worshiped the earth,the stars , elements , coincedences you name it… what is cool is that there is evidence that it wasnt literal worship. so it was about worshoping ’symbols’ and choosing a life path based on your common beliefs. one would be part of multiple ‘beliefs’ or religions (by todays standards). 
too bad they were superstitious tho. so they believed in omens and prophecies..
pagan traditions are even more fascinating
gericke: what does ‘(and in some instances I even reject the laws, even though I don’t break them).’ mean? are you saying you pay for your ’shared’ media you ‘aquired’ or something like you don’t agree with the pot regulations and you still choose not to smoke because there is just a law? does that mean you would smoke if there wasn’t a law? i generally get the feeling that people share mediabecause of ‘civil disobediance’ , you already know the reasons yourselfs, ‘too over priced’ , ‘no real value’, ‘ease of availability’ ‘i have to give you this’.. its the market responding negatively to a general feeling of exploitation and the need to share in community.
a more extream example is bombing power lines in act of ‘civil disobediance’ and is one of the things that fired up the new south africa.
31 Negate // Jan 22, 2008 at 10:01 pm
All hail dawkins for trying to rid the word of juvenile superstition
32 Tick-tock, Tick-tock // Jan 23, 2008 at 6:49 pm
[...] gone cold turkey and broken my crack addiction: the post-thesis euphoria has worn off, and I’m being productive again. At last my mind has [...]
Leave a Comment