It may be that "many" Americans feel as this letter writer feels, but I would be willing to bet that it is a VERY small percentage who have such an extreme view. I would also bet that if this person was asked about terrorism, she'd have some fun things to say about religions other than Christianity (note her list of the religions you are free to follow). I know quite a few extremely religious people. Some are good people; some are not. Some follow the teachings of their religion; others do not. I would point out that this woman does not follow the teachings of Christianity (which speaks of loving ones neighbor and not judging others). I would certainly not take her word that the majority of Americans would love to see the athiests kicked out of America. It simply isn't true.
I find it amazing that she seems to believe that state sanctioned prayer in school can turn a country around. It is curious that many of the most religious people I know believe that there should be no such state sanctioned prayer in school. To assert that it is only the athiests who believe in the separation of church and state is also wrong. Surely, we can see that this is a letter written by an ignorant bigot. While it is true that there are far too many ignorant bigots in the world, it is also true that we should not take their rants as being anything more than the rants of ignorant bigots.
yoshi
· 2 years ago
I usually find these types of letters useful as they show moderate america the real agenda of the radical right ... thankfully they're influence is finally waning. however - to imply that this is what "america" feels about athiests (which is what you are doing) is just plain wrong. being gay I have many friends who are convinced that the trains to take them to the gas chambers will show up any day now and freak out when any little aggression is targeted at someone gay. even with Bush's and Congresses idiotic laws (drug/terror "wars", habious corpus, etc) we (athiest or gay) have never been more free in this country's history. The key is to keep it up attacking and winning the arguments and not to pass FUD.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
Wow, I clearly titled this post very poorly. Based on your responses I crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed. Yoshi used the FUD word, which is really bad in my book.
What I MEANT to say was that there are many American's who are sympathetic to the idea that "real" American's love God, and that if you don't love God you should not be here. I, for example, feel that way about this country to a significant extent, i.e. I feel that if you hate this country you shouldn't stick around and milk it while talking about how much it sucks.
I simply feel that many view hating God and hating this country as one in the same. So I wasn't saying that there were many who were as extreme as the writer of this editorial, but that many harbor the same sorts of feelings about atheism and America.
My apologies for the FUDiness...I'll try and be more careful.
-Daniel
Craig S Wright
· 2 years ago
Hello, I can understand both religion and agnosticism. As a scientist, mathematician and engineer however, I can not grasp atheism. There are two logical alternatives, belief and no belief. There are a large range of belief types. Both religion itself and atheism are religious belief structures.
Atheism is the belief that nothing exists. That there is definitively no God, higher power etc. This is a belief in a lack of a God and is thus still a belief. An agnostic on the other hand chooses not to believe – and requires (at least to a level) proof.
How can you logically state that there is nothing when you have no proof and yet try to convince people that your belief is founded on a logical assertion? This is a statement that is unproven and undefined. It remains logically open and to be an atheist is a logic anathema.
To take the two alternative sides, agnostics choose not to believe. They neither believe in the existence of God and nor do they believe in the absence of a God. They simply trust quantitative proofs and leave the unanswered questions. They seek not to define the undefinable. This is logically consistent with their outlook on life and is reflective in their credence.
Alternatively, there are those who believe. In many cases this is a simple belief. It is untested and based on a faith that is a rejection of their parents or peers or an unexplored grasping acceptance of them. I shall however concentrate on the few how choose a belief structure on diligent self-awareness.
In choosing to either believe or not, there is no logical foundation or basis. In serrating the believer or the agonistic, the level of self-awareness and contemplative thought is all that should determine the worthiness of their convictions. Without proof, none of us has a right or obligation to make others believe as we do. We have only our actions to turn people to our credos. Anything else is forced implication of a thought structure that belies the taking of the right and privilege of the freedom of our own belief.
This is wrong whether the person is an atheist or religious zealot. It is in either case a controlling impasse that leads nowhere.
Fundamental atheism is just as bad and any other type of fundamental thought. The imposed assertion that all people need to think the same belief and thought is wrong. I would ask how can you support this view and still protest freedom?
I would state that the biggest enemy to freedom and free thought and creativity is hypocrisy. This is true for the fundamentalist everywhere, be they atheist, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Taoist …..
Regards, Craig
PS Ignorant Christians who believe in a restriction of all rights are not truly Christians and thus make no impact to your argument. They are as correct in their convictions as the clergy who prescribed a flat world while reading and acknowledging the works or Aristotle – works that proved that the Earth is a sphere. Hypocrisy is duplicity in any form it manifests.
It discusses in great length the issue you brought up. I will say, however, that believing in leprechauns and not believing in them does NOT have equal value, and that is the logic flaw that you are making.
We aren't "unsure" about the Gods of Mt. Olympus. We aren't "agnostic" about fairies or broom-flying witches. The whole point that's being made when calling oneself an atheist is that the existing Judeo-Christian narritive is no different than these other things we already don't believe.
As such, I would argue that one should be atheistic about said beliefs, not agnostic. Agnostic implies doubt, i.e. not knowing either way whether or not there is a gigantic purple monster under your bed.
Agnosticism is well suited for things that have a factual answer that simply isn't known yet -- not to things that are matters of faith. And this is also the realm of atheism. It's not about being sure that there's NOTHING - ANYWHERE - EVER. It's about being sure that what these other people are talking about is utter nonsense.
Craig S Wright
· 2 years ago
Yes, I have seen this link and the profession that atheism is not a belief. You miss that not believing and having a belief in the absence are separate. You are confusing the lack of a belief with a conscious belief in the negative.
Not believing is by definition an agnostic comprehension. A belief in the negative is atheism. A lack of belief is thus an agnostic outlook, is this what you are professing? If so I have no qualms with what you state – just to point out the flaw in the linguistic taxonomy deployed.
Agnostic does not imply doubt; it is a choice that there is no proof. It is the decision to wait for knowledge and accept a proof and not make assumptions prior to this. Atheism is in fact a belief structure. It was stated as such when founded in the 17th century and even has quasi-religious roots.
If on the other hand you are stating that there is a creative force that is not God. That the Universe was created for an unknown reason and that there is no personal God in this process, this set of belief is what is known as Deism
As for certainty, you nor I nor any other can assert the cause of the Universe. There is no way to step outside the realm of the membrane that we exist on. There is no way to see beyond the beginning. Thus we have a belief as to what there is.
I am a positive realist. I chose how I believe, but trust me when I state that this is a belief in itself. The philosophical movement of Existentialism would have us believe that we exist in the structure of what we experience. A prison of our bounded minds so to speak. I can not disprove them, logically or metaphorically. They believe and I can not logically argue their belief as at the root of all proof is a level of belief.
The Matrix movies are essentially a neo-Existentialist construct. They seek to challenge all belief in the manner that nothing we experience may be true. I choose not to believe this; however I can neither disprove it.
Atheism is the same. There is no way to prove the assertion and to do so creates a logical fallacy.
Much of this comes to the definition of belief. In some of your arguments you confuse knowledge and belief.
Regards, Craig
J. Bo
· 2 years ago
Agnosticism is not knowing. I think that we can all agree that there is no way to know whether a god does or does not exist based on the information we currently have. Therefore, everyone is Agnostic by definition. Theists have faith that god exists. Faith is a belief with no need for evidence. They don't know that god exists, but they believe in god and their belief comes from faith. Atheists on the other hand, find no reason to believe in god, therefore do not believe. I think there is a difference between "knowledge" and "belief". I think that everyone is agnostic, for now, but everyone also falls into 1 of 2 camps at any given time and there is NO in between. Either you actively believe in god or you don't believe in god. It is not enough to say, there is not evidence, therefore I dont know whether I am believing in a god or am not believing in a god. Either you are an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, and each category has a varying strength of belief or non-belief to which one is almost certain. You cannot claim agnositicism as an excuse to sit on the fence.
All Comments
I find it amazing that she seems to believe that state sanctioned prayer in school can turn a country around. It is curious that many of the most religious people I know believe that there should be no such state sanctioned prayer in school. To assert that it is only the athiests who believe in the separation of church and state is also wrong. Surely, we can see that this is a letter written by an ignorant bigot. While it is true that there are far too many ignorant bigots in the world, it is also true that we should not take their rants as being anything more than the rants of ignorant bigots.
What I MEANT to say was that there are many American's who are sympathetic to the idea that "real" American's love God, and that if you don't love God you should not be here. I, for example, feel that way about this country to a significant extent, i.e. I feel that if you hate this country you shouldn't stick around and milk it while talking about how much it sucks.
I simply feel that many view hating God and hating this country as one in the same. So I wasn't saying that there were many who were as extreme as the writer of this editorial, but that many harbor the same sorts of feelings about atheism and America.
My apologies for the FUDiness...I'll try and be more careful.
-Daniel
I can understand both religion and agnosticism. As a scientist, mathematician and engineer however, I can not grasp atheism. There are two logical alternatives, belief and no belief. There are a large range of belief types. Both religion itself and atheism are religious belief structures.
Atheism is the belief that nothing exists. That there is definitively no God, higher power etc. This is a belief in a lack of a God and is thus still a belief. An agnostic on the other hand chooses not to believe – and requires (at least to a level) proof.
How can you logically state that there is nothing when you have no proof and yet try to convince people that your belief is founded on a logical assertion? This is a statement that is unproven and undefined. It remains logically open and to be an atheist is a logic anathema.
To take the two alternative sides, agnostics choose not to believe. They neither believe in the existence of God and nor do they believe in the absence of a God. They simply trust quantitative proofs and leave the unanswered questions. They seek not to define the undefinable. This is logically consistent with their outlook on life and is reflective in their credence.
Alternatively, there are those who believe. In many cases this is a simple belief. It is untested and based on a faith that is a rejection of their parents or peers or an unexplored grasping acceptance of them. I shall however concentrate on the few how choose a belief structure on diligent self-awareness.
In choosing to either believe or not, there is no logical foundation or basis. In serrating the believer or the agonistic, the level of self-awareness and contemplative thought is all that should determine the worthiness of their convictions. Without proof, none of us has a right or obligation to make others believe as we do. We have only our actions to turn people to our credos. Anything else is forced implication of a thought structure that belies the taking of the right and privilege of the freedom of our own belief.
This is wrong whether the person is an atheist or religious zealot. It is in either case a controlling impasse that leads nowhere.
Fundamental atheism is just as bad and any other type of fundamental thought. The imposed assertion that all people need to think the same belief and thought is wrong. I would ask how can you support this view and still protest freedom?
I would state that the biggest enemy to freedom and free thought and creativity is hypocrisy. This is true for the fundamentalist everywhere, be they atheist, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Taoist …..
Regards,
Craig
PS Ignorant Christians who believe in a restriction of all rights are not truly Christians and thus make no impact to your argument. They are as correct in their convictions as the clergy who prescribed a flat world while reading and acknowledging the works or Aristotle – works that proved that the Earth is a sphere. Hypocrisy is duplicity in any form it manifests.
I'd encourage you to check out this thread:
http://dmiessler.com/archives/1197
It discusses in great length the issue you brought up. I will say, however, that believing in leprechauns and not believing in them does NOT have equal value, and that is the logic flaw that you are making.
We aren't "unsure" about the Gods of Mt. Olympus. We aren't "agnostic" about fairies or broom-flying witches. The whole point that's being made when calling oneself an atheist is that the existing Judeo-Christian narritive is no different than these other things we already don't believe.
As such, I would argue that one should be atheistic about said beliefs, not agnostic. Agnostic implies doubt, i.e. not knowing either way whether or not there is a gigantic purple monster under your bed.
Agnosticism is well suited for things that have a factual answer that simply isn't known yet -- not to things that are matters of faith. And this is also the realm of atheism. It's not about being sure that there's NOTHING - ANYWHERE - EVER. It's about being sure that what these other people are talking about is utter nonsense.
Not believing is by definition an agnostic comprehension. A belief in the negative is atheism. A lack of belief is thus an agnostic outlook, is this what you are professing? If so I have no qualms with what you state – just to point out the flaw in the linguistic taxonomy deployed.
Agnostic does not imply doubt; it is a choice that there is no proof. It is the decision to wait for knowledge and accept a proof and not make assumptions prior to this. Atheism is in fact a belief structure. It was stated as such when founded in the 17th century and even has quasi-religious roots.
If on the other hand you are stating that there is a creative force that is not God. That the Universe was created for an unknown reason and that there is no personal God in this process, this set of belief is what is known as Deism
As for certainty, you nor I nor any other can assert the cause of the Universe. There is no way to step outside the realm of the membrane that we exist on. There is no way to see beyond the beginning. Thus we have a belief as to what there is.
I am a positive realist. I chose how I believe, but trust me when I state that this is a belief in itself. The philosophical movement of Existentialism would have us believe that we exist in the structure of what we experience. A prison of our bounded minds so to speak. I can not disprove them, logically or metaphorically. They believe and I can not logically argue their belief as at the root of all proof is a level of belief.
The Matrix movies are essentially a neo-Existentialist construct. They seek to challenge all belief in the manner that nothing we experience may be true. I choose not to believe this; however I can neither disprove it.
Atheism is the same. There is no way to prove the assertion and to do so creates a logical fallacy.
Much of this comes to the definition of belief. In some of your arguments you confuse knowledge and belief.
Regards,
Craig
I think there is a difference between "knowledge" and "belief". I think that everyone is agnostic, for now, but everyone also falls into 1 of 2 camps at any given time and there is NO in between. Either you actively believe in god or you don't believe in god. It is not enough to say, there is not evidence, therefore I dont know whether I am believing in a god or am not believing in a god. Either you are an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, and each category has a varying strength of belief or non-belief to which one is almost certain. You cannot claim agnositicism as an excuse to sit on the fence.