Given that my attempt to respond to your previous asking of this question resulted in you completely 180 degrees misrepresenting my answer, making personal attacks, and otherwise violating the long-published comments policy, I will NOT be engaging in further attempts, Nevin. There is no point in providing answers to someone who will only appears inclined to lie about what those answers were if it doesn’t fit their preconceived notions.

P.S. It is standard practice to delete ALL comments that make personal attacks, blatantly misrepresent the statements of another person, and/or attempt to argue publicly about the comments policy. If you had been someone with a worse track record before this series of incidents, you would have been banned already. You should take your complaints about the comments policy to email ONLY.

We should not be “good” just because we are afraid that God will punish us otherwise. We should be good for the sake of being good.

I feel you have a basic misunderstanding of what most religious people believe. Perhaps a minority of them base their beliefs on fear, but for my own Church and most others that I’m somewhat familiar with, we feel the same as you do about being good for the sake of being good (although we augment that with the belief that this is in essence, aligning our will with God’s because He=Good, and that doing so is in our interest because he designed us to do these good works for the benefit of all creation.)

If you are going to criticize religious belief, wouldn’t it make sense to become more informed about what it is we actually believe? Just as religious people ought to feel comfortable finding common ground with nonbelievers in the interest of good works, it ought to work the other way as well IMO.

And as to the militancy issue, that’s pretty much where I draw the line. People who won’t be bothered to take the time to learn the positive side of religion through the ages, and won’t take the time to even gain a cursory knowledge of what most religions believe (and why the followers adhere to the religion), but find time to criticize and speak out against every negative action that has been related to religion, are militant and intolerant activists IMO. Again, note that the definition of militancy is distinct from the definition of ‘violent’. It speaks to an aggressiveness which seeks to defeat an opponent rather than an intellectually honest movement to gain credibility for an alternative belief system or philosophy which espouses lack of belief.

I have NOT criticized religious belief. Merely affirming the fact that morality does NOT depend on religion is NOT a criticism of religion or religious belief. I am merely stating the fact that organized religions do NOT have a monopoly on morality. And THIS is what I get out of the advertisement on the bus.

Christine, please tell me how you infer from this statement that I am either critical of religious belief or not religious at all, as you are suggesting that I learn more about what it is that “religious people” believe.

Also, what makes you think that I’m not religious? I think I have a right to ask this question.

Jason, the word “militant” is a misrepresentation in and of itself unless it refers to people who are either threatening with violence or otherwise engaging in physical actions. This word is the only misrepresentation that I’m seeing in this thread so far.

I do not agree that “militant” refers only to violence. Militancy can also refer to an aggressive, obstreperous attitude that is intolerant towards all those that disagree. This variety of militancy seems to me somewhat common among the atheists who are the public face of their movement in the media and on the blogosphere. Perhaps instead of just trying to nit-pick the terminology and thus hope to evade all criticism by rendering it impossible to find an acceptable language to express any criticism of atheism (notably using standards that they do not use themselves with regards to militant Christians), the defenders of militant atheists should engage with the substance of the criticisms.

Jason, I dealt with the substance of what was on the bus. As much as atheism bothers and offends people and inspires “militant” responses from them, the ad makes merely makes the point that religion is not a condition or basis for morality. And for that, I was understood as someone who did not understand religons or religious people. Also Nevin was not greeted in a warm and fuzzy fashion either. I assume your definition of “militancy” would apply to how the “opposition’s” opinions have been received in this thread?

Selin, I apologize if I overstepped in my assumptions but my statement there was in reference to your own quote. You wrote that we shouldn’t be good just for fear of punishment by God, and I’m pointing out that this is a common misunderstanding that many nonreligious people have about the motivations of religious people. If you aren’t a nonreligious person, well, then you and I just disagree on what motivates religious belief and practice I guess. I don’t believe the vast majority of religious people choose their actions based on a belief that they will be rewarded or punished- any more than any person chooses, say. not to steal or murder based just on whether or not they’ll get caught.

Personally I don’t think the bus advertisement is an example of militancy, and I’m not sure Jason’s claiming that either. But it does veer toward, as I referenced earlier, an ‘in your face’ approach because instead of advertising about the shared values (the type of campaign I think would be more likely to result in increased acceptance of atheism/agnosticism), the ad instead chooses to focuses on appealing to the atheists without regard for how it plays to religious people.

And the only thing I really find annoying about it is that it’s an attempt to put the final nail in the coffin of spirituality in our celebration of Christmas. The holidays have already been stripped of most religious meaning by our overly commercialized culture, so it’s a bit ridiculous for atheists to still feel the need to push for stronger secularization (without even acknowledging that the holiday itself wouldn’t exist if not for the religious traditions of our culture.) It’s in that regard that I feel the ad probably has more blowback than positive effect, but that’s just my opinion and again, I don’t think the ad itself is an example of militancy (just tone deafness toward the feelings of others- which generally isn’t a good approach if one feels that others are tone deaf toward you.)

Not a problem at all, Christine. I just feel everyone is way overreacting to everything nowadays, including the ad on the bus, the opposition to the ad on the bus, the supporters of gay marriage, the supporters of opponents of gay marriage, and so on. These are not hot-button issues for me, although I have other issues that I may be “militant” about.

Personally I don’t think the bus advertisement is an example of militancy, and I’m not sure Jason’s claiming that either.

I explicitly said that it was not and example of militancy. The ad seemed quite mild, especially compared to other things that have become the dominant public face of atheism. The only objection I have to it is that, in spite of its mildness, it still expresses the inherent negativity and contempt/condescension lying at the core of atheist ideology.

And Selin, yes, I am “militant” about confronting people who lie about what other people did and did not actually say. Such behavior makes me very angry and hostile towards the person doing it. That is the reason that I react differently to Grewgills/Nevin than I do to, say, Claudia. All those people disagree with me wrt this issue, but GG/Nevin have been dishonest in their characterizations of what I did or didn’t say while Claudia has not.

Perhaps instead of just trying to nit-pick the terminology and thus hope to evade all criticism by rendering it impossible to find an acceptable language to express any criticism of atheism

So holding you to actual dictionary definitions is evasion?

(notably using standards that they do not use themselves with regards to militant Christians)

Wrong again, I am precise there as well, though I don’t recall criticizing Christians at this venue. The only commentary I believe I have made here that could be construed as criticism of Christians here is that if one were to hold Christians or theists in general to the same standards that some want to hold atheists to then they would be found wanting as well. I have argued for a single standard and precision in language. And once again with out some precision in language and agreed upon definitions rational argument is not productive.

the defenders of militant atheists should engage with the substance of the criticisms.

Read my comments. They engage both the substance and semantics of your and others arguments. To imply otherwise is not honest.

The only objection I have to it is that, in spite of its mildness, it still expresses the inherent negativity and contempt/condescension lying at the core of atheist ideology.

Two points here aside from the improper use of ideology:
1) You say that you are only criticizing a subset of atheists and then you bust out with this. Do you actually believe that at the core of all atheist ideologies (not a single ideology) lies negativity, contempt, and condescension? Where is it in existentialism for instance?
2) Where is the contempt or condescension?
How do you express your lack of belief in a deity(s) without being labeled negative by you? I see no way using your apparent standard for atheists to avoid this criticism. Does our unified lack of belief in unicorns make us inherently negative in our ideologies?

That is the reason that I react differently to Grewgills/Nevin than I do to, say, Claudia.

I respond to both the explicit and implicit messages in comments. When I respond to the implicit message you point out that it was not the explicit message and call me a liar. That is not conducive to reasoned debate.
I will also point out that I have exclusively addressed arguments and have refrained until the following phrase from ad hominem, unlike some here.

So holding you to actual dictionary definitions is evasion?

Holding me to selected, partial dictionary definitions that are only interpreted according to your self-serving standards while you refuse to even respond to my counter-interpretations and while you ignore the substantive content of my criticisms to focus exclusively on your semantic obsessions is, in my opinion, evasion.

I respond to both the explicit and implicit messages in comments. When I respond to the implicit message you point out that it was not the explicit message and call me a liar. That is not conducive to reasoned debate.

You call it “implicit messages”. I call it reading into my statements things that are not actually there and, on at least two occasions, things that I had explicitly disavowed. For example, I have repeatedly made clear that I don’t think that the subway ad is “militant” anyway, but you and Nevin keep bringing us back to the accusation that I am citing this as some kind of example of “militant” atheism, no doubt as some kind of perception of an “implicit” argument from me. It is ridiculous to find implicit that which has been disavowed explicitly. If you don’t like being called on it, don’t do it.

And I don’t think you get to legitimately complain about the absence of “reasoned debate” when you are the one that keeps hijacking threads with your attempts to impose your very narrow definitions and interpretations as mandatory and since you are the one that refuses to address substance until you gain concession of your claim of exclusive authority to definitively determine what terms everyone is allowed to use.

Perhaps we could just agree to disagree about whether the words “militant” or “ideology” are correct and just focus on the substantive issues? Do you think you could tolerate that? Or must you “win” that discussion before you will condescend to address minor and lesser issues like people losing their jobs and having their churches vandalized as a result of nothing more than their status as religious believers?

P.S. No ad hom attack has been made on you. In fact, none is possible since you do not disclose any details about who you are. The things you have actually said have provoked criticism for their lack of honesty, but that is criticism of behavior, not personal identity. I would have expected that someone with such a fixation on dictionary definitions would have known the difference without my having to point it out to you.

Tell me, Kathy, who would be banning all organized religion if not the state?

I don’t agree that all organized religion should be banned — by the state or any other entity. Banning all organized religion would not eliminate homophobia or hatred grounded in or justified by religious doctrine anyway, for the simple reason that human beings create religions, and hatred is a human character trait. The hatred doesn’t come from religion; it comes from humans, who use religion to try to normalize their hatred.

Having said that, I think it’s possible to see Elton John’s statement as hyperbolic. He’s gay (as we all know) and religiously based anti-gay legislation is not just a topic of political debate for him; it’s an existential issue. At the same time, he strikes me as an intelligent man, and I doubt he really believes homophobic feeling and writing discrimination against gays and lesbians into the law would end merely by making organized religion illegal.

Kathy, you seem to have a double standard in how you interpret bigoted statements and hateful behavior. When they come from fundamentalist Christians like James Dobson, you interpret them as indicative of genuine malevolence that is dangerous. You further interpret them as accurate indications of the beliefs of the entire group they claim to represent. When they come from anti-Christians like Elton John, however, you interpret them as merely hyperbolic and harmless and not indicative of anything except the statements of an isolated individual. Those you agree with in principle seem incapable in your eyes of anything more than mere hyperbole, while those you disagree with have all their statements and actions interpreted in the worst possible light.

I don’t think that is a pattern of fairness on your part or the part of some of the other defenders of atheism that have been posting here lately as well as those gay rights advocates who have been targeting Mormons for harassment, intimidation, and vandalism over the last couple of weeks. Either bigoted statements and actions are wrong or they are not, there should not be a special set of excuses for liberals and leftists and atheists alone to escape accountability for their statements while conservatives, rightists, and religious believers have to be accountability for anything and everything they said or that is said allegedly on their behalf.

Holding me to selected, partial dictionary definitions that are only interpreted according to your self-serving standards

I cut and pasted from Websters and theology.com and I used the definitions appropriate for the context. For instance when providing the definition for ideology I did not include:

visionary theorizing

because it was not relevant to the discussion, not out of some supposed self serving standard. I will note that atheism does not fit this definition of ideology either. That is both of Websters full definitions of ideology and neither fits. Try again.
I have repeatedly made comments that dealt with virtually point you put forward, while you cherry pick my comments for excuses not to engage with the substance of the rest of my argument. You then accuse me of evasion.

You call it “implicit messages”. I call it reading into my statements things that are not actually there

Then what is the purpose of bringing up Elton John in the context of this argument? Indeed what it the point of bringing up militant antitheists in both threads that I have seen you comment on atheists publicly stating their views on god?
I can frankly see no point in it other than an attempt to tar the one group with the views of the other. If you have another valid reason please state it explicitly.

and, on at least two occasions, things that I had explicitly disavowed. For example, I have repeatedly made clear that I don’t think that the subway ad is “militant” anyway, but you and Nevin keep bringing us back to the accusation that I am citing this as some kind of example of “militant” atheism

Please provide the quote where I said or implied any such thing. If you cannot please hold yourself to the same standard that you hold me to.

And I don’t think you get to legitimately complain about the absence of “reasoned debate” when you are the one that keeps hijacking threads with your attempts to impose your very narrow definitions and interpretations as mandatory

Once again they are not my definitions. They are Websters. If you have another authoritative source that defines these terms in the way you are attempting to use them provide it as a counter. And one more time, reasoned debate is not possible when people are using different definitions for the same terms. The honest and reasonable thing to do is to use accepted definitions (Websters, OED, and the like). How exactly is this an unreasonable request?

you are the one that refuses to address substance until you gain concession of your claim

I think any reasonable reading of my comments will show that I addressed both the substance and the semantics of your arguments (and those of other participants). I welcome mediation or arbitration on this point from other editors and/or commenters.

Perhaps we could just agree to disagree about whether the words “militant” or “ideology”

If you look back you will see that the definition of militant I provided (from Websters) comfortably holds your usage.
Re: ideology your use of the term amounts to a substantive issue in this debate as it creates a unity that is not present.

P.S. No ad hom attack has been made on you.

Calling me a liar or saying I belong in a liars hall of fame is attacking me rather than my argument and therefor is ad hominem. Attacking points of my argument you think are false is not. There is a difference.

Re: Elton John
As Kathy pointed out I would think that his comments stem more from his sexuality and his feelings of persecution on that front than his religious belief or lack thereof. What he said remains foolish and not representative of the atheist or homosexual community at large.

You have ignored well over half of the specific points I have made in rebuttal to your arguments. I would appreciate if you would attempt to address the rest.

Grewgills,

I maintain that the term “ideology” is appropriate because of the key continuity between atheist arguments — specifically, the interconnecting and intrinsic claims of the definitive non-existence of God and the intellectual and moral inferiority of believers.

I you cannot tolerate a discussion where I maintain that position as a premise for other remarks I might make, that’s your prerogative. But I think I have the right to reject your demands that I alter my words as a precondition, especially since I have no doubt that you would reject any reciprocal demands.

specifically, the interconnecting and intrinsic claims of the definitive non-existence of God and the intellectual and moral inferiority of believers.

The intellectual and moral inferiority of believers is not an intrinsic claim of atheism or of atheists in general. Just because a variety of theist dogmas assert the moral inferiority of non-believers does not mean the reciprocal is true.

I you cannot tolerate a discussion where I maintain that position as a premise for other remarks

I can tolerate it, but I will also argue that you are basing your arguments on a false premise.

But I think I have the right to reject your demands that I alter my words as a precondition, especially since I have no doubt that you would reject any reciprocal demands.

That would depend entirely on the demand and the support provided.

A question for you, is theism an ideology?

And again I request that you address the many other rebuttal points I have made.

Kathy, you seem to have a double standard in how you interpret bigoted statements and hateful behavior. When they come from fundamentalist Christians like James Dobson, you interpret them as indicative of genuine malevolence that is dangerous. You further interpret them as accurate indications of the beliefs of the entire group they claim to represent. When they come from anti-Christians like Elton John, however, you interpret them as merely hyperbolic and harmless and not indicative of anything except the statements of an isolated individual.

Whoa nelly, Jason — that is an awesomely sweeping conclusion to take from what I wrote about Elton John.

First off, I did not know Elton John had made this statement (or more to the point held the view) until it came up here. I don’t have any larger context of past behavior, statements, or practice that would indicate to me that he seriously believes organized religion should be banned by law and is working to make that happen.

James Dobson, on the other hand (and others of his ilk) have a very long history of holding deplorably hateful and bigoted attitudes toward gays and lesbians, feminists, pro-choice advocates, atheists and agnostics, Muslims, wiccans, and anyone else who doesn’t share their narrow Christianist worldview. He also is an influential figure in a politically and financially powerful movement that not only advocates taking away people’s rights, but actually has participated in efforts to do so.

Second, James Dobson has not been harmed by any of the people and groups he hates so much and reviles at every opportunity. Even granting for the sake of argument that his views are sincerely held and not opportunistic or hypocritical, he has experienced no injury (in the broadest sense of that word) from feminists, abortion providers, homosexuals, etc. Therefore, his biases are much less easy to understand as anything other than unreasoning hatred of people whose views or lives don’t conform with his own extreme right-wing religious beliefs.

Elton John, by contrast, is a gay man who for much of his life had to lie about and hide a central part of who he is because of other people’s prejudices. He, like all people who are attracted to and fall in love with others of their same gender, has experienced discrimination sanctioned by law; has had to pretend to laugh at homophobic jokes; has had to deny himself the simple joy of holding the hand of the man he loves when they are in public (not as much now but for much of his life), or of being open about who his partner is when talking to others. It hurts to keep feelings inside, as one of the lines in a Gerry Goffin/Louise Goffin song goes. And some people have had a lifetime of keeping really strong and important feelings inside, feelings essential to who they are as a person.

Given these things — that, for me, Elton John’s comment really might have been an offhand comment because I never heard him advocate that before, as opposed to Dobson, who makes millions saying what he says ad nauseum; and that Dobson has no reason to feel angry or wounded by someone like Elton John (in the sense of who he is, setting aside the specific comment) whereas John has ample reason to feel angry and wounded by the entire M.O. of Dobson’s career, I think the charge of a double standard is a bit overblown.