Rise of the New Atheism

Godlessness takes the offensive

By Christian Carvajal on September 23, 2010

Kinder, gentler Atheism

Washington is hardly the most fervently churchgoing state in the union. Even in 2001, before the rise of New Atheism, a full quarter of Washingtonians polled claimed no religious affiliation whatsoever, the highest fraction anywhere in the country. Yet the FFRF's Christmas display and its subsequent notoriety made it clear that even here in the Pacific Northwest, New Atheists are widely seen as arrogant spoilsports. That view is shared, oddly enough, by many local disbelievers. We spoke to Amanda (last name withheld), a member of Tacoma Atheists (tacomaatheists.com). She advocates a more welcoming form of disbelief and sees Tacoma Atheists, in part, as "a landing pad" for atheists who've been ostracized from their religious families. "We don't have a board, per se," she says. "It's very informal. ... It's a social organization that exists to bring members of the non-religious community together. ... In some cases, members have actually housed people who've been kicked out of the house."

Amanda categorically rejects the idea that atheists need to proselytize believers. "It is not only wrong and unethical," she says, "it also doesn't work. I don't like it when people try to convert me, so I don't do it to them." She objected to the FFRF Christmas display, then and now. She sees it as "a coarse and insensitive solution to the problem of religion encroaching onto government. (The FFRF) goes to state capitols around the country with the same sign with the express intention of inciting controversy. ... It's effective, but difficult for everyone involved, and (it) brought out some real ugliness. ... (T)he resulting animosity just set nonbelievers two steps back in our communities." She prefers the sign she helped write for the Capitol grounds in 2009. It read, in part, "(K)indness, charity, and goodwill transcend belief, creed, or religion. Happy holidays."

"I don't think I have the right to care whether people are religious or not," she muses. "I think people can believe whatever they believe. And honestly, I think if people think about it more, they probably will end up being at least agnostic."

Unlike Amanda, whose parents "weren't especially religious," Tacoma Atheist Dan Mauch went from Catholicism to the Pentecostal Church before abandoning Christian faith altogether. "When you come out as an atheist, you have to accept that you're going to lose some friends, and there's a possibility of losing some family as well." He believes the difficulties he experienced keep some people in organized religion despite internal skepticism.

I asked him what he thinks of New Atheist tactics. He thinks it's important for atheism to embrace all approaches to disbelief, from the relative ambivalence of deism to social and support groups like Tacoma Atheists to the more zealously "anti-religious" crusaders. "We're natural allies," he says.

Dawkins refers to faith as a "virus" and says "(i)t's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation." He feels we should no more refer to a "Baptist child" than we would a "Republican child." Hitchens views recent molestation scandals as the all but inevitable result of Catholic sexual repression. I asked Mauch if he feels Dawkins is right to claim the religious indoctrination of children is a form of child abuse.

"I think he's overstating his case," he replies. "He's more of a firebrand than most atheists in America." Mauch does, however, believe religion has no place in public policy. "If you're going to live in a democracy, then you have to explain why certain beliefs are best for the country, and if you can't do that without resorting to ‘God said so,' then it's not a valid argument."

Blasphemers unleashed!

The theory of evolution wasn't new when Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, but the concept of natural selection and subsequent fossil discoveries offered a reply to the so-called "watchmaker" argument posed by philosopher William Paley and many others. If we found a watch in the desert, Paley asked, would we assume it appeared spontaneously, or that someone designed and built it? Evolutionists were finally able to retort, "Ah, but what if you found layer upon layer of primitive watches below it, passing gradually through sundials to a sharp vertical rock? Then what would the evidence suggest?"

As science became more codified in the 19th and 20th centuries, the scientific method insisted on repeatable, unfalsifiable experimentation, and the influence of clerics and philosophical apologists dwindled.

In A History of God, Karen Armstrong wrote, "In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word ‘atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic. ... The term ‘atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist." Indeed, the majesty of the universe allowed no viable option but creationism, at least until Darwin proposed natural selection as the engine of evolution. But even then, the question of how life began in the first place left a huge gap only an omnipotent Creator seemed capable of filling.

Annoyed by reasonable refutation of fundamentalist doctrine, some believers retreated to safer refuge, namely, the deist concept of a physicist God who kick-started the universe, then stood back invisibly to watch it do its thing. They posit a God so imperceptible and amorphous that no one could ever disprove His/Her/Its existence. Even that was too much for some atheists. In 1952, philosopher Bertrand Russell suggested that if sacred texts taught there were a small teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars, those who questioned that dogma would be regarded as kooks - despite the unlikelihood of any miraculous space teapot existing in the first place. In 2005, Oregon State physics graduate Bobby Henderson expanded on this idea by founding the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, later dubbed "Pastafarianism." The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) was conceived as an omniscient, undetectable deity composed of ethereal spaghetti and meatballs - a being every bit as possible as the deist Creator.

Inspired by 9/11, an attack he saw as representative of the destructive power of fundamentalism, Sam Harris wrote The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason in 2004. (Atheism is still against the law in several Islamic countries.) That book stayed on the New York Times bestseller list for months and was followed by Harris's equally successful Letter to a Christian Nation, which he wrote "to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms." His work was followed by that of Dawkins, a writer whose best known work had been a relatively easygoing pop science book, The Selfish Gene. The term "New Atheism" first appeared in Wired magazine in 2006 and was embraced by both key practitioners and detractors. It marked a sea change from the passive, even closeted atheism of centuries past.

Now even agnostics, those who believe the existence of a Creator can neither be proven nor disproven, are under fire. Activist Madalyn Murray O'Hair believed "the agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp." Stephen Colbert put it more succinctly: "Agnostics are just atheists without balls." The irony of atheistic zealotry isn't lost on anyone - well, almost anyone. "Called the new atheists, they are not content to keep their views to themselves. Rather, they are on a crusade." That warning appears in, of all places, the November 2010 issue of Awake! Magazine - which is written and published by Jehovah's Witnesses, a group hardly known for concealing its own views.

The New Atheists treat the Abrahamic faiths as a "God hypothesis." Creationist theism, which was once considered exempt from scientific experiment, is now seen by these authors as either verifiable or, in their view, refuted. In The God Delusion, Dawkins writes, "(T)he designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. ... It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable." Particle physicist William J. Stenger takes it even further in his 2007 book, God: The Failed Hypothesis. "We now have considerable empirical data ... that bear on the question of God's existence," he asserts. "If we have no evidence or other reason for believing in God, then we can be pretty sure that God does not exist."

Only a few short decades ago, Stephen Jay Gould, one of the best known evolutionists, maintained science and religion were "non-overlapping magisteria" through which science studied nature using empirical methods, and religion pondered meaning and morality. New Atheists insist such religious claims as the Adam and Eve account, global deluge, virgin birth, resurrection and the necessity of a soul to explain human consciousness are, in fact, scientific theories subject to experimentation and, quite possibly, obsolescence. They have little patience with Intelligent Design creationism, and they adamantly oppose the introduction of ID philosophy into high school science curricula.

Détente?

Firebrands on either side of the issue attract the most press, and apocalyptic fundamentalists like Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins of the Left Behind series sell plenty of their own books. That leaves congenial believers and disbelievers (that is, most of us) with something in common. Mainstream Christians worry they'll be lumped in with fanatics like Pastor Terry Jones or the terrorists who bomb abortion clinics, while mainstream atheists dread the fallout from New Atheism's assault on Christianity. But even if such publicly combative disbelievers as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens make it easier for skeptics to desert religion, this could still be the appropriate time to throttle back. After all, the more abrasive and less compromising these self-appointed spokesmen become, the easier it is for religious apologists to accuse them of adopting a worldview based primarily on faith (in godless naturalism) and self-aggrandizement. And really, wasn't that the problem with fundamentalist religion in the first place?

Pastor Philip Nesvig of the First Lutheran Church of Tacoma believes the New Atheists' attacks on the science of Genesis are "a red herring. ... It's Who, not how. We're not debating the how of creation. (Genesis) is the voice of an ancient theologian more than an ancient scientist. The focus is, ‘In the beginning, God.' ... God is the Creator and calls human beings to be stewards of creation." I asked Pastor Nesvig whether he thinks there's room for cooperation between science and religion. "There's certainly a healthy conversation going on," he replied. "Faith and science are in tension, not in contradiction. They have different purposes. ... The purpose of science is to tell how, and the purpose of religion is to tell why. ... It's a continual walking side by side with questions of meaning and questions of origin. Questions of how ask for origins. Questions of why ask for meaning."

Monday, Sept. 27 & Wednesday, Sept. 29: Melvins

Rev. Adam McKinney on September 23rd, 2010

Comments for "Rise of the New Atheism" (51)

Weekly Volcano is not responsible for the content of these comments. Weekly Volcano reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.

Freeeedom said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 8:28am

REAP what they have SOWN

The Watchtower has been a source of hate Literature for over 100 years.
Watchtower and other Jehovahs Witness publications have been full of slanderous, half-truth, deceiving, misleading hatefilled articles and lies.
The Jehovahs Witnesses on one hand fill their books and lectures with details about how evil and corrupt every other religion is, but then when theirs is exposed as corrupt they fall back on how itâ€™s *voluntary* to be a member, and how its not nice to say nasty things about them, and how they are being *persecuted*.

michael said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 9:00am

The only difference between the "new atheist" and the "old atheist" is we no longer sit at the back of the bus. Now we come out of the closet, speak loud and clear while looking the theist in the eye. No more timidity. We've caught the eye of the media and thus the ear of the public and that scares the heII out of theistic religion. Their sheep may question and stray from the flock. The power of the priests of mythology is waning. Ignorance gives way to enlightenment. Full speed ahead!

Geoff said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 10:37am

I agree with what Michael said. Religion keeps Atheism in the public eye just as much as we atheists do. I am not out to convert people into non-believers, but I don't agree with this notion that non-believers need to continue to sit down and shut up so that believers can continue to spread whatever message they want to spread, unchallenged.

Most atheists just want equally ground, but in taking a stand for that right, religion calls it an attack. How dare we attack their right to put up a display by putting up our own?

Ignorance should be fought no matter what robe it wears.

Eric said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 10:38am

I don't think the new/gnu athiests are really all that new. They've always been there, and many have always been out, loud and proud. The difference now is that there's the internet, where a bunch of isolated nonbelievers can make themselves heard as a group.

I suppose some of it is just exhaustion. As an atheist myself, and a not-especially loud one at that, I've been told by numerous people - elderly relatives, neighbors, schoolmates, and other people who ostensibly know that I'm a pretty upstanding guy, good citizien, never speak ill of anybody, celebrate christmas with my family, etc - that I'm a terrible amoral person who will spend an eternity in torment. After a while, you just feel you need to step forward and say "look, you're telling me I'm awful, with nothing to back that up other than a belief that I simply don't share. If you can criticize my lack of beleif, I think it's wholly justified that I can take a critical look at yours."

I'm the first to admit that many atheists come off as smug, and that's a problem. As much as Ophelia Benson likes to say we don't need to respect religion, I'm lean the way that we can respect the person and not the belief. Kinda like the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing I hear so much about. Certainly there's a lot of useless vitriol on both sides of the divide, filled with oversimplified arguments, Godwinism, name-calling, etc. It's really not helping anybody.

(I suspect that people think Hitchens and Dawkins are so "shrill" simply becasue they've not watched enough British comedy and mistake very dry wit for actual anger. That's just my hypothesis, though. I haven't had any peer-reviewed research on the topic yet, so bear that in mind.)

The fact is, though, there's a lot of us. Not as many as there are, say, Hindus, but there are a lot of us. And we're tired of being told we're de facto terrible people, being told we should keep our opinions to ourselves because this is a christian nation (which probably comes as a surpirse to all the non-christian believers we have here too), and being told we're the cause of everything wrong in scoiety. We're not. We're people like you, we just don't believe in your holy scriptures nor anyone else's. And we simply want a voice. We're fond of reason and rational discussion - if you come at us with that we're likely to listen to you regardless of your religious affiliation.

Razorhoof said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 11:51am

this is the problem with the religious right- we are expected to read billboards, be given fliers and pamphlets and allow people onto our porch to spread the word of god, and yet if I do any of these proclaiming Atheism I am being offensive and crazy. Keep your God out of my Government and out of my face. I'm tired of it. All my life I've been looked at like I was the crazy one. Do you know what the Atheist population in Europe is like? The US is reverting back to this puritanical fundamentalist structure and it kills me.

Simon Gardner said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 11:58am

"The purpose of science is to tell how, and the purpose of religion is to tell why."

There is no "why" nor any reason there should be.

Scott said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 12:00pm

I echo many of the above sentiments that there is no major distinction between "New" Atheism and "traditional" atheism. The only difference is that we're "out of the closet, " so to speak. And, like the gay movement, we have to demonstrate to the general (religious) public that we're just like everyone else and are not some evil, untrustworthy "other." Yes, I also think that the polemicists like Harris, Hitchens, or Myers can come off as overly abrasive. But, for the most part, they're not wrong. I think there's a fine line that can be walked between standing up for ourselves and coming off as overly hostile. And I mean *actually* hostile, not the hostility that the "persecuted" Christian community likes to accuse us of by simply publicly acknowledging our disbelief. (You don't see any atheists stealing the nativity scene and throwing it in a ditch.)

As Myers and others say, the positive effects of religion (sense of community, charity, kindness, etc.) don't strictly require religion to achieve. So if we don't need religion to be good people and we don't need religion to explain our physical universe, then what do we need it for? That's not to say that religion should be forcibly stamped out. People are welcome to believe in God like they're welcome to believe in Santa Claus. As long as they keep it out of our science classes and our laws, then we're good. That's the kind of "non-overlapping magisteria" I can get behind.

Reginald Selkirk said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 1:01pm

"the science of Genesis"

What a mind-warping phrase.

"The purpose of science is to tell how, and the purpose of religion is to tell why"

The distinction between "How" questions and "Why" questions is not as clear as many people think. For example, "Why does God command his angels to spin the Sun and other planets in curlicue orbits about the Earth?" becomes "How do the laws of motion and gravity explain the heliocentric solar system?" once you switch from religious mode to scientific mode. Likewise, "Why does God punish good, faithful people with illness?" becomes "How do germs and genes explain the bulk of human disease?" when you sprinkle in a few centuries of science. Let's face it, religion as an explanation for anything has been backpeddling for a long time now. It is clear how science can clear up erroneous religious ideas about how the world works, if we allow it to. What religion has to contribute to science is not at all clear.

Any religion which still preaches a flat earth is WRONG. Any religion which still preaches geocentricity is WRONG. Any religion which preaches that the universe is only a few thousand years old is WRONG. Any religion which denies the germ theory of disease is WRONG. I cannot come up with a single example where a strictly religious idea corrected an erroneous scientific view. There are scientific findings which have been revised or discarded, but always because of newer, better scientific evidence or theories, not because of religious input.

Michael said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 2:41pm

I am a kind and gentle atheist. I am also a skeptic. I do NOT call myself a "bright". That's ONLY Michael Shermer who was only trying to find a word that didn't carry the baggage with it that the word "atheist" does. ...and it backfired.
I do NOT proselytize.. but I WILL argue for evidence when presented with claims of "truth".

I don't even understand what a "NEW" atheist is. Anyone that claims KNOWLEDGE that there is a God, or NO God .... both are just as fundamentally flawed.

By the way... notice that I NEVER capitalize atheist. It is not a position, but rather, a lack of one.

Larry Linn said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 5:20pm

I volunteered and joined the Army, and I served as an 11B Infantryman. Most of my time in the field was in squad or platoon size operations. We would have discussions about what we were fighting for. It always came back to the â€œBill of Rightsâ€. To me the most important was â€œCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofâ€¦â€
What did our Founding Fathers have to say about religion:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787):
"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason;
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.", John Madison;
â€œLighthouses are more helpful than Churchesâ€, Benjamin Franklin

em said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 7:12pm

Even though I am a firm believer in God, I believe in our 1st amendment rite to freedom of religion, or non-religion. To me that includes atheist. I am also a very big believer in the separation of church and state. I am appalled by people who want to teach creationism in schools instead of evolution.

HAHAHwhatever said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 7:34pm

Eric said:
"(I suspect that people think Hitchens and Dawkins are so "shrill" simply becasue they've not watched enough British comedy and mistake very dry wit for actual anger. That's just my hypothesis, though. I haven't had any peer-reviewed research on the topic yet, so bear that in mind.)"

Did you see, on "Root of All Evil", where Dawkins confronts Ted Haggard at his church?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr0RgqxadTI
4:30 on...very remarkable exchange. Look at the anger in Dawkins face and old Ted, with all his kinky 'quirks' just smiling and talking right into his face. Wow.

Richard Dawkins was hyperventilating with anger and seemed to have definitely 'lost his cool'. I'm agnostic...but I was expecting a much more collected and calm 'pressing of the facts' from MR. Science himself. He only seems calm when doing voice over of edited tape I suppose....in real life, confronting a (at the time) powerful christian pastor or whatever, he was shrill and emotional and basically got 'owned' by old Ted who calmly put him down with what I thought was a remarkably witty response (for a closeted, meth using hypocrite). Ted received a kernel of respect from me at least that day. You gotta admit as faulty as their belief systems may be, they have speaking skills and know how to debate and work a room and a situation. They're slippery and masters of false fronts and presentation.

em said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 8:22pm

Well said Larry!

ChristianB._Peper said on Sep. 23, 2010 at 11:23pm

I wish that instead of promoting atheism there would be a drive to educate the public about cults. I lived with a Jehovah Witness member in 2004 that controlled and manipulated me. Without the use of mind control tools like love bombing, loading the language, spying on each other, using thought stopping techniques, and control of information cults would not be able to hold their control. I respect all beliefs but it is unethical to manipulate and control people. It is sad that there is so little information about cults.

Carv said on Sep. 24, 2010 at 1:54am

Christian, with all due respect, Jehovah's Witnesses do not meet the sociological definition, at least, of a cult. Properly speaking, a cult is an anti-orthodox religious group centered around a living charismatic leader. As the Witnesses' original leader, Charles Taze Russell, died almost a century ago, they're now what sociologists would call a sect. In my opinion, they're no more or less controlling or manipulative than any other evangelical Christian denomination, just less common, perhaps more aggressive, and certainly less well understood. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was born into the Witnesses but left that faith when I was a 19-year-old undergraduate.)

Spiritualbrother said on Sep. 24, 2010 at 4:28am

Dawkins seems to be a highly outspoken atheist.

Atticus G. Hamilton said on Sep. 24, 2010 at 5:16am

I became an atheist while attending a Seventh Day Adventist school when I was 17. For a few years I was pretty sarcastic about religion and enjoyed taunting believers. But eventually I kind of outgrew that. Now I feel it's more worthwhile to demonstrate how decent and happy a person can be without religion. While I understand the frustration of more militant skeptics, I recommend kindness and civility. You don't have to respect an opposing viewpoint, but being respectful anyway can do wonders for how people view your own.

Valekhai said on Sep. 24, 2010 at 7:07am

I find the choice of picture accompanying this article to be amusing. Underneath the words "Godlessness takes the offensive" we have an image of an atheist billboard that has been defaced, equating atheism to devil worship and threatening them with hell. The atheists are the ones on the offensive? Doesn't look that way to me.

Varian Wynn said on Sep. 24, 2010 at 8:43am

If one is willing to grant that medicine is an applied science, then I am a scientist. And one of the bedrock truths that every clear-headed scientist know is, "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence."

QED.

Eric said on Sep. 24, 2010 at 10:12am

Hahahawhatever: I didn't see Root of All Evil, unofrutnately.

Nonetheless, what I'm referring to is how Dawkins and Hitchens and the few others who've had the temerity to print something less-than-praising of religion are so often described as "shrill" and "strident" based on their books. Dawkins may get exasperated, periodically, but on the whole, The God Delusion is not a frothing, bile-filled book. A lot gets made out of a few sentences in a pretty large tome.

I mean, if you're going to get called shrill and strident for simply saying "I think this is wrong, and here's why" without a lot of additional fuss, well, what chance have you got for having a civil discussion?

Guitarzeroh said on Sep. 25, 2010 at 8:47am

Activism against any type of fascism is the norm for new world atheists. Search for guitarzeroh and check out some youtubes! Yeah guitarzero'h'! PS, what is up with those trying to raise zombie hitler and the weis mach? Do they realize how backwards and wasteful they've become. Sure it's just over-protective parents hiding their inner-perverts and hate with child-like creationist doctrine? Hrrmmm...?

Nikora said on Sep. 25, 2010 at 10:09am

This article kind of illustrates the problem atheists faces in America. If you are Dawkins or Hitchens (or even Bertrand Russell) publishing a book or article about what you believe and why you believe it, you are seen as an agitator because in order to do that you must take issue with Christianity. However, theologians can agitate for Christianity all they want, and it is seen as a respectable field of study (with some exceptions, of course). Despite the rise of "New Atheism", America still wants its atheists to be closeted. God forbid you actually try and explain your line of thinking.

Scott said on Sep. 25, 2010 at 2:18pm

If you read something and don't consider the context, you are likely to misinterpretate said statement. The Jehovah's Witness magazine does state what was quoted, but it does not seem to be an attack. It is more like a declaration based on true facts. if you asked one of the "new athiest" they would be very much in accordance with that statement, just as a Jehovah's Witness would agree that they are trying to let everyone know their understand of the bible. Please consider the context.

Larry Linn said on Sep. 25, 2010 at 5:08pm

Georg summed it up, "Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that thereâ€™s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever â€™til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! Heâ€™s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just canâ€™t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bulls^%t story. Holy S*%t!â€

Lary9 said on Sep. 26, 2010 at 3:04am

I couldn't possibly concur more with Michael and Geoff. That's exactly how I feel. ..tired of sitting quietly in the back of the bus!

If you're a Believer---fine. Just leave persons with a naturalistic world view alone. You want to be free to proselytize others to Christianity, but the minute an atheist says..."Psst! Over here...we're like you...we're non-believers too. It's OK."...the selfish theistic crowd gets all insecure and wants to bash us. That kind of behavior betrays the deep insecurities of some concerning the fragility of their religious beliefs.

allan said on Sep. 26, 2010 at 7:58am

Atheism will never fully catch on because atheists think they are smarter than everyone else. "Sheep" comments and the like are perfect examples of this arrogance. Also, this 'movement' or 'philosophy', whatever you want to call it, is anti something, not pro anything. This silly idea that religious people can't use reason is laughable. This passing fad will fade because people need to believe in something. And of course, the atheist only points out all the negative things with regard to religions. They never stop to see the amazing charity work the Catholic church does around the world. That is simply disregarded as an inconvenience to their argument.

bill a said on Sep. 26, 2010 at 9:51am

To all athiests out there..........if you been hurt, abused or scorned by someone religious, my apologies to you. If you don't like God or His ways, that your free will choice. There are plenty of reasons to believe, when you really look at the complex and beautiful creation we are alive and breathing in today. I've been a Christian for 27 years and faith simply gives answers, hope, and meaning to the past, the present, and the future. It is something tangible that an intelligent human being can embrace and not have to check their brain or heart in at the door. Thank you for listening..........

Bill Mar said on Sep. 26, 2010 at 8:49pm

HAHAHwhatever, re Dawkins' interview with Ted Haggard, yes, Dawkins was undoubtedly and uncharacteristically angry. And, during the interview Haggard did appear cooler. However, Haggard later zoomed his pickup truck up to Dawkins and his crew in the parking lot and threatened them. Perhaps Dawkins made him late for his meth buy and prostitute.

Joe in Tacoma said on Sep. 27, 2010 at 11:41am

Even for believers there is no 'god' nor do they intend to following any book. The principle being â€˜it is easier to believe IN God than it is to believe God.â€™
So, why even believe in God? It's more that it is a belief in believing. Makes those who do feel better off.
But, there are no 'unseen' beings spinning anything of any sort that the religious come up with. It's all humanly made to help people make sense out of existence, cause and effect, justify social controls, etc and leave sthem with some idea they can influence the unseen world with right thinking, ritual and bribery. Belief in â€˜unseenâ€™ thingies help people cope. Atheism is just denial that any such â€˜unseenâ€™ thingies are necessary for life... or anything else.

dac38 said on Sep. 28, 2010 at 6:23pm

Look at the Banner above .. whats wrong with the picture ? Only a truly religious person could have turned a innocuous banner to a condemnation us to "Hell" . Now imagine the outcry if the original message read - "Don't believe in God ? Be glad you are not deluded. Dont let yourself and your children be abused"
Now Imagine what would have been the reaction in Fox News.

Irradical Athiest said on Sep. 28, 2010 at 11:10pm

Wake up people! Religion is a perversion of very unethical means to control the masses but not all (Unbelievers). King james was a homosexual that killed over 500 of his lovers. He enacted laws to kill witches in1547. King james went on weekly hunting trips to Denmark , killing thousands of women accused of being witches even in his day people thought he was a religious idiot. (Wikipedia) Most people don't know that they gang raped these women before burning them at the stake. The bible was written for king james a religious fanatic and it was not meant for anyone else. Now would anyone really want to follow a murderous person such as this? Jim Jones? Moonies? My point is there are millions of people following this idiot (christians) that don't even know what they believe in I have'nt even started on what is wrong with the bible and religion despite that it is scientificaly, historicaly and archeologicaly incorrect, immoral and unjustified. King James mythical story of god needs to go away with a conscience and compassion that we would give to victims of the Nazi holocaust , Constatine and the crusades, or pedofile Catholic priests. I could go on and on about the ethics of Christian theology but it is cutting in on my mother goose time SEE YA!

Tony Castleberry said on Sep. 29, 2010 at 11:00pm

I will give a more detailed commentary on my newly created blog here in a bit.

First an introduction:

I am probably the most 'militant' of the "New Atheists"(as you call us) in Tacoma. I am the guy you often see at hell's Kitchen wearing the "American Atheists" shoulder patch and the "reality Rules" or "Zombie Jesus" T-shirts.

So naturally I have some problems with your hit piece...er, article.

First of all, your piece is full of this sort of false dilemma fallacy wherein people fall into one of three(or four, arguably) groups:

1)Zealous theists - the kind of guys who proselytize and shove their faiths down everyone's throats.

2)Non-zealous theists - Who leave everyone alone to believe or not believe as they see fit and are genuinely perplexed or saddened by the alleged "zealots" on either side of this issue.

3)Non-zealous atheists(whom are often erroneously referred to as "agnostics") - Who are as uncomfortable as the non-zealous theists about the exact same people

and finally(and this is the really problematic one):

4)Zealous atheists(or "new atheists" - Some mythical, rabid combination of anti-religionists and anti-theists who go around shoving their non-belief down everyone's throat.

So what is the problem with this? Well, for starters the 4th one above is a straw man construct.. A 'Straw man' is a logical fallacy wherein someone avoids dealing with an actual opposing position and instead creates a much easier position to 'knock down' and then proceeds to knock it down and set it on fire.
In the extremely rare(almost unheard of) cases where a militant anti-theist is shoving his non-belief down someone's throat it almost ALWAYS comes from an angry, rebellious teenager or otherwise unwise and often poorly educated young adult.
Richard Dawkins and Co. do not belong in this category. Your error is in thinking that ANYONE speaking publicly on the matter is equivalent to the most extreme opposing advocates. I.e. Since Richard Dawkins is not quiet, he is like the atheist version of Pat Robertson. What you do not seem to realize is that atheism itself in not an unprovoked assertive position but rather a response to someone else's asserted existential claim(s).
An analogy would be if someone came out and said "The moon is made of cheese and this should be taught as science to our children!" and a skeptic responded saying "That is nonsense. The moon is not made of cheese and this should NEVER be taught as science to anyone!".

The two positions are not equivalent. If not for the fundamentalist theists asserting and pushing the absurd existential claims(which DO fall under scientific jurisdiction but more on this in my blog response) there would be no atheist saying "I don't think so." or "That is false.".

I understand where your mistaken understandings come from and how this meme embeds itself in the public consciousness(as evidenced by the comments posted in response to this article) and I have been debunking this nonsense for many years it seems now. There is a natural kind of Cartesian dualism thing going on where we assume that for every extremist 'X' there is an equally extremist 'non-X'. This likely has it's roots in our evolutionary psychology. But it is wrong.

Before I get out of here to write up my more detailed response in my newly created blog thing here I also want to make a few quick points to correct some other common misconceptions:

1)the definition of "agnostic" is NOT someone who is neither theist nor atheist. EVERYONE falls into one or the other and the mythical 'middle ground' cannot logically exist.. Agnosticism pertains to KNOWLEDGE whereas theism/atheism pertain to BELIEF. I am an agnostic atheist as are the overwhelming majority of agnostics. Agnostic theists DO exist but are very, very rare.

2)Stephen J. Gould was not wrong about too many things but he was absolutely wrong about his "Non-overlapping magisteria". Science depends on the naturalist axiom and is THE methodology for examination/study of all that is REAL. The ONLY things not under scientific jurisdiction are imaginary things. Imaginary things cannot be tested, poked, observed with the senses etc. If God is real then he falls under scientific jurisdiction to examine and if we cannot find justification for the inference then we must say so and if the unjustified claim also happens to contain logical contradictions then we are fully justified in saying that it is impossible(i.e. as in the case of the square shaped circle, God violates the Law of Non-Contradiction).

3)Atheist does not = "Non-religious" and certainly not "anti-religious". That I also happen to be anti-religious(for reasons I could go into great depth about...and no, not just because the Catholic Church has done horrible things in it's history) speaks no more to my being some sort of 'atheist fundamentalist' then it speaks to me being against doing hallucinogenic drugs and flying planes.

Now I am off to post a longer rebuttal in blog form...

Tony

Tony Castleberry said on Sep. 29, 2010 at 11:16pm

One more quick note to one of the comment-posters above.

Re: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

This is and has always been FALSE. If one had said "Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence.", that would be true. But absence of evidence is some of the strongest EVIDENCE of absence one can possibly muster.

Also this idea that someone saying God does NOT exist is just as wrong as someone saying he does...well, that is just ignorant. You seem as a strong atheist knows SOME Gods most certainly CAN be proven false and the Judeo-Christian God falls under this umbrella. The Abrahamic God is defined as being both 'omniscient' as well as himself having free will. The Law of Non-contradiction says this cannot be and this God cannot exist. The Bible and Qur'an both define God's omniscience as being of immutable and perfect certainty of knowledge of the future as well as the past and present. But this sort of entity could have no capacity to ponder decisions because if he KNOWS with absolute, unchallengeable certainty that, for example humans will be created by him then at what point can he ponder a decision to create humans or not? he HAS to do as he knows he must and so has no more free will than a robot. This God vanishes in the proverbial "puff of logic" Douglas Adams might have joked about.

Tony Castleberry said on Sep. 30, 2010 at 12:11am

Okay, evidently you do not actually allow blog posts(only short comments of a few lines of text which you apparently believe constitutes a "blog"!?).

So I am going to post my actual blog here. hopefully I can delete the previous post afterward.

Re: Rise of the New Atheism

I am probably the most 'militant' of the "New Atheists"(as you call us) in Tacoma. I am the guy you often see at Hell's Kitchen wearing the "American Atheists" shoulder patch and the "reality Rules" or "Zombie Jesus" T-shirts.

So naturally I have some problems with your hit piece...er, article.

First of all, your piece is full of this sort of false dilemma fallacy wherein people fall into one of three(or four, arguably) groups:

1)Zealous theists - the kind of guys who proselytize and shove their faiths down everyone's throats.

2)Non-zealous theists - Who leave everyone alone to believe or not believe as they see fit and are genuinely perplexed or saddened by the alleged "zealots" on either side of this issue.

3)Non-zealous atheists(whom are often erroneously referred to as "agnostics") - Who are as uncomfortable as the non-zealous theists about the exact same people

and finally(and this is the really problematic one):

4)Zealous atheists(or "new atheists" - Some mythical, rabid combination of anti-religionists and anti-theists who go around shoving their non-belief down everyone's throat.

I also want to make a few quick points to correct some other common misconceptions:

1)the definition of "agnostic" is NOT someone who is neither theist nor atheist. EVERYONE falls into one or the other and the mythical 'middle ground' cannot logically exist. Agnosticism pertains to KNOWLEDGE whereas theism/atheism pertain to BELIEF. I am an agnostic atheist as are the overwhelming majority of agnostics. Agnostic theists DO exist but are very, very rare.

3)Atheist does not = "Non-religious" and certainly not "anti-religious". That I also happen to be anti-religious(for reasons I could go into great depth about...and no, not just because the Catholic Church has done horrible things in it's history) speaks no more to my being some sort of 'atheist fundamentalist' then it speaks to me being rabidly against doing hallucinogenic drugs and flying planes.

Re: "They call themselves "brights"..."

First of all, the term "bright" did not mean what most(who took their cues from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly) characterized it as. The term "Bright" had absolutely NOTHING to do with how intelligent one might be. They were not saying "hey we are very intelligent and religious believers just aren't very 'bright'." In fact these so called "new atheists" vehemently argue the complete OPPOSITE regularly. James Randi, Michael Shermer and such routinely make the case that belief is not rooted in intellect or lack thereof. One can have an IQ of 150+, have read every book in the local library and still be a religious believer, even a fundamentalist. Belief is seldom trumped by reason.

Secondly, though Shermer and Co. did try to find a term that summed up naturalism(as a worldview) and ended up deciding on "Bright" as a good choice, they were FAR outnumbered and even opposed by the overwhelming majority of ATHEISTS and quickly abandoned the idea. So you have made a double error here in your own zealotry to paint us as zealots.

Re: Amanda from tacomaatheists.com

I would love to sit down with this girl over a nice IPA or (even better) a good stout(no, not Guinnes) so she could get a better idea of what we non-closeted atheists are about. But would it have killed you to ask around and talk with one of us who knows better and ask us to explain our side of the story? I mean you did an entire huit piece against us and asked one person who shares your view to spout some easily refutable pontifications but you really couldn't find one of US?! Hell I myself am the easiest guy in Tacoma to find!

In any case she makes the same error you, Christian Carvual make in that she is equating being outspoken itself with being "outpspoken and zealous/proselytizing". There is a big difference.

Re: Dawkins overstating his case that childhood indoctrination = "abuse"?

This is just weird. When we read about some southern Ku Klux Klan family raising their children to think/believe as the parents do, we rightly regard that as "abuse". Not just because they may be encouraging kids to do harm but because we recognise that children do not have any defense against such indoctrination. They have no capacity to think critically about whether the religious ideas they are being taught actually make sense or not, Most of the time this indoctrination occurs during a child's formative years and when one is so indoctrinated the odds of them ever being able to break free of such and become free thinkers or develop their own ideas about how the world works diminish considerably.

That is the very REASON why churches and fundamentalists want your children. Not because they have great critical thinking skills and so will appreciate these beliefs about magical gods, talking snakes and the Rube Goldberg salvation scheme of Christianity. If you don't indoctrinate a child into such beliefs they are not likely to ever think those beliefs make sense because, contrary to oft-asserted claims, humans have rational minds and think rationally, sans indoctrination/brainwashing.

re: The scientific method and falsifiability

The term "falsification" in science simply means that ANY hypothesis or claim worth giving consideration to will have grounds by which it can be falsified(proven false). ALL scientific theories contain such grounds. I am saying this because you seem to have gotten it backwards in your article by saying "...the scientific method insisted on repeatable, unfalsifiable experimentation...". The LAST thing science wants is "unfalsifiable experiementation"(whatever that might mean?!).

And finally, no...this is mopst certainly NOT the time to "throttle back", or as you seem to believe "Shut up and let the status quo go unchallenged.". You see we have been through this debale before. Ever hear of "The Enlightenment"? A bygone era where disbelief/skepticism dominated and gave birth to this secular nation of ours. Our founding fathers were not all atheists to be sure(Jefferson seemed to bounce between a sort of progressive theism and an atheistic deism for example) but they knew full well why religion and government should not intertwine. Throughout the Enlightenment and for some time thereafter we enjoyed an unparralleled growth of reason, civility and scientific progress. Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the first outright atheist President(see the writings from William herndon, his best friend and speech writer for confirmation of this. Also his widow's written responses to an editor's queries about her late husband's religious beliefs) we have had, was profoundly influenced by the Enlightenment thinkers and for good reason.

Then came the gradual rise of once nearly extinct evangelical movement which stifled science and lead to all sorts of crap. This 'New atheism' movement is naught but a new 'Enlightenment' period and it should be encouraged...not feared and attacked.

Tony

Scott M said on Sep. 30, 2010 at 6:18am

The Weekly Volcano is putting out some hard hitting articles lately. Kudos to the staff and writers.

I suspect the ride in 'atheism' is more a rise in coming out as atheist. The concept that the churches supply the 'why' is BS. Science leads to knowledge, and eating that fruit was a sin against god. Why is a huge part of science, figuring out why is the goal of determining the how.

A good book that deals with the Why is "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Takes all sorts of How and integrates that information into an overall picture of Why. How and why religions came into being, How and why they evolved. Like everything else they must have survival traits or they'd die out like anything else. How and why different cultures win and lose. Little of it has anything to do with moral codes, most of it has to do with having agricultural societies that can support religion in the form of a priesthood, and a standing army and a banking system. Once you can have people that don't contribute directly to their own daily survival like in a hunting society, conflicts move beyond families. Religion gives people a reason not to commit revenge against those who aren't direct relations, by giving them something in common. But it brings the eventual conflicts to much grander scales as priests and governments form for the "Good" and decide those that are not members are "Evil"... so the evil ones need to be conquered or killed for their own good.

Mark Twain,"Faith is believing what you know ain't so"

Carv said on Sep. 30, 2010 at 10:03am

Tony,

Decaf, my friend. Decaf. More flies with honey and all that. By the way, the word I wrote was "falsifiable." It was mistakenly "corrected" on its way to print. These things happen. However, you're correct to call it out.

Tony Castlberry said on Oct. 01, 2010 at 11:31am

Carv,

Not sure what the "decaf" comment is about but it sounds like a red herring or straw man type fallacy so I won't dwell on it. I also don't see how the "more flies with honey" thing applies? Are you saying that you were trying to be more appealing by unjustly attacking straw men of atheism? or that I should not call people out on such fallacies because it will only further people's resentment of atheists?

Bottom line is this: Neither Richard Dawkins, nor Christopher Hitchens nor I nor Sam Harris are "zealots". Publicly saying "God is not rationally justified" or "God does not exist"(Noting the capital 'G' which denotes a god who most certainly CAN be proven to not exist) is no more 'zealous' than saying "The moon is NOT made of cheese" or "Flat earth-ism is irrational".

Truth said on Oct. 01, 2010 at 11:34am

The burden of proof lies on those (religions) who make claims!! In empiricism we trust. Every backasswards theory theologians have drummed up to control the masses and sooth their fear of death has been throughly refuted! Please just man up and accept that there is no plan other than the plan YOU come up with AND execute during YOUR life time, and in the end your ass is going to be gone!!! Thank you and carpe diem!!

Lary9 said on Oct. 01, 2010 at 3:24pm

Re: "They call themselves "brights"..."

"First of all, the term "bright" did not mean what most(who took their cues from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly) characterized it as. The term "Bright" had absolutely NOTHING to do with how intelligent one might be. They were not saying "hey we are very intelligent and religious believers just aren't very 'bright'."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's correct. The organization offers a forum for people with a naturalistic worldview, AKA a Bright world view. That's from what the organizational name derives. As an early member, I criticized the name as being too misleading, too adversarial. But Paul Geisert, dir., e-mailed me---"What else then? Is there anything better?"

Lary9 said on Oct. 01, 2010 at 3:34pm

"Falsifiable" is a requirement for empirical science, as Tony accurately states, because if it's not POTENTIALLY falsifiable, then it's not within the realm of the real. Get it? If it's a hypothesis and it's totally exempted from falsifiability or cannot be tested reasonably, then it's extra-natural. See? Even a 99.99999% true hypothesis like say, "a body at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by force" is subject to falsification. But "God exists" cannot be falsified because it's untestable.

Pamela said on Oct. 03, 2010 at 11:46am

God is VERY REAL. .. IF you dont BELIEVE that, I guess you will when you die and find yourself in the starring role in the scarriest , most horrifying place and experience that you will ever encounter called HELL. They have a lot of vacancies for ATHEISTS.

John said on Oct. 05, 2010 at 8:53am

I agree with a lot of what I read above: the "new" atheism is just "old" atheism, except more vocal. Why is this happening? Because Christianity has lost its power to punish, and even murder, non-believers -- the glue that has held it together for centuries. We're free to speak without fear of being killed for what we do or don't believe (it's been said that atheists and Christians have the same list of gods we don't believe in -- only atheists have one more on their list, the Christian god).

The writer of this article uses as examples of "extreme" atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, saying that atheists are afraid of being lumped in with them the same way "mainstream Christians worry they'll be lumped in with fanatics like Pastor Terry Jones or the terrorists who bomb abortion clinics..." Does anyone else see the incongruity of that statement?? At worst, Dawkins and Hitchens have used fiery language to attack religion. Extremist Christians, on the other hands have:
*Bombed abortion clinics

*Used their bible as justification for lynching African Americans

*Instigated the Spanish Inquisition (I'm resisting the impulse to quote Monty Python here)

*Tortured and excommunicated Galileo for daring to suggest that the Earth was not the center of the universe

Yes, you get all that and many, many more when you buy Christianity's Greatest Hits (literally). Act now and get Islam, the Violently Peaceful, Peacefully Violent Religion. Selections include Everybody Must Get Stoned, and What, Your Teddy Bear is Named Mohammed?!

Pamela Robinson said on Oct. 05, 2010 at 10:45am

You can choose to believe that God exists or You can choose to believe he does not exist. You have your own free will and You do have a choice to make before you die. (I dont make the rules, God does).. Where you spend eternity will depend on that decision. You can sit here and argue all day the reasons why you think God doesnt exist and that there is no way that a spiritual being or entity such as himself just came out of nowhere and created everything out of nothing. Well contrary to what any of us believe, the fact of the matter is, is that he did just come out of no where , which I find so totally mind blowing (and he did create the earth and human beings and every living thing etc out of the dust of the ground.) that is going to be one of my first questions that I am going to ask him when we finally meet face to face. I dont think anyone has ever thought of asking him this question: I would like to know where you came from and who created you? Was there anyone else before you? And how can you just appear out of nothing or nowhere? I would like to hear his answer on that one. And even tho i already think I know why we havent been told this ( and that is because God thinks that we wouldnt be able to understand it?) I bet i would. I am a pretty deep thinker and I am ready to hear the answer to that one. But as I was stating before , you can either choose to believe or you can choose not believe. Your options are very obvious whether you believe or not. This may sound unfortunate to some people but the sad truth about this is, is if you dont believe in Jesus and you havent given your heart , your way of thinking and living over to his ways before you die, if you havent turned away from your wrong doing , and asked him to forgive you of your sins , then expect to be spending the rest of your life in HELL. Even though your body dies , your SOUL does not and omg I would hate to see anyone go down to that place. If you think your life is hell right now on earth, you havent seen anything yet. Just imagine the scariest , most terrifying scare the holy shit of you movie that you have ever seen and magnify that by 100 times over. Or all the most terrifying horror movies all rolled into one. You dont want to go there. Under any circumstances. Heaven is real and Hell is even more real. dont believe me? Go to this website www.doomsdaytube.com/scary-hell.php#Scary-Demons-Death-And-Journey-Into-Hell and watch the video entitled: "Make Your Choice" or " Death and journey into Hell". I used to joke around about whether God was real or not , until one day when I was in Jail and i had an experience with god that I will never forget. This happened about 15 years ago. I was talking a a little old lady preacher , she was probably close to being 80 years old. She came up to me and said, "Pam do you believe in God ? Do you believe there is a God who died for you etc"? At that moment i just happened to be in one of those kinds of moods where I could really care less , so sarcastically I said, Yeah, if there is a God, give me a sign, lol." What happened next, I swear I will never forget for the rest of my life. That old lady looked at me and said. 'DONT YOU REMEMBER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CAME SO CLOSE TO BEING KILLED AND I SAVED YOU?" My mouth dropped and my eyes about popped out of my head when I instantly realized who was talking to me, who just said those words to me. I looked at her and said , "God??? and she said , uh huh. I just stood there in utter shock, i couldnt move after I gasped so loud that you could hear a pin drop and hit the ground. I know that was GOD speaking to me because there is NO way in hell that old lady would know about how many times God HAS actually saved me from situations that I had gotten myself into by getting rides with the wrong people and almost got killed literally. I was hit in the head with a claw hammer , pistol whipped in the face with a 45, jumped up and down on and almost strangled by another man and left to wander out of the desert and all those times God came to my rescue. God is very real.

YEAH GUESS YOU WONT BE THINKING I AM SPAM IF YOU DIE AND END UP DOWN THERE IN HELL WILL YOU???

Carv said on Oct. 05, 2010 at 1:04pm

For those who couldn't tell, Pamela is "playing a character." No one is that batscheisse crazy.

John said on Oct. 05, 2010 at 10:48pm

Are you sure?? Yes, there are people who ARE that batshit crazy! But she's being only MILDLY batshit crazy. I've seen batshit crazies, and you ma'am are not batshit crazy... Most people know Stephen Colbert is playing a character on his show (well, except for those who are really stupid and have no sense of humor) because there are "tells" that let the audience in on the joke. I don't think Pamela is doing very well if that's the route she's going down. She doesn't exaggerate enough to make it satirical.

John said on Oct. 05, 2010 at 10:56pm

Or maybe you're just embarrassed by her comment and you're attempting to distance yourself from it by saying she isn't being serious? Are you there, Pam? It's me, God, errr, John. Don't be funny (seriously, you can't pull it off; it's just embarrassing, someone who thinks they're funny when they're not); just tell us if you were serious about your above post.

Lary9 said on Oct. 06, 2010 at 1:24pm

One more time: 'Falsifiable' does not mean 'false' or 'untrue'. It just means that it's a proposition that is testable...it's a hypothesis that's within the ream of experimental method. This implies that it provably true or provably false. No one, even the Pope would claim that God's existence is testable. So it makes no sense to speak of God in these terms. It is therefore a matter of faith and faith alone. Why is this so hard to grasp?

LiveLikeTheWorld said on Oct. 16, 2010 at 9:05am

There is an interesting video on youtube page with interviews of Atheists in Atlanta regarding the Freedom From Religion Billboard campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv3SYtxJlq8

DEAFchrist said on Dec. 02, 2010 at 7:56pm

the Beast of man (Anti-Christ) will say "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell" in someday. nation world will worships Him. that sad. I will look Jesus Christ will second coming and reign soon mean atheist will keen down soon!

al said on Dec. 22, 2010 at 2:14pm

I don't think we should be using the term 'atheism' . You see, religion is NOT a theism, as they claim it is, its got nothing to do with a belief......Religion is a con game, so stop arguing about it from a non-belief point of view.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/rel_games.htm

david m said on Jan. 06, 2011 at 3:51pm

Man I love decorating my pagan Christmas tree. Seriously,I do. I love all things about Christmas except that Christians keep trying to claim it as a holiday of their own. And ..again I am serious.
I disagree with the Christian bible because I truly believe it is pure evil.
I respect your right to believe in anything you wish as long as it involves consenting adults and no one is forced into anything. I believe the teaching of the bible to children under 18 is child abuse and if there was ever a book to be pulled or banned from the library; its THE BIBLE.

Respond on Your Blog

If you have a Weekly Volcano Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own Weekly Volcano Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.