Activism Explained: Why We Do What We Do

“I would have appreciated some specific examples of the discrimination you are writing about and say you have experienced.”

A quick google search will yield plenty of results on discrimination against atheists these results. For example…

A video about Damon Fowler, a student who was threatened by peers and disowned by his parents for coming out as an atheist and opposing a government funded public schools unconstitutional sponsoring of public prayer during graduation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uZI1G4qx8Q

A video of a divorced father who had time with his kids taken from him by a judge because he came out as an agnostic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ww1AilSJ3U

“My question is why you spend so much time, energy and money on something you think does not exist.”

I don’t personally do this because I don’t care what other people believe as long as they’re good people and they’re not trying to force their beliefs or views upon others and myself. However, in cases where discrimination is present and beliefs are being forced upon others, as in the examples I gave above, I do believe that time, energy, and money are worth being spent.

When you remove the godvertisements from our money and our pledge of allegiance, when courthouses stop putting the ten commandments on display, when congress stops having prayer sessions outside capital hill, when politicians can be elected without invoking a deity at least once per paragraph, when religious nutjobs stop attempting to dumb down our schools' curriculum by removing science from it, when people stop rewriting our country's history to make the very much non-Christian founders posthumously into Christians, when people stop trying to institute school prayer, then perhaps we can talk about whether to take down atheist billboards. But, after that, will churches take down their godvertisements too?

There are many examples of hatred and discrimination against atheists...The Dear Leader, Pope Ratz, recently blamed the Holocaust on a "lack of belief in god" rather than explaining Catholicism's LONG love affair with antisemitism...I teach in a Texas school district where forty years ago, you had to have a PASTORAL reference in order to teach...Why do I spend so much time, money and an energy in the fight? I am Mexican and your organized crime syndicate is a TREMENDOUS problem in my country. I LOATHE its criminal behavior in the third world, particularly when it comes to reproductive rights. Mean spirited? Do you really want to go down that road? Please research the hateful sermons preached in Guadalajara, Mexico by our glorious cardinal against homosexuals...The mayor of Mexico City was so appalled by the cardinal's faith-based insanity regarding gay marriage that, in a hilarious play on words, he publicly referred to the consecrating creep, the "cardenal", as a "cavernal" which translates to "knuckle-dragger"...Atheist billboards have nothin' on the mayor of Mexico City when it comes to "offending" attempts to sanction perverse piety through public policy...Says the mayor to the consecrating creep: "We live in a secular state, and here, whether we like it or not, the law rules the land...The cardinal must submit to the law of the land, like all other citizens of this country."

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/716314.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2010/08/mexico-city-supreme-cour...

“I assume you do this because you think religion in genral is a cause for all of the woes and wars of history. A doctrine of any faith cannot reach out and cause any harm.”

It’s not that cause of “all woes and wars of history”. But it is that cause of many unfortunate and avoidable wars and woes throughout history…I don’t particularly care about ridiculing religions or faith-systems, but when one steps out of line and causes harm then I think it’s worth bringing up. Using the Catholic Church as an example, I don’t really care about trying to poke holes into its doctrines and beliefs, but its prohibition on the use of condoms in AIDS ridden nations, it’s belief in an abstinence only method of avoiding STDS and teen pregnancy (which studies show isn’t effective), and its hiding and shuffling around of child-abusing priests are worth pointing out. Such things should not be supported for various nonreligious reasons.

“IF people use doctrines of faith, be it Christian or fanatical Muslems, then it human weakness or evil that is doing harm, not a particular religion.”

A religion is defined as “a particular system of faith and worship” and religions are systems that can have very dangerous beliefs that cause very dangerous actions. I would argue that a particular extremist branch or group of Islam, Christianity, or any other religion that supports, teaches, and funds dangerous and harmful activities is at LEAST partially at fault. A religion with a doctrine that teaches you to discriminate or harm others IS at fault.

“Just like a gun cannot go off by itself and shoot someone, it is people who use it.”

It’s a nice analogy, but unfortunately religion is not a simple tool like a gun. It is a system of faith and worship in which one is taught to believe specific ideas and concepts. If a person was raised in a racist household where they were taught to believe that people of color are inferior and act on that belief, would you say that the parents of that person are blameless? In the same way, if one is raised in an extremist sect of a religion where they are taught that infidels and homosexuals are to be killed or discriminated against, then would you say the religion they grew up in is totally blameless and that it’s merely the weak humans who performed the actions at fault?

“To try and do away with religion (like the attempt to do away with fire arms) is not only unrealistic, but backward thinking.”

True, however to put rules on how far religion can be applied in society and how far religious activities can go (similar to gun control laws) is effective.

“The human element of every religion is weak and flawed, and that may be a rightful indictment of us, but to use that to reject, belittle and attack specific religions is short sighted, without wisdom or real compassion or reason.

As I stated above, though the human element may be flawed, to say that the religion is always blameless is untrue and rather biased.

“Tread lightly when you go on the attack because you are engaging in the same kind of hatred that you profess to be subjected to yourself.”

This can be true, however I’d say that pointing out hypocrisy, showing that the beliefs of others are discriminatory, and pointing out dangerous actions and beliefs isn’t the same as forcing beliefs onto others. Setting up a billboard or a blog and stating that one does not believe in God and finds particular religious ideas ridiculous is not the same as passing legislature for public prayer or against gay marriage. You are right that one should take heed not to turn into what he is fighting against, but I have not seen AmericanAtheists trying to force atheism onto others or outlaw religion in private areas of society. Trying to level the public playing field for people of all faiths and non-faiths seems fair to me.

northstar,

You began your post with "I agree that believing or disbelieving in something is a God given right". Would you please point me to a single line anywhere in the Bible, Old Testament or New, or the Quran where God gives people a right to anything?

Seriously, compare the ten commandments to the bill of rights. You'll see the difference between lists of admonitions and rights.

Then, actually sit down and read the words of your Bible. Count the number of times the Bible's words actively instruct people to kill. And note, most of the time, it is not by a nice lethal injection, it is by stoning to death. Further, most of the reasons people must be killed, according to your "good book" are "crimes" for which there is no victim.

When you realize that it is the literal word of the Bible instructing people to kill, perhaps you will see why some of us, though not most atheists, actively oppose religion.

Need further proof. Review some of the white supremacist groups and leaders at the CPAC conference over the last couple of days. Not only were they invited, some were given speaking slots and some were leading seminars raging against multiculturalism and the negative impact its affects have had on America. Read white America for these racists.

And not one GOP presidential candidate, who all spoke at the convention, denounced any of these racist groups. I understand the need to pander for votes, but there comes a time when one has to denounce these types of groups. Yet what do we hear from the GOP????????? SILENCE! Very telling!

edit

There is absolutely no defeater *TO* “Nihilism” if Naturalism is true. If there is any, the I’d like to hear it.

Notice one needs to give reasons why (Your ethical views) > Nihilism

Be forewarned: 'philosophymatters'' email address actually reads theologymatters - so it's another dishonest poster trying to pose religious garbage as philosophy.
Philosophy addresses the ontological significance of our existence: religion only pretends to have the answers.

Well it’s very interesting when naturalists try ever so desperately to derive “meaning” from a “meaningless” existence which came from a “meaningless” origin.

Why do we need supernatural origins to have meaning?

First off I will list some factors here and perhaps FINALLY I can receive a formidable argument in favor of naturalist ethics.

Christlation: 'I've already made up my mind, nothing's going to change it'.

Under naturalism: The universe doesn’t care whether or not we live or die, so why WE should act as if it does?

A better question would be: why do YOU need that? Obviously we get along w/out it.

The Universe is not going to put you into “time-out” if you upset it.

Uh...that's a anthropomorphic, stupid, & narcissistic analogy.

If naturalism is true, then morality is just an illusion to help us survive, but why must we “ought” to survive?

Examine Hume's 'is/ought' conundrum. I can pretty much tell you haven't.

Fredrick Neitzsche and other advocates of “Nihilism” were indeed correct and were honest. I also see naturalists commiting to “speciesism” as if somehow we are more valuable than rocks, birds and so forth only because we say so.

Atheism doesn't necessitate nihilism - why should it? Which brand of nihilism, anyways? Not everyone follows other atheists blindly (which the religious commit the fallacy of tu quoque) - not a fan of Frederich, more of Feuerbach, & I'd never heard of Colin Wilson as a nihilist before.
This is a technique C.S. Loonie uses quite frequently. Broad sweeping generalizations to a strawman that falls apart when analyzed.

For some strange reason MOST ATHEISTS believe that they have some sort of magical purpose to their purposeless lives that came from a purposeless natural origin.

Pretty much nobody here subscribes to your 'magical' crap, so the usage of that adjective negates your 'argument' effectively.

Now where exactly does this purpose come from?

Ourselves. Duh.

If the Origin of the Universe is “purposeless, then everything contingent from it is also purposeless”.

For the more feeble-minded, we can make our own purpose. That of course, is out of the question.

This goes for “value” as well as “meaning” No matter how many times you stack up valueless matter you will always end up with valueless matter.

Wow, your metaphysics suck. Why does anything require an infusion of the supernatural?

Why atheists who DENY nihilism believe that “out of valuelessness, value comes” is just an emotional crutch to make them feel special.

Something can't have value because it exists?
You call us nihilists - I'd advise looking in a mirror.

There is absolutely no defeater or “Nihilism” if Naturalism is true.

I don't really care if 'nihilism' is 'defeated' This is also reification, another fallacy. Naturalism is valid because it's proven. All your empty rhetoric is just words.

Honestly The American Atheist corp is a contradiction and just another rebellion against the obvious truth of Nihilism, because it entals that “meaning” somehow exists

Firstly, nobody is a 'corp' (you seem to have some issues w/definitions). Secondly, you need to provide a solid, falsifiable reason why we need some imaginary sky daddy to 'infuse value'. Third, you need to stop painting w/a broad brush - people can have value w/out religion (something you object to, obviously).

Keep in mind I’m not arguing for “cognitive” meaning. That’s I'm simple.

There, fixed that for ya.

The atheist philosophers of the past spoke alot about Nihilism

Yeah - you do know that atheism goes way farther back than the 18th CE, right?
Of course you don't. You think this is an upstart 'belief system'. You haven't done any research whatsoever.

now in modern times I see alot of emotional atheists that believe “intrinsic value” exists only because they say so, though this is entirely circular on their part.

Actually no. It's less a tautology than your 'you need the universe to give a shit so everything has meaning' garbage.

"Well it’s very interesting when naturalists try ever so desperately to derive “meaning” from a “meaningless” existence which came from a “meaningless” origin."

I think your having some issues with definitions...

Atheism is defined as the theory or belief that God does not exist.
An Atheist is defined as a person who rejects the existence of a God or Gods.
Naturalism is defined as the philosophical viewpoint that the natural universe and its natural laws and forces operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe as we know it because we can't perceive it.

You're equating naturalism with atheism which is just untrue. Being an atheist means one rejects the existence of a God. No more, no less. It says nothing about whether one believes in the supernatural, whether one believes in an afterlife, whether one is a naturalist, etc. Furthermore, Naturalism says nothing about the existence of God. All naturalism says is that the universe works fine on it's own. To a naturalist, a God COULD exist, but wouldn't interfere in the natural universe.

There are also different atheistic philosophies, religions, or sects of religions such as Buddhism, Jainism, the Samkhya and Mimasa schools of Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, etc. that are not purely naturalistic and give some sort of purpose or meaning to human life and a specific moral code or guide line to follow.

Furthermore, even if an atheist doesn't subscribe to any of these particular philosophy or atheistic religion it still doesn't mean that they believe in pure Naturalism. For example, there are some atheists who believe that although there is no God there are or could be other planes of existence to which humans might be able to go and continue their lives as trans-humans. There are also those who believe that certain actions are more aligned with the natural order of the universe and that acting according to the natural order is healthier and easier in the long run.

I'd actually argue that being a theist who believes in a personal God means that you believe that this life is purely meaningless. Being a theist with a personal God means that this life is nothing more than a joke, a practice life, and/or a test before going to the "real life" where your personal God is. And if a person is that type of theist who believes that this world and this life don't matter because what you really want is to be in the next world with God, than why does that person bother trying to survive?

"Under naturalism: The universe doesn’t care whether or not we live or die, so why WE should act as if it does?"

I'm confused by this question. Are you saying why are we making an effort to stay alive and don't just commit suicide? Why do we have morals? A combination of the two? Or some other point I'm missing?

"For some strange reason MOST ATHEISTS believe that they have some sort of magical purpose to their purposeless lives that came from a purposeless natural origin."

That's rather interesting. I've never heard an Atheist say that there's a "magical purpose" to their life. I've often heard it said that we decide our own purpose and give our own lives meaning. Can you provide an example of this?

"Now where exactly does this purpose come from?"

Purpose can come from anyone and in not determined by origin. An object can also have different purposes to different people or even the same person at different times. The North Star, for example, is a star that came to its position by chance but people still managed to find a purpose for it. If you, me, your friends or family, God, or anyone else want to do something with your life, than your life has purpose and meaning.

I think that from a theist with a personal God perspective human meaning would be kind of a joke... We matter because a God says we do, and if the God one day decides to change it's mind then our purpose is gone or changed. We'd have purpose because a God thinks us to be interesting. Personally, I'd rather decide my own purpose and values than have someone else arbitrarily decide them for me.

"There is absolutely no defeater or “Nihilism” if Naturalism is true. If there is any, the I’d like to hear it."

Naturalism says nothing about the existence of God and neither atheism nor naturalism say anything about the existence of the supernatural, an afterlife, or purpose. All naturalism says is the universe works fine on its own and is all we as humans can hope to study and understand, and all atheism says is that the person rejects the claim that a God exists. Because of that, I see no reason to believe that either atheism or naturalism lead to nihilism.

'Honestly The American Atheist corp is a contradiction and just another rebellion against the obvious truth of Nihilism, because it entals that “meaning” somehow exists."

In what way? And what meaning do you think it says exists?

"Keep in mind I’m not arguing for “cognitive” meaning. That’s simple"

Can you define "cognitive meaning" please?

"The atheist philosophers of the past spoke alot about Nihilism, now in modern times I see alot of emotional atheists that believe “intrinsic value” exists only because they say so, though this is entirely circular on their part."

Whether or not this is circular depends on the philosophies and religions the atheist might subscribe to, what they believe their purpose to be, where they believe purpose comes from, and why.

philosphydoesntmatter,

"Why is survival of the human species as being something important under atheism?"

It isn't. It's important to many humans because we are humans. Most of us sort of naturally want our species to survive. I'm personally a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement whose motto is 'May you live long and die out.' To that end, the end of human suffering, and more importantly, human caused suffering of the great many sentiences with whom we share the planet, I have not bred.

Re: Nihilism.

I've already shown above that no personal gods exist in our universe. They would leave their footprint on the natural world with every supernatural action they take. Yet no such footprints exist. No exceptions need be made to our physical theories and laws based on the possibility of actions by god(s).

So, as independent thinking entities, it is well within our power to provide what meaning there is in our lives. It's up to us to define our meaning in life. That does not mean there is no meaning. It means that we are empowered with making that determination as free sentient and intelligent beings.

This is not inventing a bedtime horror story like the one in your Bible. This is taking control of our lives. The universe did not create us for a purpose. That is true. But, why is my purpose in life, given by me to me in a world where my existence is real, less meaningful than your enslavement to a fairy tale? Why does the statement, "I have meaning because I gave myself meaning" cause you to laugh any more than "I think therefore I am."

Where does your god's meaning come from? Would not your god make a similar statement?

So, what have we seen in your arguments? Completely untestable assertions based on nothing observable or testable and with no relevance to the actual world around us.

Remember philosophydoesntmatter, you are allowed to make your statements because secular, non-religious, enlightened individuals though free speech was moral and ethical.

God grants no rights. Secular humans do.

Read the bill of rights and the ten commandments. Compare "You have the right to..." with "Thou shalt not...". Then read the whole rest of the bible and show me one place anywhere in either the Old or New Testaments or the Quran where God actually granted a right to human beings.

Now back to my emotional friend here “Krystalline Apostate” , that hasn’t put forth one formal argument for a reason why:

Uh...if you think that was emotional, you are again assigning yourself more credit than you deserve.
You're just the court jester.

Ummm this does not help you at all, and IF you are a determinist then you just ultimately defeated yourself, but here let me go further.

Which variant are you on about?

Why is survival of the human species as being something important under atheism?

Why should it be elsewise?

WHY work on a presumption of the survival of the human species as being something important?

Because I'm human.

You cannot say it’s a “good” thing because then you are ascribing objective value to their collective existence.

Good for whom? Humans encroach on hunting grounds & wipe out entire species.

So your hands are tied here.

What a vivid imagination you have.

Why does the ongoing existence of human beings have to be the rationale?

Why do we need the supernatural? We don't.

Surely it should be “life” more generally if we’re being very pragmatic and other species stand a MUCH better chance of survival if humans obliterate each other.

Most of us aren't quite that suicidal.

I’d argue the strawman is the atheist who PRESUPPOSES meaning without giving reasons for this meaning.

Oh - so now, no supernatural = no meaning.
Really, where DO you get this rubbish?

Now the only defense here I see is this “atheism doesn’t necessitate nihilism” So basically your argument is, “Atheism doesn’t necessitate nihilism, because I say so” I’m sorry but appeals to emotion won’t work, now let me put out another argument and perhaps you will be capable of making formal objection rather than using “emotion”

I'm sorry, but how does it necessitate nihilism? Just because a few 18th CE philosophers said so, don't make it so.

Philosophically consistent atheists are nihilists.

Still not buying it.

The point I would make is not that they are depressing comments that these atheists make, but that they are consistent pieces of thinking based on atheistic premises – so congratulations to these thinkers first off for being honest at least in the verbal sense.

Were they alive, I'm sure they'd swoon w/delight @ your approval.

However the fact that none of them can manage to live this philosophy they espouse.

Good thing too, because it's depressing as hell.

Not because it was “depressing” but because it is just completely self-evident that life is full of meaning and purpose and right and wrong and that is the philosophical and existential problem for philosophically adept atheism.

Actually no it isn't. I'd explain why, but I'm guessing you don't listen too well.

Support: Camus contended one must rebel against the logical conclusion on an existential and practical basis so he was the most honest that it was impossible. It would mean that one could only accept personal concerns for matters but no longer be able to argue for any rightness or wrongness about any significant matters due to the fact that one could not account for values or meaning beyond one’s only subjective account

That of course, is utter nonsense. The human mind, & more importantly, the human senses, aren't 100% trustworthy. That's why an informed consensus is necessary, but not arbitrary.

In conclusion today’s atheism is nothing more than a rebellion against nihilism.

Really, you are going to have to make up your mind. 1st we're nihilists, now we're rebelling against it?

So basically your reply was as follows: “I am just a primate living in a pointless world of make believe values and self delusional meaning, and I feel super.”

Basically? No.

In a meaningless atheistic world you are not here for any reason and are not here to secure any goals but you can invent a bed time story, pretend you have a reason or goal for your accidental existence, pretend your every choice is not equally arbitrary, valueless and are not an accidental conglomerations of pointless matter in a random world.

Perfect description of the religious. Spot on.

All atheist values and choices wind up being arbitrary (=contingent solely on ones discretion ).

Utter horseshit.

So, given our accidental and arbitrary existence, to continue in purposeful resolve, as if there was actually some rationale for preferring one course of action to another, is to take another atheistic leap of faith.

Oh! Oh! A touch, a sting, I do declare!
Really, did you stay up all night globbing that tu quoque together?

Philosophy 101 for Kyrstalline: I will quote one of my favorite philosophers here to show you why your arguments aren’t looking, considering all your argument entailed was “I give myself purpose, therefore I have purpose” LOL

Hey, works for me.

If intrinsic value does not exist from the outset, its emergence from non-valuable processes is difficult to explain. It doesn’t matter how many non-personal and non-valuable components we happen to stack up: from valuelessness, valuelessness comes.

So we're talking an infinite regression of value, then? An eternal, non-ending infusion of value(s) from an imaginary sky daddy?

^Now Krystalline, REFUTE THAT and try to actually use rationale here instead of emotion^

Project much? I've seen this act a hundred times - shoulda brought popcorn.

ReALLY?????? Naturalism has been proven? Where? Where exactly has the natural origin of the UNiverse been shown?

Which version?

tisk, tisk but THIS is what being dishonest looks like:

Got news for ya: those people that taught you all that hokum? They lied to you.

Now Naturalism is indeed a quasi-religion that lives on faith. The “faith” that the natural world is all there is.

Oh please. Prove otherwise.

Naturalism is also a position that makes a truth claim in stating the natural world is all there is, which implies “No God”.

Yeah, sorry about that, but no, nobody up there.

While atheists can try and hide behind their definition (at least one of their meanings to their definition) to duck giving reasons of disproving God, a naturalist (which most atheists are) cannot run from the definition of naturalism, and must defend their position.

No, not really. Just prove otherwise.

A Natural Origin of everything has not been proven, so naturalism skips over step A, and ASSUMES all steps afterwards are from a natural origin. This implies “nature of the gaps” which is faith.

Because track record is all there is. & you're twisting around the 'god of the gaps' to suit your own purpose.

Obviously you are having trouble understanding what exactly I’m saying and switching it to what YOU WANT IT TO SAY. I will admit if God does not exist then Nihilism is correct, it seems YOU are the one who has a problem with that.

I understand perfectly. I'm not twisting your words around - you're doing an admirable job w/out help. I'm pointing out inconsistencies.

Nobody questions whether the atheist can be moral, but the question is can you give him a “good reason” to be moral

Reciprocal altruism. You may want to look that up, since you have trouble w/definitions.

In the words of Professor Flanagan I will show you what an empty tautology looks like

Great - another 'philosopher' w/a vested interest.

“Some people argue that moral obligations can be grounded in scientifically verifiable facts about human wellbeing and flourishing. This view is a form of ethical naturalism. For these people moral rightness is just the property of promoting or enhancing human flourishing.

Which is as it should be.

Plato refuted this argument over 2,000 years ago in his famous dialogue The Euthyphro. The Euthyphro argument is commonly appropriated in the form of a dilemma: “is an action right because it promotes human flourishing or does it promote human flourishing because it is right?

Got it wrong.
"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
which completely obliterates your following paragraphs, rendering them nonsense.
That, mein freund is what true dishonesty looks like.

In conclusion all we have seen here from this angry disgruntled atheist is nothing but emotion, insults, pop-philosophy, and NOT ONE formal argument on reasoning why Atheism is not philosophical consistent with Nihilism.

Really, a cascade of miserable formal fallacies? Tu quoque, reductio ad absurdum, ad hominem (weren't you the clown who flailed that Russel quote at me?) - sad, sad, sad.

Krystalline I’m sorry, but you are going to have to better than that. You failed miserably to explain to us why you are more valuable than a Rock, or a bird for that matter.

I am. I just don't need some ridiculous superstition to support me.

Well I will give you one more chance,

Oh, how thrilling. (YAWN). You'll just have to take my word on it. Hehehehe.

I’m surprised I haven’t banned yet for simple disagreement with the Village atheists at this CORP that requests money for membership. Now I want to see less overtone and more substance.

Say please.

Answer the objections or concede defeat.

Say PRETTY PLEASE. With sugar on top.
Or are you beyond any courtesy whatsoever?