Religious no longer a protected class

If God is everywhere..is he in my toilet?

Is he in a pile of dog poop?

Is he in HELL?

timmy2

You wrote, "This thing you call "atheism" is actually just rationality, and rationality can not be exploited."

Do you honestly believe that absolutely every human being thinks that "these things" are rational and "those things" are irrational?

Mankind has shown a great propensity to "rationalize" many things thru the ages, so to state that "rationality can not be exploited" is to either gloss over or turn a blind eye to reality.

Just as one man's junk is another man's treasure, one man's rationality is another man's irrationality.

And there have been many men thru the ages that have used their "irrationality" to grab onto power.

Man and men used above stands for members of the human family, mankind.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"I haven't an argument with atheism per se, but with its inherent weakness: its exploitability by totalitarians"

It has no such weakness because it does not exist. There is no content to exploit. Atheism is not a thing it is a reaction to a posit. It does not exist without theism where as theism exists quite well without atheism.

Religion is the most exploitable world view especially with totalitarians because that's what God is, a dictator. Genocidal, punishing, power tripping, must be worshiped and praised and obeyed unquestioningly. That's God and Stalin and Hitler.

This thing you call "atheism" is actually just rationality, and rationality can not be exploited. Delusion and worship however, are the easiest things in the world to exploit.

Do you really not see this?

Well, I'll be seeing ya. I haven't an argument with atheism per se, but with its inherent weakness: its exploitability by totalitarians.
Nietsche said something to the effect that when we lose our transcendental heritage the rough bretheren take over. Indeed they do.
Whether or not our universe is a multiverse, or an exquisitely made single version whose parameters are specially made for the appearance of conscious life is a question that is in the background of much theist vs. atheist debate today. I think that is too rarified for the bulk of humanity. For most of us the danger of political religions which crush the Mosaic /Germanic Christian heritage in order to make a Leviathan brew is reason enough to be wary of atheism.

Oh Mark,

"little man" is your response to "kid"

And I have no doubt that you can grammar circles around me. And if I were one with your arguments, I would also try to change the subject to grammar and missing semi-colons. ;)

Timmy2
"little man" ?
What are you, a teenager?
From pin-stripe words such as "evidentiary" to switch blade words in the same post.
Sounds like the spoiled son of a barrister to me.
Regarding literacy, again, let's just start with grammar, Tim. In your well-crafted sentence "I said nothing to you about "correlation and causation" that was another poster..."
Did we forget a semi-colon? Rather run-on, Timmy2.

Oh mark,

The illiterate one is the one who can't read the names of the people posting to him. I said nothing to you about "correlation and causation" that was another poster. But I did point out that the countries with the highest populations of non-religious people are among the most peaceful countries in the world with the lowest crime rates and the happiest population.

But since you bring it up, while it is true that "correlation is not causation", in this case correlation is evidentiary. In the example you cited, it fails because you were errant (purposely I might add) in your correlation. As was pointed out by Barferio, the communists replaced one religion (Christianity) with another religion, (communist dictatorship) not atheism.

There is no such thing as atheism. It is an invented word with no content.

But keep trying little man. Like I said before, it's fun to watch a snake-oil salesman scramble and flail as you do. :)

Are you naturally self-contradictory? First you attempt to insult me by using poor grammar, then you insult me by trotting out a truism "Correlation is not causation" then you say: "I'd just add that in countries where atheist populations have risen naturally with modernity such as Scandinavian countries, Australia and my Country, Canada, are among the most peaceful countries with the lowest crime rates and the happiest populations in the world..."
Which is as clear a confusion of correlation and causation as I've seen on this series of posts.
Kid, take courses in logic, rhetoric, and grammar and report back.

rajivmedanki

You wrote, "If you read the DSM IV, you will see clearly that you are either plain deluded or hallucinating when you talk of your relationship with an imaginary being."

First off, I suppose you are speaking of God when you refer to "an imaginary being", just because you have not yet met God, does not mean that God is not real, not to worry, you will meet God some day.

Second, I do not even know what the DSM IV is, but it sounds as if the DSM IV does not know what it is talking about concerning the Reality of God.

It is just the "opinion" of one or more of those that wrote it.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Barferio said what I was going to say better than I could have. "Duhs"' and all.

I'd just add that in countries where atheist populations have risen naturally with modernity such as Scandinavian countries, Australia and my Country, Canada, are among the most peaceful countries with the lowest crime rates and the happiest populations in the world.

Keep trying Mark. It's fun to watch the scramble of a snake oil salesman.

An interesting, common feature of many of these "atheist" posters is the semi-literate quality on view. Inserting "duh" into a sentence featuring the gem "Correlation is not causation" does what precisely?
As for the insights of Eric Hoffer: a literate longshoreman, a proletarian very well aware of his class' manipulation by the the Trostkyites in tee shirts and so forth. A great read for a teenager.
Your post indicates you are unaware of the serious discussions that have taken place regarding the issue of the origins of political religions.
If you want to see what serious scholars have to say, read "Totalitarianism and Political Religions" edited by Hans Maier. It is downloadable.

mark482, spend a couple evenings with Eric Hoffer's The True Believer.

Communism sought to replace religion with ... communism. It required the same kind of abject blind faith as any religion. It knew religion as a competitor for the same kind of human weakness.

Atheism as a word describes all things that are not theistic. It is not a belief system, communism is.

It is the state of mind of the True Believer in religion which disturbs me the most, the True Believer in anything. Nazism, Nationalism, Communism, Religion -- though the content of the doctrine may differ in the details, all the adherents of these "isms" are animated by essentially the same thing.

Worship of the state, the party, the gods ... the personality cults created by Hitler, Stalin, Mao ... the Pope, the televangelists ... all of these things are of the same family. Some are certainly more destructive than others.

Nobody is a True Believer in atheism. It is the absence of something, not the presence.

And, uh, duh, correlation is not causation.

At this time I can think of no better Englishman to quote than George Orwell, in his BBC wartime radio essay “Wells, Hitler and the World State”:
What has kept England on its feet during the past
year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but
chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of
the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For
the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals
has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might
be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at this moment.
Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German
invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian
Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the “sacred soil of
the Fatherland”, etc etc), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly
altered form. The energy that actually shapes the world springs from
emotions—racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of
war—which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms,
and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to
have lost all power of action….”
Orwell was an atheist; however, being a defiant and brave Englishman in the 1930's meant even if you didn't "believe" you also didn't renounce your tribal affiliation, because you knew the tribeless were simply vulnerable to giving up and dying off.
Timmy and others on this blog make a big deal about their superior minds because they reject the religious tales and such that most of us know are mythical anyway.
What they don't understand - and what I hope Dennett does - is that many ( by which I mean millions ) of people were murdered and millions more horribly scarred by the evil pretensions of state sponsored atheism. This murderousness was the defining theme of the twentieth century. So-called vocal atheists in this most insulated of countries simply should shut up out of respect for the dead and wounded. No one except the terminally self-amused ( the types that like to giggle about how, when we die, we become "fertilizer") should perhaps bring their comic act to a meeting of survivors of religious genocide. I am sure the old men and women there would be vastly amused.

For me, the difficulty is that religion is ridiculous on its face. No one needs to hear tirades about ghosts and zombies and rising to heaven on a horse: these ideas need no serious refutation. In fact, they invite ridicule. How do those who profess them expect otherwise?

Sorry Mark but you're way off the mark again.

I am as tribeless as they come.

Timmy2
Glad you're finding out about tribalism and how to wake up from it.
Now, go back to your tribe and discuss it.

lol. I guess I stand corrected. Non-belief in a fairy TALE (not tail) has no connection whatsoever to the crimes of an insane dictator.

Glad that's settled.

First, learn the English language, please. It's "fairy tale" not "fairy tail". Second,I am not accusing you of being the stand-in for Nicolae Ceauşescu, even if you, like he, think a Burberry scarf is a perfect accoutrement when one is being shot to death against a wall by former admirers.
Dictators like Stalin did not "easily" make themselves the way they were ( did you like that movie?). It took a lot of hard-nosed thinking, lots of paperwork, tons of management sessions and constant cleaning up after.
Finding populations eager to be brainwashed
wasn't all that easy either. Once you had them convinced, they could always backslide. A really serious problem ensued if disillusionment happened because of a sudden loss of temperature and the cake fell in. This sometime happened with early Soviet ovens.

lol

sorry Mark, I'm no communist dictator.
I am somewhat of a socialist though. kind of like Jesus. Actually not quite that socialist. More like a European socialist.

BTW, the attempt to tie non-belief in a fairy tail to the crimes of an insane dictator is one of the most pathetic and transparent ploys by those embarrassed by the new vocal atheists. It doesn't fly. Dictators like Stalin easily made themselves earthly substitutes for the original celestial dictator. You know, the original dictator. The one we are all to bow down to and worship for his greatness. Unquestioningly with complete faith and obedience. Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or burn in hell for all eternity. The original genocidal overlord punisher who also loves us. Sound familiar? Gee where do you think dictators like Stalin and Hitler got that idea from? And how on earth were they able to find a population prone to such brainwashing? Hmmmm.

I will "dream on", for a day when when we stop brainwashing children into this bronze age cult and wake up from our primitive past.

"The world has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice."(Alexander Solzhenitsyn)
Dream on, Timmy2. No one remembers anything. The twentieth century never happened.
You'll always be safe. Janet Napolitano says so.
Just keep fighting those devilish "society-damaging scams" and watch your waistline.

While I find myself in agreement with Dan Dennett on most opinions I have to disagree with his denial of the media bias against Christianity. Of course there is a media bias against Christianity. The media is comprised primarily of intellectuals, and intellectuals tend to be atheist agnostics. You know where else there is a bias against Christianity? In the science community. The overwhelming majority of scientists are atheist or agnostic or both like me.

But why then, Christianity, more so than other religions? Well media people are also generally liberal minded and hyper politically correct. Criticizing Islam is often labeled as racist and criticizing Judaism is often labeled as antisemetic. Christianity is seen as a western world religion and therefore fair game. Meaning, it's damn near impossible to cry racism when Christianity is criticized. Criticism of Christianity is clearly aimed at the religion itself, the doctrine, and the ideas and beliefs, not the racial profile of it's most visible adherents.

As for Buddhism and Hinduism, they are not criticized as much because they are not nearly as delusional and dangerous as the main three monotheistic religions. Buddhism barely qualifies as a religion at all.

Lets not deny the bias. Lets own it and be proud of it. The media is also biased against Ponzi schemes and society damaging scams of all sorts. That's the way it should be.

* The exercise of religion is akin to drunk driving? Where's your empirical basis for that claim?

careful with those demands for empirical evidence ... where is yours? Where is the empirical evidence for any of the imaginary beings you believe in?

It's not so much what you believe as how you come to believe it. What has happened to the rational, reasoning brain in your head that convinces you that you have been lucky enough to be born in a country that believes in the right gods, while all other humans in countries that don't believe in your gods - believe in other gods - are just screwed. All other humans throughout human history ... all the Romans, the Greeks, the Aztec, the Buddhists ... and so on and so on.

That we should take seriously the juvenile rantings of such silly little minds is beyond belief.

First, while I am not offended by Dennet's comments, I am bored. I have read one of his books, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and found it stimulating.But, really, if the issue is blood spilled and not ink, atheism's long marriage to totalitarianism in the last century has no equal. Denying the masssive ugliness of state-sponsored atheism by rolling out very shiny-pantsed arguments about "irrationality" etc. is simply dull and boring. The gist of modern anti-Christianity was best summed up by a Beatles tune, "Eleanor Rigby". Hearing more is an invitation to yawn time.
Seriously, all anyone has to do is take a look on youtube and see a few videos of starving Ukrainians or lynched or shot unknowns who happened to be believers, versus some lithograph of the Spanish Inquisition to get the drift.
Mr Dennett looks pretty well fed.
When I was a child I had a pediatric nurse whose father was a White officer and of course an Orthodox believer. He, along with nearly all of his family, were burned alive in their home by Bolsheviks. Similar true stories can be multiplied by many million.
I feel so threatened by Benny Hinn. He is just so scary.
You wonder if the well fed Dennett would raise a finger to help those threatened by radical Islam.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

If you read the DSM IV, you will see clearly that you are either plain deluded or hallucinating when you talk of your relationship with an imaginary being.

What would you say to a person who claimed to have a similar relationship with Santa Claus or The Tooth Fairy?

Catken1

You wrote, "Well, if you believe that religion makes you more moral,"

Who ever said that this is something that I believe?

It wasn't me.

You also wrote, " Those of you who believe that morality is based on religion have a similar responsibility to prove your beliefs by expecting yourself, and other religious folks, to conduct yourself by a higher moral standard."

As I have said, God looks at the person, not the "label".

No one should "look" to me or "follow" me.

I do not have to "prove" anything to anyone and I thank God that God is not only my Judge but everyone's Judge.

We can be at times some self-righteous blood-sucking ticks and this, most definitely, is not limited to any specific "label".

I can not live anyone else's life and no one else can live anyone else's life but there sure seems to be quite a few, believers and non-believers alike, who seem more interested in trying to run other people's life for them rather than living their own.

To me, it is not about "religion" (rules and regulations), "secular" (laws) but about a relationship.

If one "believes" in God, it is about a relationship between a person and God and between a person and everyone else.

If one "does not believe" in God, it is about a relationship between a person and everyong else.

Our relationship with God is contingent on our relationship with each other.

Something to think about: Is one's "relationship's" based on the external (rules and regulation, laws) or on something from within?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

obx2004

You wrote, "But rarely do any of the religious folks ever stand up to those preachers and imams who advocate violence, or the Benny Hinns who become millionaires selling snake oil. You're always silent, unless it's an opportunity to slam someone who doesn't follow what you do."

It may not be quite as "rare" as you seem to imply but as I have said many times on here, Jesus said, "Come follow Me", He did not say to follow those that say that they are following Me.

Actually, not only have I not "slammed" anyone that does not "follow what I do" but I have specifically said not to follow me and the "job" that God has chosen for me is NOT the "job" God has chosen or called anyone else to do.

I have also said that God looks at the person, not the "label" and that this apparently is going to come as quite a surprise to quite a few.

There seem to be quite a few from all of the different "labels" that like to "group" others together by "labels", whether self-labeled or imposed by others, rather than actually listening to what a person says.

As I have said, this includes both "believers" and "non-believers" having pre-formed or pre-judged opinions and for all effectives purposes being deaf to what someone actually says.

Unless someone listens, one can not hear, unless someone hears, one can not know what someone else has said, seems obvious but is it?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Aquinas gets shaved into oblivion by Occam's razor, CS Lewis wouldn't qualify for a course in philosophy in a community college, and Bach was a composer of music and not a seeker of truth about the material universe.

Living a religious life IS akin to drunk driving. Think about it.

"No other religious leaders incite violence; certainly no Christians." Really? You mean there is no incitement of violence against doctors who perform legal abortions,against gays...? And the priests kept out of the Northern Ireland sectarian wars!

The arguments of religious people are a joke and have been one from the dawn of civilization. It is only now that mankind is beginning to get the joke.

Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins have the same bad habit: They tilt at hapless village vicars as if they were windmills.

Yet Dennett writes: "I look forward to the day when violence done under the influence of religious passion is considered more dishonorable, more shameful, than crimes of avarice, and is punished accordingly, and religious leaders who incite such acts are regarded with the same contempt that we reserve for bartenders who send dangerously disabled people out onto the highways."

And yet neither he nor Dawkins can ever muster the personal courage -- as opposed to the abstract courage that comes with striking poses -- to pronounce the word "Islam."

It would have improved their jerimads against faith (read Christianity) if they had bothered to point out that more people have been killed every year for the past 100 years by Muslim fanatics than were killed in the entire sorry history of the Spanish Inquisition.

It would have improved their books to have stopped to point out that evolutionary biology is virtually unknown in the Islamic world.

It would have improved their books to demonstrate courage rather to strike a pose against something that is, finally, indifferent to their arguments.

"Would that more religious individuals were thinkers !" Yeah. Aquinas, Bach, Pascal, CS Lewis, Thomas Merton. Those guys were a little slow.

Agree with the article completely. Evangelicals and fundamentalists of other religions have been given a false impression by the politeness with which we nonbelievers have treated them in the past. They think they're the majority, for one thing, and that we are all somehow impressed or cowed by their righteousness when we are just too nice to call them morons to their faces. If they were to just quietly believe their nonsense and leave others alone that would be fine, but when they start trying to impose it on the rest of us the gloves have to come off.

Fundamentalist Christians should understand that when you spit on someone, they are likely to spit back.

Conservative Christianity which wages a war against gay people is immoral, not moral.

Do Conservative Christians expect their victims to just take it in silence, with no reaction? That is not usually what happens in war. In war, violent attack is usually met with defense and counter-attack.

Is that so hard for the poor victimied fundamentalists to understand?

* The respect accorded to Christianity in the past was not "hyper-diplomacy," it was the societal norm expected of any nation's dominant heritage, one in which most people, at least nominally, participated. Until the last couple of generations, that is.

* The kinds of public invective against Christianity to which we've recently become accustomed--the vitriol towards Brit Hume, various celebrities' equating Christians with Islamicist terrorists, the current administration's open yet unfounded campaign against "right-wing extremist" Christians--are not examples of increased "scrutiny," as Dennet puts it, but irrational prejudice.

* The exercise of religion is akin to drunk driving? Where's your empirical basis for that claim?

* I agree that leaders who use religion to incite violence should be held liable. In reality, this would only apply to imams of mosques and madrassas who encourage jihad. No other religious leaders incite violence; certainly no Christians.

* By all means, feel free to engage with any clergy about their teachings in the public marketplace of ideas, and if anyone's claims about science or anything else don't hold water, they will suffer the natural consequences of lost authority. Who, anywhere, has ever denied this? Where are the rampant claims to clerical exceptionalism by which Dennet is so outraged? His smear of prayer is not only baseless, however, it goes against any research that does exist on the subject, and which does support eh "efficacy of prayer."

* Again, the media is not "giving them a harder time" now, they and the secular cultural left are thoughtlessly deriding them and herding them out of the public sphere without the benefit, as it were, of a fair trial. No evidence is offered FOR anything Dennet says, nor are the theological claims of any religion seriously disputed.

Dennet himself, sadly, would seem to be an example of the kind of bias whose existence he denies.

"You seem to imply here that there is a double standard and you also seem to imply that you want the double standard to continue but to be reversed, is that so?"

Well, if you believe that religion makes you more moral, naturally you would want to hold religiously motivated actions, and people acting in the name of your religion, to a higher moral standard, right?
All Mr. Dennett is doing is expecting you to live by your own stated beliefs, as everyone should. Those of us who believe that morality is more related to character than religion will continue to expect moral behavior from all who want to be considered "of good character." Those of you who believe that morality is based on religion have a similar responsibility to prove your beliefs by expecting yourself, and other religious folks, to conduct yourself by a higher moral standard.

Wonderful!!!

Wrong is wrong, no matter what the reason.
By the way, God looks at the person, not the "label".

But rarely do any of the religious folks ever stand up to those preachers and imams who advocate violence, or the Benny Hinns who become millionaires selling snake oil. You're always silent, unless it's an opportunity to slam someone who doesn't follow what you do.

Absolutely outstanding article. Would that more religious individuals were thinkers !

I applaud Dan Dennett for pointing out that holding people responsible for being truthful is not a 'media bias.'

Religious violence is no joke.

I would give my life for the right of both religious and non-religious people to speak their minds. That includes my right to peacefully question the truth of religious claims. I recommend Dennett's book _Breaking the Spell_ for interesting stories about the relationship between religion and society.

I give credit to the Wa. Post for allowing these freespeech comments. Many newspaper don't. I was censored. The time has come to openly tell the truth: the sacred books should not be taken literally and preachers should be held accountable for what they are saying, specially to minors.
Dainel C., we must keep fighting for the truth.

Well said!

Freedom of Religion includes Freedom From Religion. I wish well to those who find personal value in a religion and ask that they do not impose it upon those who make a different choice.

I will not go on about the good and bad that churches/ religions of all persuasions have presented to the world as I respect other peoples choice. But, please spare me from it.

I strongly object to churches getting tax exemptions because it means that the rest of us have to pay more to fill the gap. That violates my right to freedom from religion.

"You seem to imply here that there is a double standard and you also seem to imply that you want the double standard to continue but to be reversed, is that so?"

Despite your question, Dennett is correct in what he says. Those who claim to be speaking and acting on God's behalf should indeed be held to a higher (not a "double") standard. It's even Scriptural. Jesus said, regarding any Christian who causes people to be tripped up who are still young in their faith journeys:

"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble."

"The double standard that exempts religious activities from almost all standards of accountability should be dismantled once and for all."

Yeah, and what's the deal with tax exempt status?

Jerry Seinfeld

Thanks to Daniel Dennett, the author of 'Consciousness Explained' and 'Freedom Evolves' for this marvelous comment. There's really nothing I need to add, except to take the complaints of the Christianoids (should any appear here) with the proverbial grain of salt.

The group that really gets short shrift from the corporate media are atheists. Apart from lambasting our various spokesmen (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Mr. Dennett) they allow no positive column space including to the millions of atheists who would like a voice outside of 'American Atheist' Magazine.

Daniel C. Dennett

You wrote, "I look forward to the day when violence done under the influence of religious passion is considered more dishonorable, more shameful, than crimes of avarice,"

You seem to imply here that there is a double standard and you also seem to imply that you want the double standard to continue but to be reversed, is that so?

Wrong is wrong, no matter what the reason.

By the way, God looks at the person, not the "label".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"Is there widespread media bias against Christianity?"

If by bias against we mean questioning of, then sure. But in that case, the media is biased against every single subject that is held up for scrutiny and discussion. It's their job, after all.

Given that most Americans are religious and most of the religious are Christians, then it becomes a family battle, doesn't it? After all, even presuming that most people in the media are atheist (which I strongly doubt), they were likely raised by religious parents. Most of whom are/were, you guessed it! Christians.

I don't take issue with Hume urging Woods to go to church--I do take issue with his slap at other religions. Talk up what worked for yourself, your belief system, your faith; but understand that taking aim at others beliefs, before it is even raised by your audience, is a position of weakness on your part. It smacks of fear.

Here here!