This is actually more of an "Well, that's interesting" post than a correction, but in a recent post, I said:
[T]he Bible does say something about he who is without sin may cast the first stone along with everyone is a sinner, resulting in no one being able to cast stones.
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
It's not a correction, really, since I said it's in the Bible. There is some significance, though, as this more positive verse in the Bible that I used to demonstrate that the Bible does have verses against bigotry looks to have been added later. Therefore, if you are a fundamentalist, it stands to reason that you can ignore this part since it isn't part of the foundation. (But please, by all means, follow it anyway!)
This video just came out yesterday. In it, Matt Dillahunty pretty much hits the same topic as my post titled "Sorry?" Not much to add other than read that post and watch the video.
I have made an update to this post since I originally released it Saturday. I have changed the release date so that it appears nearer the top of my blog.
While I think my original post on this topic was adequate for discussion, I have decided I should perhaps change it up a bit in a way my software friends can understand. Also, I want to add some other examples of why the atheist/agnostic distinction frustrates me below the line break.
It's probably been a few months ago now, but one of my coworkers told me that he's not religious, but he's not an atheist either. Guess what he is? He's an agnostic!
In hindsight, I should have pressed him on the "but I'm not an atheist" remark by asking, "Oh, so you believe in a god or gods?" To which I suspect the answer would have been, "No." To that I could have then asked, "But you're not an atheist?" If the answer is "Yes," then I'd go back to my first question. (See the second part for a further explanation for this.)
In the original post, I briefly discussed the meaning of the "a-" prefix. There I pointed out that it generally means "without." So, if a theist is a person who has a belief in a god or gods, then an atheist is a person without such a belief. Another way to view the prefix, though, that is easier in software terms is to think of it as meaning "not". Therefore, an atheist is "not a theist". Pretty simple - it's a Boolean!!!
Perhaps this can better explain to my software friends why the idea of someone being neither a theist nor an atheist, but rather an agnostic, gives me a headache - You're generating a CONSTRAINT ERROR! I have the feeling my coworker bought into the canard that it's an enumerated type (theist, agnostic, atheist), but it's not. You actually have two sets of Booleans (when we include agnostic in the mix). Notice what letter "agnostic" begins with? Yes, it starts with that same "a-" prefix. You can be either a gnostic (someone who believes truth claims are knowable) or you are not.
As before, the two words deal with two different aspects of truth claims. Gnosticism deals with what we know and theism deals with what we believe. We can then combine the terms to describe ourselves. My software friends should be able to recognize quickly that if we combine two Booleans, we have four possible combinations:
Gnostic Theist - A person who believes in a god or gods and thinks they have enough knowledge to make such a claim.
Agnostic Theist - A person who believes in a god or gods but acknowledges that they really cannot know for sure.
Agnostic Athesit - A person who does not believe in any gods but acknowledges that they really cannot know for sure. (Or, recognizes that they would have to know everything about everything to be able to make a claim that there is no such thing as a god.) I, as well as most atheists, fall in this category.
Gnostic Atheist - A person who not only does not believe in any gods, but also believes we can know that there are no gods.
So, Mr. Agnostic...which are you? Are you a theist or an atheist? You must pick one! (Or maybe your brain is initialized to garbage!?!)
For the second part, I'm going to attempt to demonstrate the "constraint error" problem in non-software terms for the general audiance. For example, ask a person if they believe in Bigfoot. You will likely get one of three answers:
Yes.
No.
I don't know (in other words, agnostic).
Though that last answer is once again giving a yes-or-no question an answer other than yes or no, what you likely won't get with it is a follow-up where the person says, "But I'm not one of those people who doesn't believe in Bigfoot!" So...if you're not one of those people who doesn't believe...that means you do believe? Why didn't you just answer "Yes" then?
See how that is confusing? Yet that's exactly the type of answer a person gets on the god question. When a person says "But I'm not an atheist" they are saying "But I'm not a person who does not believe in gods." It's a double negative, so that means they believe? Well...no. And that's what drives me crazy. This type of thinking leads in circles because it has no conclusion. As for my coworker, I perhaps should have taken him "dancing" around this circle in hopes that it would help me to expose his flawed reasoning.
UPDATE: One important thing I forgot to say originally is that I'm not really bothered so much about the "I don't know" answers. If you honestly have not examined the evidence for a claim, then I can handle an "I don't know" answer. Because a second thing I forgot to say is that there are different levels of certainty with a belief. Even if you are one who does not believe in Bigfoot, you can range from being absolutely confident in that lack of belief all the way to being quite unsure in that lack of belief to the point where you are on the verge of believing. So, when I said earlier that you either believe or you do not believe, that is actually a bit misleading, though still true, and I need to confess to that. The agnostic label generally implies that one is uncertain, and I acknowledge that as acceptable, though saying that you are an uncertain atheist would make more sense. Therefore, it is not so much a person using the agnostic label that bothers me as much as someone adding in that they are not an atheist. Another way to look at it besides the ways I already have is to say, "I'm not sure whether I believe or not, but I do not not believe." Ohhhhh...K.
Soon I'll be starting to break down the arguments from the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist," which I'll be abbreviating IDHEF for short. As with the rest of the blog, my remarks will be informal. And, yes, I'm bound to go on occasional rants when something really irks me...which is bound to happen a lot with this book. I'm also intending this more for those who have either read the book or who have a copy and can follow along, though I will likely quote anything I comment on directly.
I've really only gone through half the book, but I want to bring attention to some of the most common fallacies I have found in the book, so that you can familiarize yourself with them beforehand.
This is looking to become a 5-part series. Links will be added as the posts become available. Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5
This is a post that pains me a bit to write. Being insulted can be disappointing as it is, but when that insult is out of ignorance, it adds another level of disappointment. It has to do with being called a radical. It is typically meant as an insult, but the most disappointing part is that people don't seem to fully understand what the word means.
So, let's first start by learning the definition of the word. In typical usage, the word "radical" means "One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions."
Now that you have the definition, please ask yourself...
What's so bad about being a radical?
I suspect it's the part about change. Let's face it, most people will show content with the status quo. The status quo brings with it predictability. When things stay the same, you know tomorrow (that's a metaphor for the future, not the literal tomorrow) will be pretty much the same as today. You know how to prepare for tomorrow, because you've already done so numerous times already. Change, however, can be challenging. When you don't know what tomorrow will bring, how do you prepare for tomorrow? The other part about change is that advocating for change takes work. So, even if people are not truly content with the status quo, changing it is decided to not be worth the effort for many. Then, if you are such a person, what might you do to prevent becoming involved in groups that advocate for change? I suggest that the solution many people take is to demonize those groups. Declare them insane and you don't have to get involved. After all, you don't want to be labeled insane yourself, do you? It would seem the word "radical" has had it's meaning twisted for such purposes.
On a side note, here's a good one that reveals that people want change, but fear getting involved: "I agree with most of your objectives, but you just go too far for me." Doesn't that actually seem like a good reason to get involved with the group and then use your influence in the group to scale things back to your level of comfort?
Examples of radical behavior
Take a look at that definition for the word "radical" again. Notice any other words that start with an "r" that appear interesting? I'm talking about the word "revolutionary." In fact, the word "revolutionary" is really just a synonym of the word "radical." But isn't being a revolutionary usually viewed in a positive light? (Or have most Americans forgotten what the Fourth of July holiday is about?) How, then, did being a radical become such a negative? Once again, I suggest that it is due to twisting the meaning of the word to diminish social movements that has caused the distinction.
When Great Britain's colonies in the New World were struggling with the oppression of a distant, dictatorial ruler and a burdensome tax scheme, who was right - the dangerous, zealous extremists who argued that the colonists should rebel completely against King George and create a completely new republic, or the sober, responsible moderates who felt that we should reconcile with the king, accept his divine authority and just ask him nicely to treat us better?1
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom."
—Thomas Paine, Common Sense, an influential 1776 pamphlet arguing that the American colonies should declare independence
When slavery divided the United States and the country was burning on the brink of civil war, who was right - the wild-eyed abolitionist fanatics who thought that slavery should be ended completely and all slaves should be set free, or the cool-headed, wise statesmen who felt that the best compromise was to ensure an equal number of free states and states that permitted the slavery of human beings?
"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD."
—William Lloyd Garrison, inaugural editorial in the anti-slavery journal The Liberator, 1 January 1831
When Jim Crow laws and de jure segregation divided American citizens into two classes of people, and people of African descent were fighting for liberty, who was right - the irrational, hysterical partisans like Martin Luther King Jr. who felt that acts of civil disobedience would startle the nation out of its apathy, or the sober, responsible religious leaders who felt that breaking the law, even if done peacefully, was an extreme and irresponsible course of action that would reflect poorly on the entire movement?
"But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: 'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.' Was not Amos an extremist for justice: 'Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.' Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: 'I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.' Was not Martin Luther an extremist: 'Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.' And John Bunyan: 'I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.' And Abraham Lincoln: 'This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.' And Thomas Jefferson: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...' So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?"
I think he could have tried to find quotes from some other radicals, like Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony, but hopefully you now have an idea of the wicked thoughts of extremists!
Let's be real about being radical
That last statement was sarcastic, if you couldn't tell. The point is that there isn't anything automatically bad about being a radical. In fact, we have a holiday celebrating the birthday and life of the radical Martin Luther King Jr. With that, I think the last part of his quote is the important question to be asked about radicals/extremists: "Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?"
Now, some of you who are reading to this may object to the idea that Martin Luther King Jr, Susan B. Anthony, etc. were radicals. Well, they wouldn't be from today's standards. That's because they were successful in changing the status quo. They shifted the ideas of society to where their radical ideas became the norm. So when I say that these people were radicals, you must put their ideas in the context of the time in which they lived, not in today's world.
And now to the reason why I write this post: I have been called a radical/extremist as of late. I suppose it's true. Go ahead and call me a radical/extremist if you mean it sincerely. But all the people I've heard call me that don't. They are out instead to either degrade me or to mock me. When you look at history, radicals have almost, if not, always been an important part of progress. Do some radicals work against progress? Sure, but to automatically discount someone for being a radical is ignorant of history at best.
If you don't like something, the only real difference you can make is to take action. You can complain until you're blue in the face & it's only gonna make you feel better for a moment. If you're too meek & submissive or too lazy to fight anything, you have but two other choices: Either sit & stew in your own puke or submit to everything & convince yourself that it's for your own good. Most people end up doing the latter.
That struck a (metaphorical) nerve with me. It struck the same nerve that pains me in writting this post. It is the same nerve that has been bothering me in conversations with my father as of late. He is a man who has complained about politics and occasionally religion for as long as I have known him. I used to think that he was a man who would advocate for change if he had better opportunities presented to him (as well as fewer responsibilities with the farm). But now that I'm all grown up and out advocating for change by being outspoken and supporting groups that promote change? I'm "just as radical as the fundamentalist [Christians]." It turns out my father is a "sit & stew in your own puke" type of person. And, as I spoke about earlier, he has also turned out to be one of those people who doesn't want things to change. *Sigh*
There was another nerve that was struck with that friend's post. The weekend after this post, I got to know the girlfriend of a friend a bit better. So let me first add the disclaimer that I do not know this woman that well, so maybe I'm just getting a bad impression from what little was said. Continuing, she said a couple things, when paired together, don't necessarily go together. The topic got to be about Planned Parenthood/abortion/birth control, in which she was very stern in a statement that "there is nothing wrong with birth control!" but then said something about there being "extremists on both sides," with the implication being that she is not one of those extremists. That puzzled me. Not the part that there are "extremists on both sides," but rather what does she think the extremists on the one side think? I'm quite sure I listen to those extremists and could perhaps be considered one myself, and I can tell you that "there is nothing wrong with birth control!" is very much like something you will here the extremists say2. So where does she differ from the extremists? And here I'll go back to my disclaimer because I honestly do not know her well enough to determine that. (Extremists also advocate for the usage of birth control. Is she against that? Or is it the mandate that insurance cover birth control?) Still, I had the feeling that she at least has some extremist views, but doesn't want to see herself as one of them.
2 People from my generation who read this may think I'm out of my mind for suggesting that the opinion that nothing is wrong with birth control is a radical position. Guess what? You were raised in a society that had been changed by (guess who?) radicals of the feminist movement. Older generations still alive today may have a different opinion on the matter. (In general, that is. There are bound to be members of that generation that are fine with the use of birth control. And perhaps even more who are hypocritical about its use.) This is a living example of a shift in the status quo.
Besides demonizing...
One last note I'd like to make is that there may be another reason to degrade people who are extremists, besides the resistance to change previously discussed. There is also the possibility that people do it to boost their own ego. (Or, at the very least, they take advantage of the degrading of extremists.) They do it to feel better about themselves by making themselves appear to be more rational by making others look irrational.. I had a feeling that is what the woman mentioned in the last section was trying to do. Again, refer to the disclaimer.
That's all for part 1. In part 2, I'll address how there is no such thing as a "radical atheist," at least not in the way often implied. Stay tuned.
1 On a very interesting note, there are some signatures in that olive branch petition you might be surprised to see. Apparently, some of those people changed their opinions in a year's span. Or maybe they signed because the Continental Congress had voted for it?
This should have been an easy post, but when misconceptions run amuck, lengthy rebuttals tend to seem necessary...
Today's topic is on the canard that atheism is a religion. The seemingly easy way to nip this in the butt is to point out that atheism has no tenents by which to obey. Just look at the definition of religion:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
Somebody please tell me how atheism fits that definition. Atheism is a rejection of religious claims; it doesn't make any claims of it's own. Therefore, there are no sets of beliefs or any governing moral codes and it does not fit the definition of a religion. This should have been the end of this post...
Yet, I can understand where some of the confusion comes from. Atheism is a response to religion. There are now people writing many books about atheism, there are many conventions across North America, Europe, and Australia for atheists to attend. Those unfamiliar with atheism or misinformed about atheism jump to the conclusion that the conventions are our version of church, the speakers are our priests, and the authors are our apologists; thus atheism is a religion itself.
In any other situation, having conventions/conferences and book authors does not get such treatment. Take, for example the Society of Women Engineers (SWE). Is this a man-hating/women's-superiority group because it only deals with women? I mean, really?!? OK, so you're women and you're engineers. What's the big deal? Why do you need to have a group about it unless to promote your superiority to men?...
Or how about all the employee networks at my place of employment? There is an African American group, a Latino group, an Asian/Pacific Islander group, etc. Why? Seriously?!?
OK, I'm not really serious. Those last two paragraphs were mainly sarcasm. So what is honestly the point of these groups? All of these groups listed represent people who are either a minority or an underprivileged group or both. They are support/social groups for those minority/underprivileged individuals. I have no objections to such groups; I think they are actually important and necessary. I appreciate what SWE stands for.
This is much what atheist groups are about. We are a minority and we are underprivileged. Don't believe me on that second part? Just pay some attention to American politics, particularly in the Republican party. This is, as they say, "one nation under God!" So, what does that mean for someone who doesn't believe in that god? Well, just ask former President George H. W. Bush:
No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.
While this quote is only attributed to Bush as only one reporter quoted him as saying this, Bush has never bothered to refute nor deny saying it.
That is just one of many reasons we have our conventions and social groups. We are organizing to fight the corrupting influence has had on this country. And, yes, that means having conventions to gently stroke our own egos. (Don't pretend that other groups don't do the same.) But we also have the conventions to help each other learn which arguments work best against religion as well as how best to argue against religion. It is important to point out that just because one is an atheist does not mean they have to participate in these groups. In much the same way, a female engineer is not required to join SWE.
This, though, brings me to another reason why I think atheists get pinned for being part of a religion: Simply being an atheist sends the message that we think religious people are wrong, and people don't like being told they are wrong. Women's groups are not telling men that it's wrong for them to be men. Minority groups are not telling whites that it's wrong for them to be white. (Though they often ask that the privileged group check said privilege.) So these groups don't face much backlash, if any1. Atheists, however, do. We upset some religious believers simply for existing. Even something as simple as putting up a billboard that let's atheists know that other atheists exist receives backlash. So, if you are a religious person and atheists are telling you that you are wrong, what can you do? One option would be to demonstrate to atheists with empirical evidence that you are correct. Many atheists are open-minded and are willing to listen. Granted, as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," I admit that the theists have their work cut out for them. Which is probably why they go for their second option. That option seems to be to try to link atheists to the things (such as religion, faith, etc.) we speak out against, hoping we will self-destruct under the weight of their contradictory reasoning...
Yeah...don't count on that one working. Really, it just makes us upset and also validates what so many atheists have against religion (such as the dishonest measures people will go to in order to defend their religion).
In conclusion, I hope that if you are one of those who makes the claim that atheism is a religion that you have simply been uninformed or misinformed. Hopefully this has been an educating experience for you. If you are a religious person dishonestly defending your religion, then shame on you!
1 There is one exception...not so much with my employer's group - though I do think there was one person who was against the group that did get fired when the group was new - as much as such groups in general. It is LGBT groups. They get accused of "advancing the gay agenda" and trying to "teach children to be homosexual," as if that were possible. The good news is that the people that say that shit are quickly becoming the minority and are beginning to be labeled as hate groups. (That's not to say that anyone who lashes out at atheists should necessarily be part of a hate group. At this point in time, there is still a lot of misinformation out. Consequently, there are going to be a lot of people who just spread that misinformation without thinking. It's not because they are hateful, but rather because they are human and humans do dumb things. With the state of the LGBT movement, on the other hand, much misinformation can easily be corrected, so if you are still spreading misinformation you're probably either an ignorant bafoon or a hate mongerer. In short, if you say dumb things about atheists, you can use mass ignorance as an excuse, but that doesn't work for LGBT's.)
There are now two addenda to this post here and here. Be sure to check these out as well.
Every now and then, when a Christian finds out that I'm an atheist, I get a response that starts out with "I'm sorry..." followed by some aspect of my life that they think is missing (or with some aspect of their life that they think they have because of their belief, implying that it is missing for me).
Imagine that you are not a hippie and don't smoke pot and you encounter a hippie who finds out that you don't. He says to you that he's sorry you have not experienced the zen (or whatever a hippie might say) that comes with smoking pot. What might you think about that? Here is what I might think:
I have other means by which to find "zen."
I am actually thankful that I don't have to resort to use of paraphernalia to find "zen."
I am actually sorry for the hippie that he thinks he has to resort to pot to find his "zen."
My response to the Christian is very similar.
I have other means by which to find purpose, meaning, joy, morality, or whatever it is that the Christian thinks I'm missing.
I am actually thankful that I don't have to resort to believing in a mass delusion* to find those things.
I am actually sorry for the Christian that they think they need their mass delusion to find those things.
On an extra point, I am also sorry that the Christian either bought into or was indoctrinated into the mass delusion (and more so for those who were indoctrinated, because they had less of a choice).
So, Mr./Ms. Christian, go ahead and be sorry for me all you want. Realize, though, that doing so just makes you look more deluded from my perspective.
* While I'd hate to be a part of any mass delusion, I'm really thankful to not be part of one that has a history of torturing non-believers (the Inquisition), burning witches, suppressing women, abusing children, enslaving people, and discriminating against homosexuals, and being anti-science...and has a holy book that more-or-less supports all of these behaviors.
Additionally, I want to appologize to the hippies out there for using them in such an example. I actually have a lot of respect for hippies. I'm generally all for "sticking it to the man" as long as the man deserves...um...having it stuck to him? That gets to be my bigger problem with hippies - they go a bit overboard at times. They abuse the appeal to nature fallacy, for example. But, as far as the pot smoking goes, as long as no one else is getting harmed from it, the can knock themselves out. Mass delusions, on the other hand, have such a potential for harm, that I cannot not speak out against them.
