However, for the purposes of this thread (encouraging the group identified as “Americans” to be less distrustful as the subgroup identified as “atheists”), it is the specific atheist Micahel Newdow who took it to court.
I oppose including the phrase in the Pledge, (I tend to dislike having little kids recite loyalty oaths, in general), but my kids’ schools didn’t engage in that behavior, so I would have had no standing to file a suit, even if I had the money to blow on such a trivial issue, to begin with. On the other hand, the one person in the U.S. who thought it was a big enough deal to pursue lengthy suits happened to be an atheist (who, coincidentally did not have custody of the child while the custodial parent was a believer who did not object to the phrase).
You can point out (here) as rationally as you wish that Newdow is an individual, not a spokesperson for the group known as atheists and you can point out that a great many Christians and Jews (and, probably, Muslims), share his opinion, but the “face” of opposition to “under God” in the PoA is that of an “interfering atheist.”
This may be entirely unfair–and I agree that there is no point in telling atheists to drop a postion they do not generally hold–but in the interest of reducing distrust, it might be to the advantage of atheists, in general, to band together long enough to make it clear that this is not part of their “agenda.”
I agree that it is dumb, but there is much in the world that is dumb. (We still have not settled whether hydrogen or stupidity is more prevalent.)
Incorrect. One of those options requires magic. The other does not. The logical default is always to assume that things have natural explanations until proven otherwise. So far, nothing has ever been discovered in the universe which requires a supernatural explanation.
I had to read this two or three times to make sure you weren’t referring to God as a creature. God (as theists conceive of God) is precisely not a creature—that is, a created being—but rather, the Creator. Hence, likening God to “magical creatures” completely misses the point (and if you’re talking about small-g gods, you’re talking about something that I don’t see as particularly relevant to the point of the thread).
One of the reasons people give for believing in God is that they’ve looked at the world in which we live and thought, “Hey, Somebody must have created all this.” Granted, this is hardly a proof of anything, but I would argue that it is, at least, more plausible than looking at the world and thinking, “Hey, centaurs must exist.”
I should also add that there is no “leap of faith” involved in brane theory. It hasn’t been proven yet so it isn’t just “believed.” No one has “faith” in it. Science is not religion. You actually have to prove stuff.
Strong and weak sometimes have definitions that don’t match the normal ones. Here is an example where strong and weak utilitarianism are defined.
.
Generally weaker systems are less restrictive than stronger ones. In the case above, the strong utilitarian accepts all the principles of the weak one and more. The strong atheist meets the definition of a weak atheist, but believes other things also. The intensity of the belief has nothing to do with it. The strong atheist might have no more strength in his belief than the go to church on Christmas Christian. So, I think it is a mistake to associate strong atheism with dogmatic atheism.
I was opposed to strong atheism, until I woke up one day and noticed that it discribed belief, not knowledge. Claiming to know there are no gods is unsupportable, unless you restrictively define god. Believing there are no gods, given our current state of knowledge of the universe, seems perfectly supportable.
My complaint is not about intesity of belief, but rather the effect this belief has on dealings with others. Few atheists want to prevent others from practicing their religion, unless that religion involves the dimunation of our rights. Many of the religious do - as seen in Afghanistan. I think Communism has many of the characteristics of religion, and suppression of religion in Communist countries seems no different from suppression of Christianity in Moslem countries.
One mythical, magical entity is the same as another. Technically, creator gods are not “creatures,” I suppose, but that doesn’t make them any more plausible.
No it isn’t. Not remotely. It just shows ignorance and flawed reasoning. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s therefore plausible that a wizard did it.
But it was just as plausible to conclude by looking at the world that it was flat, that someone must be holding up the sky, that someone must be pulling the sun across the sky, and that someone was responsible for lightning and volcanos. Isn’t reasonable that since we’ve learned that none of these things are caused by sentient beings, creation isn’t either?
And it is time to remind everyone that first cause arguments support at best a weak deism. If any of the zillions of gods of humanity (and I see no reason for giving God special treatment just because I grew up in a God-believing culture) got the creation story right, then there would be reason to give that god special treatment from a first cause argument. How to get from first cause to my sex life is beyond me.
You can’t call a God the “default” answer to that question (unless you’re defining it way more broadly than most people do). I think it’s more like assuming the conclusion than answering the question anyway. I’m tempted to respond to some of these other points, but this has been done to death. I’m more interested in atheists in America at the moment.
True. But I think it’s pretty obvious that Newdow and O’Hair aren’t the reason America doesn’t trust atheists. America in general already didn’t trust atheists, and particularly loathes those two ‘spokespeople’ for making noise about what they perceive to be their rights. Is it any surprise that individuals America loathes are the face of a group America doesn’t like?
It’s a cyclical relationship. People who are somewhat strident about being atheists are more likely to make these kinds of unpopular stands and they’re more likely to get public attention (mostly negative attention, of course) for their views. But they wouldn’t make those stands of get that kind of attention if atheists weren’t already so unpopular. They’re the end product of our standing in society, not the cause. Blaming atheists’ public image on them - not that tomndebb has done this, but it seems to me that others have - is a little like blaming racism in America on Malcolm X.
I think this discourse perfectly highlights my first point from way above. There is a fundamental difference in philosophy that is highlighted here. Both are convinced that their theorem is the correct one. Since this is usually taken to be The Big Question[sup]TM[/sup], I imagine that (at least on this subject) there will be very little progress while the two sides hold such disparate views.
when there is such a fundamental difference in philosophy, it behooves both sides to seek to understand the other’s point of view, or at least not treat them like idiots for holding another point of view. Referring to God (or belief in God) in terms of wizards or Invisible Pink Unicorns or whatever tends to alienate theists: they see someone talking like that and think that either “He doesn’t understand the God that I believe in” or “He’s deliberately misrepresenting or making fun of what I believe in.”
And yes, it goes both ways, and similar criticisms could be leveled against religious believers when dealing with atheists or with believers of different faiths.
I think not. People saw the sun com up every morning and wondered how and why. They came up with Helios and his steeds. They were wrong about that, but they were right in that there was something causing the sun to come up every morning. Given all the possible explanations I’ve heard regarding First Cause and our existence, a “being” that started it all off makes logical sense.
Agreed. When I say God, I don not mean the Christian God, simply a Supreme Being or Prime Mover. It could very well be that every religion known to man gets is 100% wrong. It could also be the case that this Being could care less about it, they we are mere detritus left over from some other grand plan. Still, we are here and got here somehow.
Fair enough; but I think that highlights something I meant to put in my clarification from earlier.
One major disadvantage for atheists/agnostics is that, at some point, if the conversation continues, they are going to have to say that not only do they disagree, but that the views held by theists (or deists) are just plain wrong. Even if someone with a golden tongue comes along to say this in the nicest, least combative way, it is nevertheless a complete refutation of some deeply helds views.
And to comment on a point that you may or may not be making, DtCis 100% equating “mythical creatures” with “big G God.” You do not. That is the “Philosophical Grand Canyon” to which I was referring. Even if you and I were having a convivial conversation over coffee and/or beer, if we were discussing this same topic, I would, even if I were as polite as pie, have to admit that I had exactly the same views. It’s not that DtC is hostile to theists, but rather that he has pointed out one of (if not the) fundamental differences between the atheist and theist philosophies.
If you accept the existence of that being without needing to know any details about it, then yes, it could make sense. If you want to know anything about it, you’re left with as many unanswered or unanswerable questions than you started with. Maybe more.
The Philosophical Grand Canyon (PGC) is significant, to be sure, but don’t we all live with lots of those every day? Is this one so much more important that Republican families wouldn’t mind their daughter dating me, but Christians would? (I’m speaking in general, of course- I haven’t dated a Republican girl, but was practically engaged to a Christian Scientist.)
Is that really true of agnostics? I would think that an agnostic wouldn’t say “You’re just plain wrong”; the furthest he would go would be to say “You can’t know that.”
As for atheists, why are they at any more of a disadvantage than anyone else? An atheist would have to tell a theist that he’s just plain wrong, but so would the theist have to tell the atheist that he’s just plain wrong. Jews, Christians, Moslems, Hindus, etc. would all have to tell each other that they’re just plain wrong about some of their deeply held beliefs.
How exactly do I stop Nednow or some other atheist from trying to get “under god” removed from the pledge of alligience?
There is no atheist’s organization that can kick Nednow out if he doesn’t shut up. He doesn’t represent anyone other than himself. Not to equate the two, but Christians don’t have much luck getting Fred Phelps to shut up.
Think about it for a minute. How would Christians, as a group, go about getting Fred Phelps to stop bashing gays? Legally, I mean.
There are no atheist spokesmen. Any atheist who speaks up about atheism speaks only for themselves. There are no atheist organizations, and even if there were they would only represent themselves. Why are most public atheists strong-willed, “eccentric”, or “assholes”? Because most people who aren’t “eccentric” realize there’s no point in bring up their atheism except in very restricted contexts. Most people just inherit their religion from their parents, so most atheists are people who have consciously rejected their family religion.
And I agree that the distinction between “weak atheism” and “strong atheism” is largely semantic. I believe in no gods, I don’t believe in any gods, I don’t believe Bill Clinton is an alien monster from beyond the moon, I believe Bill Clinton is not an alien monster from beyond the moon. How sure am I that Bill Clinton is not an alien monster from beyond the moon? Pretty sure. Yes, I’d reconsider my position if I saw the tentacles. But I’m sure I won’t see the tentacles, and even if I did see the tentacles I’d do some investigation before I called the National Enquirer. How sure am I that I won’t see the tentacles? Pretty sure. Does that make me intransigent? So what? Name me the gods, and I’ll disbelieve them.
Obviously, it is rather unlikely that any Christian woke up one morning, filled with a love for atheists that suddenly turned to revulsion for all atheists when they encountered O’Hair or Newdow on the news. One of the epithets freequently hurled by the foes of such nice, friendly deists as Tom Paine and Tom Jefferson was that they were atheists.
The point is not that anyone rejects atheists because they encountered O’Hair or Newdow, it is that (it seems to me) that they continue to reject atheists because they see only O’Hair and Newdow (and Dawkins) as atheists. If Sagan had been as open in his TV shows as he was in his books, that might have created a better image of atheists (or gotten the shows cancelled without further ado, of course).
I do not believe that atheists have ever done anything to legitimately bring disdain down on themselves. (For one thing, there is almost no “them”; you guys are less well organized than Democrats.)
However, if you are looking to change the beliefs held by some overwhelming majority of citizens, you are probably going to have to take active steps to induce those changes. The first paragraph of my second post was only partially facetious.
All the technical discussions about weak and strong and all the wrangling over the different levels and perspectives of belief and unbelief are rather irrelevant. The overwhelming number of people in the U.S. are simply not deep thinkers. They react to impressions they have based on unconsidered opinions that they pick up with the air they breathe. JustAnotherGeek’s rebuttal to my speculation may have some validity, but I suspect that there are not that many people who really look at his first point. The gulf exists, but similar gulfs exist with people wholly misunderstanding Jews or Catholics or Muslims or members of the CoJCotLDS. You would be amazed at what people, in ignorance, believe about those groups–and I am not sure that to the typical unthinking person, the difference between God/no god is much larger than that between my God/your god.
Regarding JustAnotherGeek’s second point, he and I may not be that far apart on understanding so much as viewing the same phenomena from different directions. He notes that he has broken down some problems by simply being a human in contact with other humans. I have had some similar situations, pointing out in church study groups that atheists are not god-hating demons hell bent on destroying the fabric of society. On the other hand, I have probably persuaded a half dozen people of that truth in a couple of years and at that rate JustAnotherGeek and I will persuade perhaps 200 of the nearly 300 million people in the U.S. before we die.