Raw Story Columnist Attacks Atheists and Secularists

[Synnical]

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

The religious nutballs on the extreme right have kept us rational lefties so busy that we've neglected an important although onerous duty -- cleaning the atheist whackjobs out of our own attic, the extreme left. (Of course, extremisms of the religious or atheistic nature are only a small part of the sum total of extremism. Every form of thought has its own whackjobs of varying stripes.)

Why face off with the atheist whackjobs? Because extremism is extremism is extremism. No rational movement dedicated to intellectual courage and honesty should maintain a relationship with those for whom intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and cowardice are a way of life. Doing what must be done to insure the integrity of the left will require identifying our extremists, countering their mythologies, and acknowledging the dangers they pose to a truly liberal society.

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists.

The whackjob is a special sort of atheist, one so absolutely certain of the inerrancy of atheism and so virulently opposed to religion that he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defense of the former and against the latter. He will meet any criticism of atheism or positive representation of religion as a horrible attack on his way of life or as support for religious extremism and oppression. Just as the religious extremist holds that his belief in a supreme being alone makes him morally and spiritually superior, the atheist extremist holds that his belief that no such being exists and virulent opposition to the reverse make him intellectually and ethically superior. Finally, he will ignore any and all reason or evidence that refutes his claims.

[benburch]

1. People are entitled to their opinions, last I heard?

Or did I miss something?

[Strong Atheist]

111. ... and if their opinions are bigoted nonsense, we may call them on it,

right?

[Random_Australian]

114. AAAGH! Back! I shall wave this crucifix which has proven so

useful in the past! ;)

[Strong Atheist]

120. Lol!

:yourock:

[benburch]

116. The original title of this piece...

was to my mind far more objectionable. It was quickly edited, but not until after I posted.

[Random_Australian]

118. What was it?

[benburch]

125. "Raw Story Columnist HATES Atheists and Secularists" nt

[Random_Australian]

126. I understand.

[Strong Atheist]

191. Well, it is obvious that she does. nt.

[GirlinContempt]

203. We don't call many on DU who spout bigoted nonsense

about religion and devotees...

[Zhade]

391. What a crock of shit.

You KNOW that's a lie. I've seen ATHEISTS - MYSELF INCLUDED - do that to those who attack believers.

[Zynx]

255. How is it not bigoted to attack Christians in a similar fashion.

Minorities can be bigoted towards majorities.

[Random_Australian]

353. It would be. We aren't.Simple. (Not in the context on this discussion

anway, but there may be 1 or 2 loons out there who claim atheism)

[Maven]

348. Question

Would you be saying that if this article had been posted in, say, the Washington Times?

[lostexpectation]

2. nah

I do see the death of religion as significant progress

[Clark2008]

65. I guess you didn't get the "extremism" memo.

:eyes:

[salvorhardin]

3. For those who have come in late

Other bloggers covering this bigoted hate speech endorsed by Raw Story.

Austin Cline at Atheism.About.com
Melinda Barton, Religious Bigot: Most atheists are whackjobs
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257416.htm

PZ Myers at Pharyngula
Look Ma, I'm a secular whack-job
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/look_ma_im_a_secular_whackjob.php

coturnix at Science and Politics
Anti-atheist sentiment on the left?!
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2006/04/anti-atheist-sentiment-on-left.html

Velid at Secular Front
The atheists under the bed
http://secularfront.blogspot.com/2006/04/atheists-under-bed.html

Neural Gourmet: Et tu Brute?
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/04/23/et_tu_brute

Atrios in a comment at Eschaton names Melinda Barton "Wanker of the Day"
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_23_atrios_archive.html#114583219178285695

Spotted Elephant at The Bipolar View is a secular whackjob too
http://thebipolarview.blogspot.com/2006/04/im-secular-whackjob.html

[Cronus Protagonist]

329. True dat - and let's not forget the whole article is a straw man argument

And is therefore fallacious. Let the author show us all these "atheist whackjobs" who fit his straw man definition - I'll give him a clue, there aren't any - they're just as locatable as God, the Devil, tooth fairy or Santa.

Nice whackjob of his own, though. It still amazes me that people cannot see when they're projecting their own foibles, although it shouldn't because I see it happen all the time.





Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Vinnie From Indy]

389. Good point!

The article is just plain silly.

[Zhade]

392. It's not just silly, it's seethingly dishonest.

And the seething is on the author's part.

Notice how, by dishonestly redefining 'secular' to fit her argument, she's basically saying that religious people aren't secular? It follows that religious people must not support the separation of church and state, then, since that's a secular practice.

[mmonk]

4. I thought the "atheist problem" was a myth.

Separation of Church and State, freedom of religion, and the constitution aren't under attack by them that I'm aware of.

[TygrBright]

5. How Cute! The Thread Headline You've Chosen...

...illustrates the author's point just perfectly!

ed: At least it did before you edited it.

amusedly,
Bright

[Catrina]

7. I think she attacked extremists ~

[KittyWampus]

12. She did attack extremist athiests. And they are just as intolerant

as the extremist religious types.

[lostexpectation]

24. yet I hold true many of the things she calls extreme?

...

[Synnical]

28. Name One?

One atheist who wouldn't support the right of religionists?

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Random_Australian]

149. Like RFITQC IT DOES. IT MEANS NOTHING OF THE SORT.

In fact, very the opposite. Who the hell are you to say what evolution means to morality? Exactly the opposite of what you right here. And yes, I can back that up, if I must. Ask me if you will.

[400Years]

186. You are making shit up cryingshame.

Consciousness does not require a belief in an invisible man in the sky.

But making shit up is what religious types do.

[Zhade]

393. Uh, yeah, that's what CS does.

Ask about 'conciousness' sometimes, it's adorably simple-minded the way the unproven assertions fly!

[RandomKoolzip]

199. Ah, the old "atheists don't believe in 'spirit' therefore they're fascist

pigs" myth. Good one!

Yes, I am a materialist. I don't believe in 'spirit' or any god or any kind of non-material phenomenon, I don't believe in miracles or prayer an afterlife or any of that.....which obviously means that I rape children, adhere to no laws, and steal, kill, and rob with impunity, right? Of course!

Lemme tell you how "extreme" I am: I work 8+ hour days at a job, making food for people. Last year I made about 24,000 dollars at this job. I paid a bunch of money in taxes, and was glad to put that money back into society. I have never raped, killed, or robbed anyone. I have never exploited anyone. I do NOT believe in "survival of the fittest;" I've ever exploited anyone, and I believe in a healthy welfare program that benefits the poorest among us who can't get a leg up. I also support women's rights, the rights of the GLBT community, and give money to Greenpeace, the DNC, my local food bank, the United Way, and several other charities. I like Ginger Ale. I don't drink alcohol, do drugs, or smoke cigarettes. I lift weights (not often enough, though) and maintain a healthy diet. I don't watch a lot of TV, but I do enjoy "Late Night With Conan O'Brien," and the local news. I own two cats. I am married and have never cheated on my wife. We plan to have kids a few years down the road, after we earn enough to own a house. I am planning on returning to college in the fall to earn a Bachelor's degree, and after that, earn a Master's in Library Science. I walk to work everyday, but my wife and I own a car: a used Subaru from 1990 (still runs great!) I am a part-time musician, and play out in two different bands. Sometimes I pick up gigs for friends in bands who need a drummer or bassist on a short notice. I give money to homeless people. I voted for Kerry in 2004. I'm not a fan of sports, but I'll watch a baseball game if it's on. I prefer baths to showers, and wash my hair with Selsun Blue. I use Dial soap and Colgate toothpaste and floss twice a day. I'm getting a check up with my doctor in two weeks. I call my mother regularly, once a week, usually. I like houseplants: ficus, African violet, rubber tree, and zebra plants have a prominent place in our apartment. I wear sandals in the summer, and Fluevogs in the remaining months. Right now, I'm in the middle of doing laundry.

So, cryingshame: wanna tell me where the "extremist" part comes in? Cuz I really don't see it.

[asthmaticeog]

226. Selsun Blue? DIE, HERETIC!

:grr:

[Warren DeMontague]

267. The flossing twice a day strikes me as a tad extreme, actually.

But I bet your dentist loves you.

[motocicleta]

403. RandomKoolZip

I have admired your posts before, but after reading your description of your life, I must say, as a father, longtime restaurant worker and owner, and non-cheating husband:
I think I love you. Platonically, of course.

To Avery Walker: Enough about the vicious atheists! If you good god-fearing folk have evidence, we'd love to see it; until then you can please shut the hell up. Please.

[Kellanved]

214. Oh, sure. One can't be a good human being without being religious?

That is one of the most absurd things I've ever read on DU.
It is a very narrow-minded image you are painting; do you think one can't care about other people without the promise of a heaven? Is community work by non-believers worthless?

What about the slavers, murderers and dictators who were/are religious? quite often religion even is the justification.

[Duppers]

297. Amen!

You said to cryinshame, "That is one of the most absurd things I've ever read on DU."

Right on!

[Hobarticus]

319. Actually, some of the best people I know never set foot in a church

Guess they're crappy people!

[asthmaticeog]

222. What a load that is.

I'm trying to think of some atheist empires, and I ain't got much. Lotta Christian empires and slave-holders spring to mind though, and yet I don't make any unfair essentialist presuppositions about Christians. I guess we're just different that way, huh?

[RandomKoolzip]

229. So the Crusades weren't fought over whose version

of Materialism was more grounded in Marxist cant? Man, I gotta get better history books....

[asthmaticeog]

252. I thought they were fought over haircuts. nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

262. Thank you for admittig your b--- er, opinions so candidly.

I wish others were so clear and direct.

Would make our lives much easier.

[arwalden]

263. Oh, That's Nice... Real Nice, Cryingshame.

:eyes:

Did you actually mean to type that? On purpose?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

278. You new sig line is a riot. Shame I can't tell why. -nt

[JanMichael]

343. Thanks for letting me know who freaked everybody out.

A. It does not surprise me in the slightest.

B. My ignore feature has one new member.

C. I hope they cry a river.

[HEyHEY]

281. Oh, get a life - empire building has always been driven by religion

And religion has always been driven, truly by greed... it's nothing more than the sneakiest corporation in the world.
You need someone to TELL you all about god? Figure out for yourself. A real god wouldn't need humans to tell humans about him.
CHump

[Cronus Protagonist]

330. Hahaha STOP IT! I almost spat my tea on the monitor

Don't point out the emperor has no clothes until I'm done, k?



Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Warren DeMontague]

72. According to her, an "extremist whackjob" is anyone who dares assert

that a lack of evidence for something constitutes any kind of a logical strike against it.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Random_Australian]

151. Abundant evidence huh? point me to some. Then point out how the

nasty atheists, with no power, no political pull, no significant numbers, are the ones doing the damage.

And why the hell would any atheist not want to believe in mystic mind energies? I'm an atheist, and I like every atheist if yet met would LOVE it if there were whole new fields of experience, just give us some good evidence. So explain why the atheists would oppose any new fields of experience or discovery?

[400Years]

189. Why do you insist on making up bullshit?

Perhaps you feel threatened by the fact that some people don't subscripbe to your mumbo jumbo.

[_testify_]

200. Prove that 'Spirit' exists

Know what trephining is? It's primitive brain surgery. They crack your head open and called the steam that escaped from your cranium 'Spirit'.

Why do people say 'bless you' when you sneeze? To keep the devil from taking control of your body.

Who's clinging to outdated worldviews?

[RandomKoolzip]

202. I'm killing the planet because I don't believe in god?!

Wow.


One of us is indeed "extreme," and it ain't me. That's a really weird opinion you got there.

[Marr]

212. Maybe you need to declare a fatwa and purge the world of

whackjobs like me who are killing it with their thoughts. Yeah- that's sane.

[Warren DeMontague]

249. She's not talking about "consciousness", she's talking about "god".

And since you have decided to address ME directly, I will address YOU directly, by giving you this extremely apt quote from Pharyngula's excellent post on this pile of logical dung Ms. Barton has graced us all with:

As for her claim that metaphysical naturalism is scientifically inaccurate…her defense consists of abusing quantum physics. I'm thinking there ought to be an exam and some kind of licensing requirement before people are allowed to use The Argument From Quantum Physics in public.

Hey! Allow me to repeat that:

As for her claim that metaphysical naturalism is scientifically inaccurate…her defense consists of abusing quantum physics. I'm thinking there ought to be an exam and some kind of licensing requirement before people are allowed to use The Argument From Quantum Physics in public.

... you're not related to her, are you?

Your sorely misinformed attempted usage of quantum mechanics to back up your assertions has been debunked time, and time, and time again in these threads by people who have patiently explained things like the Copenhagen interpretation and Bell's theorem to you over, and over.... and over again.




...And as for "consciousness", I personally think one is far more better off looking for it in the mirror than in Church.

[Zhade]

395. There should only be a test if that poster takes it first.

Then, of course, when s/he UTTERLY FAILS, there will be no need for one.

[asthmaticeog]

254. Nothing extreme about what *you're* saying, though.

:eyes:

[dolo amber]

258. Sorry 'bout all the cancer

:cry:

[asthmaticeog]

260. .

:rofl:

[girl gone mad]

273. Outdated worldview?

Killing the planet and endangering mankind?

The vast majority of scientists that I know are atheists.

These people are busy curing diseases, researching climate change and saving endangered species.

You'll have to explain to me how their views are outdated and how they are destroying the planet and harming mankind.

[girl gone mad]

78. She called me a whackjob..

just because I don't subscrube to any religion.

That's nonsense. People can't be whackjobs for seeing a lack of evidence of a supreme being as lack of evidence for a supreme being.

I don't go automatically assuming all religious people are whackjobs. I don't even think that all scientologists are whackjobs. Tom Cruise is a whackjob, but otherwise innocent until proven whackjob, I say.

[GirlinContempt]

207. If thats what you really believe

then she didn't call you a whackjob.

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists.

[Strong Atheist]

268. Wrong, because

those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims

are atheists, therefore, YES, she was calling ALL atheists whackjobs. She then tried to say she wasn't REALLY saying that with:

not all atheists are atheist extremists.

but the rest of her article showed which of these TWO CONTRARY positions she REALLY believes. The second one was just a disclaimer, to say "I am not really the bigoted sack of shit that I am showing myself to be in this article; why some of my best friends are ..."

[GirlinContempt]

279. Er, I find that confusing.

She defined atheist, and defined atheist whack job. Where is the slur against all atheists? I read that part of the article as being a this AND that make one this, not a this or that make one this.

[Strong Atheist]

283. It is crystal clear that she is saying

that ALL ATHEISTS are whackjobs right here:

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state.


This clearly says that ALL ATHEISTS are whackjobs. She is a bigoted sack of shit.

[GirlinContempt]

285. You need to read the whole.

I replied fully below. So far, I'm unconvinced she's bigoted. She was explaining terminology before defining an atheist whackjob/extremist. It's a point of clarity regarding her use of words, not her definition, which comes later.

[Strong Atheist]

288. That

IS the definition.

[Duppers]

302. YOU'RE missing the point!

Me thinks you're showing your bias -- a bit religious, are we?!

[Name removed]

309. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Duppers]

327. you're so sweet!

Who's being the hypocrite?

[GirlinContempt]

332. Do YOU even know what you're talking about?

:shrug:

[Strong Atheist]

371. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

:yourock:

[JNelson6563]

101. Here's who she REALLY attacked

"First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state"

To not believe in a magical creature in the sky makes one a whack-job.

Julie

[SammyWinstonJack]

132. I did not know I was a whack-job.

:shrug: Like I care anyway. :rofl:

[KittyWampus]

141. Actually, to not believe that Consiousness exists and plays a formative

role in Reality makes you an extremist.

Listen, you can get hung up on the words "spiritual" but in the end Athiests are Materialists.

Humans are nothing more then machines.

And that view is indeed extreme.

[Bill McBlueState]

143. as an atheist yourself,

You're the ideal spokesperson for what atheists believe, right?

[Random_Australian]

144. Nope. Missed by a mile, mate. (Don't you adore alliteration)

You've missed at "formative", at "Atheists are materialists" and "humans are nothing more than machines"

None of these applies to any atheist I've ever met.

Now, in a non-flamey way, how many atheists do you know? This is more for me to work out why you think what you think than anything.

And yes, I am an atheist. I believe consciousness exists, and it's interactions with a non-subjective reality create subjective reality.

Materialist? Now you're just getting insulting.

Why don't you just say atheists are by definition greedy pigs with no morals and be done with it?

Nothing of the sort. Not even close.

Huamans are nothing more than machines? Why do you think that atheists think that? It seems rather irrational to me.

[JNelson6563]

159. Nonsense

Consciousness and subconsiousness are not related to mystical/magical thinking.

the point was that if you don't believe as the author does you are an extremist. What is the difference between her view and Falwell or any other closed minded zealot?

Julie

[RandomKoolzip]

204. What?! I believe humans are machines?!

Thanks for telling me what I believe. I never knew!

Well, this changes things, doesn't it? I guess next you'll be telling me I'm incapable of love, right?

[Warren DeMontague]

266. So if you don't believe in "God" (the DEFINITION of atheism)

you don't believe in consciousness, either?

Wow, that's funny, particularly considering how terrified so many Theists seem to be of people who actually think for themselves.

[ghostsofgiants]

215. Might want to brush up on your reading comperehension a little...

"First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state"

Note that the author did NOT say that "atheist whackjob" will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, and also explicitly states that not all atheists are atheist whackjobs.

[girl gone mad]

271. Judging by the number of people who feel..

she said just that, I'd say it's the author's problem and not the reader's.

Perhaps she parses her words, but the intent is clear enough.

[JNelson6563]

314. Ah yes, the critic must be an idiot

that's as good at Raw Story's defense.

*sigh*

[ghostsofgiants]

324. I never called the critic an idiot.

I do, however, think it's likely that people are misreading an admittedly horribly written paragraph.

[Vinnie From Indy]

390. Do you have any examples?

Help me out. I cannot think of any.

[CAcyclist]

394. Show me one nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Everyone's an extremist

The centrists are just the extremists with the power.

[Synnical]

38. I tried to reply to your comment

But then my computer shut down all the Windows I had open.

hmmm

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale - hope it works this time.

[Eric J in MN]

6. She could have provided at least one name of the (supposedly) terrible

people she's talking about if she wants her argument to be relatable to something.

[nolabels]

94. It's just like the phrase "Some say"

Theoretical bullshit

[Hissyspit]

8. That's all pretty stupid.

All religious and spiritual claims can conceivably be seen as empirically false, so how does disbelieving probable falsehoods make you a whackjob? Religion and spirituality are VERY broad terms that can refer to all kinds of human behavior and cultural conventions.

False equivalency - one extreme is necessarily equilvalent to the other. Um, no.

[Synnical]

10. Exactly

[Clark2008]

66. So can all non-religious and spiritual claims

Big deal.

You can't prove to me that God DOESN'T exist any more than I can prove to you that He does.

[NMMNG]

71. The atheist doesn't need to prove god does not exist

Nor does s/he care to.

The burden of proof is on the one who claims god exists.

[timtom]

81. "Burden of proof"???

Matters of faith are matters of faith, regardless of which side of the aisle the belief sits.

The fumendalist is no more obligated to "prove" that God exists than the atheist is obligated to "prove" that God doesn't exist.

Prove an article of faith?

Silly concept.

[Random_Australian]

84. For your belief, perhaps, but when arguing that others beliefs are invalid

it is vital.

If there is no burden of proof, then all religous people are KKK acolytes on my say-so, and therefore religion should be banned, it really should. What's that? You don't believe me? Of course 'All religion is KKK doctrine' is a steaming pile of BS because it has no proof.

[JNelson6563]

140. It depends

Some are willing to admit that it's a matter of faith and cannot be proven.

Those who the "burden of proof" rests on are those who assert they have the absolute indisputable truth in their faith and all must adhere. This is the sort of assertion that requires proof.

Julie

[timtom]

325. I quite agree.

Congrats for being one of the few logical voices on this horrible thread. Everyone seems to be foaming at the mouth to push their particular agenda, whatever it may be. A quick scan reveals very little in the way of substantive discussion.

Lots of invective and bullying.

[Strong Atheist]

194. When we talk about things that exist or not, there is a burden of

proof. I can prove that all sorts of things exist (the sun, that rock, that tree, etc). Can you prove that your god exists?

[timtom]

323. Hell...

I can't even prove YOUR god exists...

[_testify_]

205. Not silly when you label non-believers as whackjobs

By 'you' I mean the article's author. I don't care what a believer takes as a matter of faith. But when they judge me as a whackjob for not acknowledging said 'matter of faith', the burden falls on them to prove me wrong.

It's funny to be called a whackjob, actually. I prefer 'sick, faithless fuck'.

[timtom]

326. Are atheists immune

from having "whackjobs" among their ranks?

Is any group?

[NMMNG]

363. Lack of belief is not a matter of faith

And insisting something exists then claiming proof is not required because it is an "article of faith" is disingenuous.

If one is going to claim a supernatural being exists and use that as the basis of laws that give special rights to certain groups, or restrict the rights of other groups, the burden of proof is upon those who claim said being exists. It is not on those who do not believe.

[Dorian Gray]

153. The burden of proof

while it's true in logical debate that the burden of proof is upon those with "positive" claims, I think that in matters of faith, all one can go on is faith. And personally, I don't feel the need to prove why I believe. I just do. After years of battling my faith, I arrived here. I just ask that people of all stripes respect that belief as I respect theirs.

[info being]

172. I'm an agnostic...but wanted to comment on the matter of "belief"

We all have faith. None of us are purely rational. Take for example our faith in Democracy. Every person gets an equal vote. That is just something we believe in...it isn't an inevitable conclusion intellectually...it is values-based.

So I respect your feeling that you don't need to explain your faith. It just is.

[info being]

171. that sounds more like Agnosticism actually.

[Random_Australian]

No, it is still atheism when you go into more depth than the

scarce few words of that post, though the specific term remains "Agnostic Atheist" - but yes, it is part of atheism. (IIRC)

[NMMNG]

364. Agnosticism insists that one cannot prove either way whether or not there

are god(s).

I don't believe in god(s), period. That makes me an atheist.

It is not up to me to prove the non-existence of god(s), as I do not claim their non-existence.

It is up to those who claim something exists to prove it exists.

[skids]

315. That depends highly on their attitude.

If it's simply "I don't believe in God" then fine.

If it's "anyone who believes in God is a nutjob and cannot be trusted" then that's an accusation, and the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Which I think was the point of the article that started all of this.

[NMMNG]

365. My post addressed only belief in or disbelief in God

Nothing more.

[KittyWampus]

146. Physical Reality exists on the back of Probability. So your complete

reliance on "empirical" proof is totally outdated.

Physics and Science have already moved beyond your Understanding.

You and all other athiests are Newtonian dinosaurs soon to be rendered obsolete by Einstienian Homo Sapien Spiritualis.

And Spirit means Consiousness or Mental Energy.

Just because you don't like the word 'spirit' doesn't mean you get to change the practical meaning of the word.

[Random_Australian]

155. Really? Einstienian spirit huh? Pick any of Special Relativity,

General Relativity, Brownian motion or the photoelectric effect, and show me how this implies spirit. Or pick any other piece Einstien or any other put in a peer-reviewed journal.

And what's more, Relativity is itself outdated. Looks like us GUT/UFT/TOE persons are going to leave you Einstienian dinosaurs in the dust! Oh, what a laugh fate provides at your expense.

[SidDithers]

242. Funniest. Post. Ever...

completely unintentional, I'm sure, but I just love it when theists start spouting science and Einstein to bolster their beliefs.

How much mental energy does it take to increase the temperature of 1 litre of water by 1 degree celsius?

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

269. "Newtonian dinosaurs"? "Einstienian Homo Sapien Spiritualis" ???

:spray:

If that post was by any other person on DU, I would know it was a spoof, but the fact that you wrote it makes it a thousand times funnier.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Odin2005]

293. LOL! This is hilarious!

This sounds vaugely like the same kind of logic the post-modernist crazies use. :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

336. Post #249

I hate repeating myself.

[Arugula Latte]

347. Cryingshame: Gosh, thanks for being the Authority on All Matter and Spirit

Must be quite a job, huh, being the ultimate voice on who gets to be "rendered obsolete"?

:rofl:

[mongo]

381. LOL!

I'll pray to Flying Spagetti Monster for your imortal soul....

Einstienian Homo Sapien Spiritualis.

:rofl:

Join me know in this chant to the blinding white light of stupidity -- UM!

[Zhade]

396. So because something is 'probable', it's true?

Man, do you enjoy just making shit up out of whole cloth?

And what's with the "WE ARE SUPERIOR, YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED" attitude? You sound like the KKK.

[Call me Deacon Blues]

9. While certainly extremism is something that should be reserved only for

actual rioting in the streets (and I pray it never comes to that), I see no reason that any theistic or atheistic persuasion should be singled out as being a "whackjob". I don't believe the writer is evil, or even a "wanker" (sorry Atrios) -- she's just wrong.

[Random_Australian]

88. I see. Insults pertained to the kind of personality & logic that caused

her to come to the conclusions.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Looks like Ms. Barton gets an A in Philosophy 101

Once again proving that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing (precisely because it is not a lot).

I read her column with interest, only because I was nostalgic for late-night stoned discussions of same from sophomore year in college. Ah, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...Never mind that her exact logic also makes anyone who structures his or her practices based on belief in a supreme being a whackjob as well. We shouldn't follow out the consequences...It is always exceedingly curious that the theist position ends up with a "supreme being" - a single entity at the top of some imagined hierarchy, as if that were the form of all religions, and not a historically specific form of religious thought with a distinct (and quite "knowlable" genealogy). Ms. Barton may also need a course in comparative religions before she goes off half-cocked. And maybe epistemology. And for God's sake, woman, read Spinoza. :rofl:

[Synnical]

16. Thank you - well wrote

I'm off to bed.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Don't you get it? It's Either/Or.

Either Jehovah, or No-hovah!

There aren't any other LOGICAL possibilities, Silly-face!

Are there?

[Strong Atheist]

196. Lol!

:yourock:

[druidity33]

121. i wondered...

What she would have thought of the Pantheists (such as myself) out there... am i a whackjob just because i don't believe in a One god? Or is "believing" enough to keep me out of her whackjob definition?

[salvorhardin]

123. Depends...

Are you an pantheist extremist? Granted, I'm not sure how that would work. :-)

[liberalpress]

184. It seems to me that would be...

... if you do not believe in my group of dieties, precisley the way I do, you are a whack-job. Just thinkn' out loud here.

[Random_Australian]

124. She'd probably use the same "you cost votse" BS. Lovely forest btw.

Where is that? America?

[druidity33]

134. nope.

It's near Brecon Beacons in Wales, UK. Truly a magical spot...

[KittyWampus]

148. And what of all the evidence of the role Consciousness plays in forming

Reality.

Consciouness=Spirit.

You aren't as smart as you think you are.

[Random_Australian]

157. Point me some evidence! If it isn't peer reviewed journal you are

wasting your time though.

[alcibiades_mystery]

174. Ah, but consciousness has its own history

Hasn't this been one of the key areas in philosophical investigation since Descartes? Isn't it Hegel's whole game, not to mention Nietzsche's? Hasn't the better part of 20th century philosophy, psychology, and neural science addressed itself to precisely this question: what are the origins, histories, and functionings of consciousness? The simple identity "Consciousness = Spirit" - as if this isn't precisely one of the toughest nuts to crack in studies of consciousness - shows that perhaps you are not as smart as you think you are.

Cheers.

[trotsky]

335. And you are an authority on this how...? n/t

[Marnieworld]

384. right back at u

"You aren't as smart as you think you are."

[Zhade]

397. As has been asked HUNDREDS OF TIMES of you...

...just show the evidence.

ANY evidence.

[NervousRex]

224. Brilliant...

Bravo! :applause:

[Mountainman]

14. I feel no threat to my way of life from atheists but I do from those who

practice religion. I've never heard an atheist call for laws against gays, or religious people. They want to live and let live as far as I can see. They believe in the first amendment and believe others have the same right to practice religion as they do to not practice religion. I don't see any atheist as a nut job.

I think the very existence of this piece points to the fact that religious people are the ones who are wrong here.

[salvorhardin]

17. There's one or two atheist nut jobs

I could point them out to you in PM if you'd like. The ones I know of are all right wingers though.

[Clark2008]

67. You would if the corporate media proclaimed that athesits

were in power.

Think about that for a moment.

[SidDithers]

135. But they're not...

and an open atheist has about as much chance of being elected in America as a monkey.

Oh, wait, bad analogy.

Sid

[me b zola]

69. I share your feelings

"I feel no threat to my way of life from atheists but I do from those who practice religion."

To expand a little on your thought: No one has the power to take away my spiritual life or my relationship with my Creator. However, tyranical people do have the power to take away my civil liberties and way of life that were granted me by the Constitution & the Bill of Rights--and it seems as though religion is being used by tyrants to do just that.

[Rex_Goodheart]

15. Raw Story should apologize...

or kiss this reader goodbye.

That article is so full of strawmen and falsehoods about atheists it could only have been written by a bigot.

I defy Ms. Barton to name one atheist whackjob. I resent her implication that the body of such unnamed atheist whackjobs have the same effect on American politics as do religious extremists.

[salvorhardin]

18. My feelings exactly

And you're right, it's all strawmen and mythperceptions about atheists.

[Rex_Goodheart]

21. What I see...

is that Ms. Barton wanted to give us her own middle-school assessment of atheism. She doesn't know any actual "atheist whackjobs" because if she did she wouldn't have ascribed her own absurd strawmen words to them. Why Raw Story allowed that crap on its site is a mystery to me.

[lala_rawraw]

77. Pardon me, but the column is not an "article"

And why should we apologize for an op-ed where someone expresses their own view? Do I agree with her? No! Do I think her logic is sound? Nope! Do I want to silence her? No!

To say that "Raw Story supports..." is crazy because you assume that she speaks for me or anyone else at Raw. She speaks for herself and herself only. But to say that we should silence her and issue an apology is exactly the kind of crap the right pulls when it does not like the opinion of someone else. You need not agree with her. You can actually use the comments section to write a whole rebuttal, unlike other publications. But this post is ridiculous. Since when does being an atheist mean censorship of anti-atheist opinions? I have read columns on Raw that insult me immeasurably, but i have to allow others to be heard if i am fighting for the same benefit.

That said, Avery Walker is the editorial side, so why not email him and demand an apology? Better still, since you have already emailed me and since I know you quite well and have nothing but the highest respect for you, I cannot fathom why you would right a nonsense post like this. I responded to your email exactly as I have here, namely, that I do not agree with her, but I am neither her editor nor am I for censorship. And we go back a year now in our communications... but then you go on and post this hogwash and demand that "raw story" issue an apology. This is really crazed. But then again, you have a right to express yourself as well, as you have done in your comments to the columnist, in sending an email to me, to John Byrne (not sure about Avery Walker), and then posting this thread. Do you feel you have had your say finally or do you need additional outlets? I am really disappointed in you given how long we have corresponded. Again, email Avery Walker about your concerns, this is just too much.

[salvorhardin]

82. I'm sorry Larisa

If you don't see that this article was hate speech, and if you do not see Avery Walker's deliberate choice to publish this simply because he wanted to be "provocative" (as he now claims in his forward to Ms. Barton's article) as irresponsible then what can I say? If you don't see the similarities between that and, for example, Bill O'Reilly there's just a gap between my values and yours that can not be bridged. I know Raw Story is not your site, that you're just an employee but free speech is not involved here. Raw Story is a private entity and they are as responsible for what they publish on their website as I am on mine. More so because Raw Story wants to be viewed as a news source.

I guess I'm just one of those damn 'secular extremists'.

[Duppers]

310. Hear, hear!

Exactly!

[Strong Atheist]

197. Publications usual apologize if they publish

bigoted/racist/sexist crap, and this is bigoted CRAP of the highest order. Guess that makes raw story a piece of sh** if they don't apologize... is raw story gonna start printing KKK crap next and defending that?

[Zhade]

398. Your post rings hollow.

I don't believe you disagreed with the column/article/whatever you're calling it to fit your argument.

[Eric J in MN]

22. I didn't like the lack of names, either.

It's like she's saying: I'm gonna tell you about some terrible atheists, but I won't name even one.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. You know, it's common knowledge how "those people" are.

Just like "everyone knows" "godless secular elites" are waging "war on religion"

[Erika]

30. 100 percent agreed

When was the last war declared by atheists in the name of their beliefs?

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Random_Australian]

161. Point some out. Go on, I dare you.

Explain idealism. Which flavour you practice?

[Strong Atheist]

198. Replace the word "atheist" in your sentence with any other group name,

and your post would be deleted. Lets see:

DU is full of theist "whackjobs"

DU is full of GBLT "whackjobs"

DU is full of African American "whackjobs"

DU is full of feminist "whackjobs"

Doesn't go so well, does it? The ___________ is plain for all to see ...

[_testify_]

208. So when does your comet get here?

[Marr]

209. Where did you get all that from?

You somehow managed to peer through the internet, and directly into a poster's innermost thoughts... describing their views on subjects not even mentioned in their post. I suppose such divination is your special power? I mean- as a person not overly concerned with physical reality.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

344. Militant atheist extremists do exist

There certainly are people who believe that not merely are there valid criticisms of Christianity, but that leading to a criticism of Christianity is a reason to regard and promote something as valid.

They have negligable influence on American politics, and what influence they do have is largely positive, but they do certainly exist - just go and look in the "Religion and Theology" forum.

They are not, however, a problem - they may be annoying, but as a group militant atheists do a lot more good than harm, and while if there were enough of them they probably would scare off voters from the Democratic party, there aren't.

[beam me up scottie]

19. A new low for Raw Story

That they would not only publish, but defend publishing this revolting editorial makes me wonder why anyone ever consider this a credible news source.

Religious bigotry is unacceptable, whether it comes from the left or the right.

Attempting to justify it by invoking the right of free speech reminds me of the excuses other rags make for printing homophobic rants.

[slay]

59. I agree

And I generally like Rawstory. Intolerance of atheists is still intolerance. It would be SO wrong in SO many ways to try to "purge" atheists from the Democratic party. The thing about the Democrats, which I love, is that we accept everyone - white, black, gay, straight, religious, or not. I'm very surprised that Rawstory published this crap. :( :( :(

[beam me up scottie]

62. Thanks, I appreciate that.

I can't help but wonder if this had been an editorial using these same arguments against Jews or homosexuals, would they still have published it?

[lala_rawraw]

79. Thank you, we love new lows... every time

I would argue that the ego-left and the psychotic right are not that far apart. I do not agree with the author's views, but I also do not agree with your views. I am not for censorship and I am not for calling out the left in a time where the left must be united, despite our differences. That said, reading your comments indicates that you did not read the original, much like the people who keep on spreading gossip about Raw, like: "they are the one's who reported 22 indictments were coming" or "they are the ones who reported that Robert Novak is Libby's source" crap. Never once bothering to read the facts of what we reported. In much the same way, you take a column, albeit one I don't agree with, and you actually bastardize what was written to fit your outrage moment. I would rather have someone expressing their frustration even if that frustration does not in any way reflect mine than have a gaggle of rumor-mongers who play telephone with people's words in order to deliver up their own home cooked bigotry and intolerance. Swift boating is not just for the right, is it?

[beam me up scottie]

136. LOL! You're funny!

If you're going to go all congo on everyone who is criticizing your rag for publishing this editorial, you'd better hurry up, 'cuz there's a lot of us.

And if you think what you're reading in this thread is bad, you should see what we're saying about raw story in the blogosphere.

Too bad all of that shrill self righteous indignation isn't being used to condemn this ignorant bigot's diatribe instead of against the people who were targeted and offended by it.

I look forward to reading more intolerant editorials in raw story.

Maybe you guys could do a series.

So many minorities, so little time, eh?


Have a nice day. :hi:

[Random_Australian]

138. Hi five Bmus! *thwap* down low *thwap* alright! As for the

person you were responding to... I'm almost to forced to conclude about them what they concluded about you, unfortunately, that they read neither OP nor article except through the old see-what-you-want-to specs. Pity.

In other news, what they're saying in the blogshpere is awesome.

[Duppers]

312. Well, you're losing readership...

including me!

[MazeRat7]

I dont really give a rats ass...

Why should I ? There are extremists at both ends of any spectrum. Tell me why I should care about this ONE article above all others begging for our attention ?

Is it because they/she pointed out that there are passionate and convicted persons on both sides of the fence or because in this case there was implicit linkage between liberal "persons" as a specific segment of our ilk ?

MZr7

[Random_Australian]

87. The offense was at 1) Number of atheists implicated. 2) Strawmen

3) Stereoyping and demonising. 4) Dishonesty (see text)

Basically, she said all atheists were crap, then had a little disclaimer saying not all atheists, just the ones who wheren't whackjobs..... when she had defined whackjob as anyone who doesn't believe in God.

[Union Thug]

20. Radical Atheist checking in...

Just try and clean this 'whackjob' out of the attic.

So, let's get this straight - blind faith in something that can never be proven to exist is not considered "whackjob", while refusing to believe in what can never be proven IS whackjob.

Strange world.

[info being]

173. I'm with you 100%

[beam me up scottie]

23. Best.Comment.Ever.

I just read your column at Raw Story, "The left's own religious whackjobs." I found it to be of such caliber and insight--truly an important contribution and sincere expression from someone without peer in merit or magnanimity. I could do nothing but broadcast the existence of this superior example of your boundless pseudo-intellectualism far and wide. I envy you, your proud and deluded mind. Your bigotry is truly sublime.

It would be so absolutely wonderful--in the sense of easy, to be as good as you seem to be at believing you have true integrity and are a sincerely tolerant person while at the same time you categorize people different from yourself into "good atheists" and "bad atheists."

I am appalled, and yet filled with awe and curiosity, whenever the chance arises to view the inner workings and development of your kind of bigot.

After reading your blog entries and an entry or two written by you and published elsewhere it looks like you've had a rough time integrating religious belief into your life. I feel sympathy for you in that regard--sincere sympathy because you have been painfully gifted with a desire to belong that you find so utterly overwhelming.

This desire, I would guess, has ruined just enough happiness in your life and yet provided so little actual solace that you have turned into what you are now: a mildly deluded chauvinist bigot. Not the worst kind of bigot, just one that hasn't yet connected the dots so far hidden from their own view about their actual life.

Like the development of certain long-lived fractal patterns, the conflicted personality needs some protection from it's darker impulses to generate the swirling vortex of hypocrisy that ultimately spawns bigotry. Psychological denial is the source of that protection. I see some aspects of victim-turned-victimizer in your mix.

How do I know this? Because you have taken such great care in your responses here to retain what you believe is your right to step on the throats of other people in order to jack up that mockery of self-esteem which currently enlivens and motivates you.

Intellectually you state that tolerance is good and great. But your feelings come through clearly that it is very important to you that a special space be prepared and well-maintained for "those kind of people."

Your consistent use of "us/them"-language is the tell-tale sign of your inner conflict.

Put the pen down, find a non-religious mental health professional (they exist, and the really good ones won't take sides--which will help you the most) and get some much-needed therapy. Before you really start acting out in more destructive ways and do irreparable harm to your reputation as a "good person."

"No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back."
- Turkish proverb

If you don't--or can't, "turn back," at least stop and think.

Thank you and good luck.
Anonymous |

Anonymous: :yourock:

[Synnical]

26. Best Ever

-C.

[NervousRex]

230. Nothing but net...

whooosh!

[SPKrazy]

25. Couldn't Agree More!

Extremism on either end of the sphere is a sign of the insanity and single mindedness of those on either extreme.

I agree with the author.

I've seen extremism on both sides, and they BOTH SUCK!

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. The extremism that scares me most is the extremism of the center

At least the other extremisms show themselves.

[SPKrazy]

31. Be Afraid Then

Cause there are a lot more who aren't extremists ( I don't see myself at the center, but I'm not a raving and raging wingnut!!

I am a raving and raging nut, but I'm not on the wing!

}(

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. That's the point

There are no wings. There are just positions, not in a spectrum, with the center as compromise. That is an illusion of the power of the center, and nothing more.

[Hissyspit]

53. So when you were the only one who thought the world was a globe...

and everyone else in the world thought it was flat (because CLEARLY it is), except for some extremists on the OTHER side who thought the world was a cube, you "sucked" for extremely thinking the TRUTH? That is a false absolute on your part based on fallacy of equivalency. Extremism is relative to how you define it.

Sometimes, depending what you are talking about, moderatism and moderation are simply banality and mediocracy, and can, thus, be "dangerous" in their own way.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Oh, please.

You're just another evil godless extremist secularist humanist liberal.


The whole "extremist" atheist strawman reminds me of the bigots I work with.

You know, the ones who say things like "But I don't hate ALL black people, just the ones who use their race to get special treatment".


Damn uppity atheists.

[lala_rawraw]

80. Shhh, you might get swfit-boated...

Wow... I was just writing a column called "morons your bus is leaving" about the new swift boating of yet another victim outed by her own government as a "criminal." These comments and the hate mail that we have gotten, with threats and words only Karl Rove should be receiving gives me pause. I had never before considered the left as extremists, as those who are generally identified to be extremists on the left are usually not remotely leftist, as it were. Now I am seeing a side of lefties, well not just this but with other things going on, that is quite simply intolerant and cruel. I so disagreed with the author while defending her right to express her opinion that I did not take time to examine that the very thing she writes about is the very response she got. Now I wonder, just who the hell these people are. I am a Jew and I have never attempted to stop a white supremacist rally, for the simple reason that if I turn my opinion into a silencing tool, others can do so against me. I frankly have more respect for the atheist chasing reason than for the religious person chasing faith and I have been in both camps. And the author's opinion did offend me, but I will defend her right to express her opinion even if that opinion offends me, because silencing those we disagree with eventually makes us all silent. :)

[salvorhardin]

86. So you would be OK with Raw Story publishing Willis Carto then?

I'll leave it at this, but the free speech argument does not cut it here.

[lala_rawraw]

178. Actually, I have to disagree...

The rebuttal argument to her piece by a Ph.D no doubt is running sometime this week. That is how the left should handle issues where there is disagreement. To scream and holler at the whole staff (when you know that the editorial side and the news side do not work together at all and on purpose) is really offensive to me. I have said over and over that I do not agree with her views, but I will fight for her right to have them and for the right of the person writing the rebuttal piece over the censorship demands of someone who in his emotional reaction has lost sight of what was actually written (albeit not well argued); who actually handles that side of the publication; has attacked the whole staff en masse; but has yet to write a rebuttal based on reason, not emotion. What do you think is more productive, swift boating us or writing a well though out rebuttal piece? So no, your straw man does not work here. I think very highly of you as you well know and have for sometime. And we correspond often, but this hysteria and distortion does not serve your argument at all, in fact, it delivers the type of blind anger that the writer is talking about, don't you think?

Again, simple question: is it more productive to write a well thought out and well argued rebuttal to the author or better to smear, misquote, misrepresent, and insert excessive emotion? At least there are those who while they disagree are capable of using their reason and their tolerance to respond and make a point, thank god for that. Because frankly, this reaction is something I expect to see from the left behind crowd, not from the left and not from someone as intelligent as you are. Attacking the whole staff is really a bad way to go about things also and spreading the "adjusted" snippets of the piece does not add points to the reason argument either. I have said, I do not agree with her piece, but more importantly it is not a sound argument. Yet your response is pure emotion instead of a sound argument. I really wish that you used the intelligence and the talent you have for presenting complex things in an understandable way to address the argument made, not attack and not attack with such ugly and distorted methods. I am very disappointed.

---

Now, for everyone else, enough with the hate mail. There is a rebuttal to her piece coming, but there is no need to send ugly and threatening hate mail.

[salvorhardin]

193. And I am equally disappointed

Myself, PZ Myers (who is writing the rebuttal for Raw Story), Austin Cline and many others have written on this and we have all made the same arguments. And no one is trying to censor anyone. It is you and Raw Story that is arguing from pure emotion and using terms like "swiftboating". You just don't get how offensive and wrong it was to run this piece.

As far as my rebuttal, it is prominently linked in the first handful of posts above: http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/04/23/et_tu_brute

I felt no need to dissect Ms. Barton's elaborate use of strawmen since that constituted practically her whole article. Come on Larisa, this was hate speech pure and simple.

[muriel_volestrangler]

210. You're pushing your 'swift boating' claim really hard, aren't you?

Tell me, how is the reaction to a piece calling for some atheists to be shunned by the entire left for 'threatening liberty' equivalent to the swift boat saga? Then, there was an organised, well-financed collaboration to unjustly smear Kerry by calling him a liar about an important matter in the election. Now, many atheists are insulted at being called 'whackjobs' in a sub-standard op-ed piece from a so-called liberal, and are telling her they don't appreciate being told to piss off from the progressive left, because we're a minority and she thinks we hurt the chances of getting votes? Where's the similarity? If you think this is an organised assault against your site, you're wrong. We just see terrible writing, and respond.

If your site publishes a piece that could have stayed on Barton's blog, you have to take some responsibility for it. If it calls for a witch hunt among progressives, you have to take a lot of responsibility.

What makes you think the hate mail has come from DUers? W're just pointing out what a piece of crap the piece was.

[Strong Atheist]

274. Purely and simply, the raw story article posted is bigoted shit.

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state.


This clearly says that ALL ATHEISTS are whackjobs. If the same was said about theists, or GLBT, or African Americans, or feminists, it would be obvious bigotry/racism/sexism, as is this.

I am waiting for raw story to start posting KKK crapola and defending it in the same lovely manner.

[Zhade]

400. "better to smear, misquote, misrepresent, and insert excessive emotion?"

Raw Story should have looked at all that in the piece before they decided to publish it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. Look at Barton's last 2 paragraphs again - it's a witch hunt she wants

After that brief foray into snark, we come to the dangers. In modern America, atheist extremists as a group don't have the wealth, influence, numbers or power to affect the way most of us live our lives. However, we should learn from what has happened elsewhere and be prepared to meet them if or when they do. While most who believe in the separation of church and state hold that only government support of religion in the public sphere should be forbidden, the atheist extremist may take it one step further to forbid the private display of religious symbols in public places. Remember the laws forbidding the wearing of yarmulkes, crosses, hijabs, and the like in France. Such laws are just as much a violation of the liberal ideals of freedom of religion and conscience as laws that require religious practices.

But that's far in the future for America if it ever comes to our shores at all; the greatest danger the atheist extremist poses now is to the integrity and success of progressive movements. If we are to truly uphold the liberal ideals of freedom and liberty, we must stand against extremists of all stripes who would threaten those ideals. Secondly, in a nation comprised predominantly of those who believe in some sort of supreme being, our success as a movement depends on disavowing the atheist extremist as a legitimate voice of the left. Finally, our commitment to truth demands we counter the fallacies being perpetuated in our name.

The first bit of her op-ed may be wrong, full of strawmen and bad logic (and I'd hope Raw Story has a basic quality standard - does this really pass?), and 'whackjob' is an insulting term, when describing someone who holds their views about as strongly as, say, a practicing Catholic, but you might say that's part of normal internet discussion on religious matters. It's these last two paragraphs where she moves from arguments about standards of proof, personal beliefs or rationality, into full-blown hatred. The law forbidding prominent religious apparel in French schools was 'secular' in the true meaning of the word - with support from members of the major religions. Yes, many religious people don't like it - but with "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, "In God We Trust" on the money, it's not as if the USA has managed to practice the separation of church and state very well - but Barton doesn't call Democrats who allow that to continue "extremist whackjobs".

Then she says that because monotheism is a majority view, those she paints as 'extremists' must be expelled from the left! Her blog profile says she's a liberal due to "evolutionary adaptation", which I presume means she believes in liberalism because it protects minorities, and she then has the nerve to condemn people because they're a minority. And when are these 'fallacies being perpetuated in our name'? Where are the atheists saying that Democrats or progressives must not believe in God? It's complete rubbish.

The whole thing is, frankly, McCarthyite. She's waving her list of "atheist extremists", without ever saying who they are so they could actually put their own case, claiming they pose a threat to liberty, and demanding expulsions. Raw Story should not be publishing such dross.

[Warren DeMontague]

342. I defend the right of her to say it.

Supporting the source, however, is very different matter.

Any more than I would visit, cite, or lend any credence (as a "voice of the left") to a blog or site that published -and then refused to apologize for, and then attacked the critics of- a screed against "militant" gays, or "uppity" black people. Sorry. Such a voice clearly has a right to free speech- but it will have been forever banished from my progressive universe. Let it cull readership from the Bill O'Reilly ("they are waging war on Christmas, again!") crowd.

I don't see why it should be okay to attack (and propose "cleaning out of the attic") so-called "atheist whackjobs" (meaning, basically, everyone who does NOT believe in the Western God and anyone who dares assert that there is a logical basis to NOT believing something -anything, really- for which there is not a shred of evidence) when clearly, any bashing of the other kinds I outline above, against gays, minorities, etc. would bring identical calls for a swift and unequivocal apology-- and rightfully so.

I respect your work, Larisa. Unfortunately, unless it's posted somewhere besides Raw Story, I will not be reading it anymore.

[JNelson6563]

373. Allow bigoted crap to be published

be prepared to feel the heat. Closed minded ignorance toward the one group society openly supports discrminating against (atheists) from a source that is suppose to be liberal and, one would hope, a bit more enlightened than the corporate media, well apparently the disappointment isn't bringing out the best in the offended parties.

And your answer: Wide eyed confusion and a quick donning of the cloak of victimhood.

Wow!

Juile

[Erika]

27. Uh, why are atheists and agnostics thought of extremists?

Is there any proof we don't pay our taxes or anything else? When do atheists claim moral superiority?

[beam me up scottie]

33. Because atheist suicide bombers and terrorists regularly

blow things up in the name of no god.

Don't try to figure out how bigots think, it's ugly.

[Erika]

34. Thanks for the laugh!

A point well made. It is not the atheists or the agnostics who are warmongering.

[Canuckistanian]

64. Today 10,000 atheists demonstrated...

...When they saw a blank cartoon in the morning paper....

or

If atheism is a religion, then 'OFF' is a TV channel.


Thank you, butter my ass, I'm on a roll! (ba-dum-bum)

[watrwefitinfor]

95. "If atheism is a religion, then 'OFF' is a TV channel." LOL

Best ever, Canuck. You are indeed on a roll.

I look forward to this person's next "editorial" explaining which other potential allies the progressive and anti-war movement needs to piss off and cast off. Who's next? Extremist gays who want to marry? Extremist Jews who don't hate Palestinians? Extremist Democrats who don't apologize when they are right?

Wat

(Edit to prove that even atheists know how to spell.)

[beam me up scottie]

158. ROFL !!!

Bravo !

Encore !

:applause:

[smirkymonkey]

219. Thank you!

:rofl:

How can one be a "religious extremist" if one is not RELIGIOUS??

[Marnieworld]

385. excellent quote about off as a TV channel

That explains it perfectly and I will use it again I am sure. Are you extreme about your TV being off? Are there variations of off, sort-of-off, and extremely off? No, of course not. It's either on (a selection of channels or religions) or it is off which is just no selection chosen.

Is it extreme if you don't want to be treated as less of an American, and as the author implied in the Original column, less of a Progressive/Dem because you've decided not to turn on the religion TV? That is what people on this thread and the blogosphere are objecting to-it is no less hateful than when some say that Gays are costing the Dem party votes and that their "agenda" is weighing the whole platform down. It buys into the premise that the GOP was selling that W was "re-elected" based on the "values voter" and that Dems must be more like republicans if they want votes. I reject that premise created by opponents for the benefit of the opponents. When any minority group encounters overt bigotry they respond with emotions because they are humans. It triggers an apparent over-reaction because it provokes a release of all of the frustration of all of the times when it seems like non-believers don't exist in public life. This piece is all for the silence of free speech and it's ironic that it is being presented as a defense of free speech.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Though her argument is not well presented, I think she's referring

to the type of atheist (a minority, to be sure) who can hardly hear religion mentioned without jumping in with insulting remarks. (Not "I don't see things that way because..." but "You're a fucking moron if you believe in fairy tales about old men in the sky with white beards!")

There's a real difference in tone there. One is polite and reasoned, while the other is reminiscent on an emotional level of the freeper types who barge in with posts about "Klintoon and Hitlery."

[PublicWrath]

58. But that's rudeness, not extremism.

Just as fundies are rude when they flare up to tell polite unbelievers they will burn in hell. (On second thought, "burning in hell" remarks might be viewed as significantly more aggressive in nature than "you're a fucking idiot" comments, because they are threats of violence, however one judges the chances of their fulfillment. Anyway, I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.)

Perhaps one lab test for extremism is the extent to which a particular group is willing to go in seeking to impose conformity on those who do not share its views.

Many Christian extremists are proposing the return of the blasphemy laws. Other energetic groups have stated their commitment to ringing in an era in which heresy and atheism will be punished with the death penalty.

I simply haven't heard any atheists or agnostics suggesting that legislation should be enacted to bring fines or imprisonment for religious speech or capital punishment for the pious.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Sure. And those are the ONLY folks walking around DU with a case

of the morally-superior-to-thou's, clearly.

[bloom]

50. You know

I don't go around and send people PM's saying that _______, _______, _________, & _________ have all decided X,Y& Z about you. (As if I have a group and we are the inquisition or something).


I think it's over the top.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

If that post is referring to an issue you've got with someone here, it's not me.

[bloom]

52. I didn't say it was you

I said that there is a group here that does that, however.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Yeah, issue is right.

Or, more accurately, a personal vendetta against DU atheists.

I lost all respect for that poster the first time she attacked us.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Bullshit.

Atheists on DU do not claim moral superiority.

This extended snit you've been on about us is petty and ugly.

About what I'd expect from the Melinda Bartons of the world.

If you've got a problem with an atheist's post or thread, take it up with the mods, but please stop dragging your "issues" into every single thread where we post.

It's become an obsession.

[arwalden]

133. Yes...

<< It's become an obsession. >>

... the pattern is clear.

[Agony]

32. I don't see the problem here

...since there isn't any reason or evidence that refutes my atheism. End of story

[Strong Atheist]

107. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

[dorkulon]

36. What a bunch of crap.

Right--atheists are a big problem in modern society. Always trying to impose their...reality on the happily delusional. :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

48. It's not crap.

It's more like "poop".

[Pastiche423]

55. I disagree

I believe it's crap. IMHO, crap is way worse that poop.

[Strong Atheist]

108. Haven't seen you till now. Belated Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

[beam me up scottie]

39. Reading some more comments, it looks like Raw Story

is taking a big hit because of this bigot.

And they should.

Thanks to all the bloggers and supporters who recognized this editorial for what it is!

I'd expect nothing less from liberals.

[salvorhardin]

40. Yes, that is really the silver lining in all this

First the comments at Raw Story and then all the bloggers who spoke against the bigotry expressed in Ms. Barton's editorial. It showed us that the left is square on opposed to this nonsense.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Well, Raw Story just dropped about 40 notches in my estimation.

Nice job, gang.

Yep. It's those "atheist extremists" that are the "problem".

Let me guess, they're "waging a war on Christmas and Easter", too, right?

Bill O'Reilly... er, sorry, "Melinda Barton"'s blog can be found here:

http://liberalsinexile.blogspot.com/

[Pastiche423]

45. Editor's note:

"Ms. Barton has devoted a considerable number of words to make it abundantly clear that she is not referring to all atheists or secularists--or even a majority of either--in this piece. Many outside blogs have posted critiques that (rather dishonestly) omit this fact, portraying the piece as an attack on all atheists, or even on secularists."

Rather dishonestly, my ass!

If this is the type of editorials that Raw Story promotes and defends, then they are off my list of credible reporters.

[SidDithers]

137. If Ms. Barton has devoted a "considerable number of words...

to make it abundantly clear that she is not referring to all atheists or secularists", then, shouldn't it be abundantly clear that she's not referring to all atheists or secularists?

Maybe she's not a bigot, just a really bad writer.

Sid

[Strong Atheist]

294. More along the lines of

"Some of my best friends are atheists, but they are all rotten shits" is the TYPE (though not exact wording) of "reasoning" that she uses.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Apparently claiming that it's logical to expect evidence to PROVE claims

instead of DISPROVE them is an "outrageous claim".

What a fucking chowderhead.

[Canuckistanian]

49. I strenuously object to this statement

"Ultimately, however, the supernatural's existence or nonexistence cannot be supported by evidence..."

As a practicing and more firmly committed atheist, I can say that this statement is pure bullshit.

The fact that evidence HASN'T been produced yet (to my satisfction) is my very reason for my being an atheist.

If God (or Allah or Quetzcoatl or Koresh or Odin) plunked himself/herself down right in front of my car as I was on the way to work, I may first have some questions to ask of him (or her or it).

First, I'd ask if they were the supreme God and second, which religion had you pegged first?

Then and only then, I'd start on a quest for the spiritual truth.

One thing's for sure. I'd have many, many more follow-up questions before I gave up my unyielding fealty.

On edit - Link to comment which expresses my views far more rationally:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/rawstory/1904b/#251983

[Warren DeMontague]

70. Exactly. There is a LACK OF evidence for LOTS OF THINGS.

If I assert, for instance, that there is a 500 foot tall, invisible gorilla living on my roof, that I have psychic contact with Elvis daily, or that I'm a cobbler with little gnome friends who repair my shoes at night - according to the author of this "piece" (aint that the truth) those claims, with no evidence to back them up- MUST BE on an equal logical footing as a disbelief in those claims pending verifiable evidence, and furthermore, anyone who dares assert that they're not, is an "extremist whackjob" who needs to be "cleaned out of the attic of the left".

:eyes:

[killbotfactory]

93. If you don't believe in a 500 ft tall invisible gorilla

You are an extremist! The more you protest that there is no evidence for the Gorilla God, the more you prove your extremism!

You can't it he doesn't exist!!!

[SidDithers]

139. I've always admired your shoes...

now I know why :)

Sid

[BigMcLargehuge]

374. Can you get the gnomes to make a pair of size 8.5 wingtips?

I can pay you in unicorn steaks

[DrGonzoLives]

147. Logically, how does one "practice" atheism?

Just curious.

[Random_Australian]

163. It isn't an affirmative practice, your disbelief in Zeus doesn't

affect your behaviour, our disbelief in God doesn't affect mine at least.

[DrGonzoLives]

168. "Practice" infers that you are actively doing something

A "practicing" pagan attends pagan rituals, a "practicing" Catholic attends mass, etc. I'm just curious about what it is that "practicing" atheists doe that makes them "practicing," since they have no rituals, temples, or other paraphenelia to "practice" with.

[Canuckistanian]

195. It's hard work!

Actually, I meant it facetiously.

[KittyWampus]

152. Evidence hasn't been produced yet to prove that Consiouness plays a

role in forming Reality?

And you think there's evidence that proves Materialism?

[Random_Australian]

166. support, not prove. Neuroscience 1001.

[lyonn]

60. Atheists lack money and power to promote their

way of believing is roughly what she stated. It sounded like because of that it almost proves atheists are way off base in their thinking. Nice lady. (sarcasm)

Edit to add the quote:

"After that brief foray into snark, we come to the dangers. In modern America, atheist extremists as a group don't have the wealth, influence, numbers or power to affect the way most of us live our lives. However, we should learn from what has happened elsewhere and be prepared to meet them if or when they do."

[Canuckistanian]

61. Melinda has earned Atrios' "Wanker of the Day"

With a link to Pharyngula:
"Look, Ma, I'm secular whackjob"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/look_ma_im_a_secular_whackjob.php

[Solly Mack]

63. That's nice

ho hum

[Mythsaje]

68. As a determined humanist/pantheist

I might not agree with atheists, but I sure as hell trust them farther than I trust those who claim some special knowledge the rest of us don't share about the nature of the universe. I think there's SOMETHING out there, but depending on some higher authority to bail us out of troubles of our own making is stupid and irresponsible.

We will NEVER fix our mistakes as long as so many stupid jackasses think that some transcendent deity is going to save us.

Atheists aren't the problem. Fucking Armageddonists are. Period.

The writer's a dumbass.

[NMMNG]

73. Pure tripe

None of her "Outrageous Claims" have been made by any atheist I've ever come across, or likely any atheist Ms. Barton has ever come across. I think she pulled these claims out of her backside for the purposes of this inane diatribe. :eyes:

[nolabels]

97. Truth hurts

We probably had to be there. I can only imagine this for myself and try to relate. Just to think someone has spent their entire life in this place called "Belief", then ran into a person using logic as a weapon. This could be very threatening to the others who need some kind of polarity in there life.

To acknowledge one is stuck here on earth with all of it is the scary thought. Logic is a static realm and belief is transcendence, neither place any us humans are allowed to live and yet we go on.

[Yollam]

74. How many atheists in America propose FORCING everyone to be atheist?

Because millions of "Christians" in this country want to force their religion on everyone else, whether by putting the ten commandments in classrooms, teaching creationist myths as science, criminalizing sexual practices which they have decided that their God doesn't like, etc. etc.


I have NEVER heard of an atheist proposing that we teach "There is no GOD!" in a science class", or in any other way impose atheism on anyone else. I personally don't think there is such a thing as an extremist atheist, although some atheists may be overly zealous in telling others about it because they have a lot of trauma from their religious upbringings.

Personally, I have no animosity against religion or religious people, so long as they keep it out of my life and out of my business, and I think most atheists are the same. The establishment clause of the constitution is very clear - this is not a "Judeo-Christian" republic - that would be showing preference to Abrahamic religions, so any religious mumbo-jumbo promulgated by the government in any public venue is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is not "extremist" to point that out. These people have no more business teaching my child about the Ten Commandments that Christians so frequently break, than I have any business telling their kids that their parents were lying and that God and the angels and the Little baby Jesus were just a fairy tale.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. These so-called "Atheists" do worse in public school science class

by teaching that scientific claims need to be rigorously examined, verifiable, and backed up by evidence.

Anti-religious bias! :eyes:

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Random_Australian]

167. Scientific Industrial Complex - corporate driven not atheist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

181. These days, it's faith driven, in the USA

Just look at Bush's assault on science, and he and his generals (the ones he hasn't sacked) crusades.

[_testify_]

221. Don't you remember?

My atheist congregation just sent 400 disbelievers to the corners of the globe to feed them with one hand and teach them not to believe in Jesus with the other.

[maddezmom]

76. wow, found this when I went to the link

Editor's note: If you've arrived here, it wasn't through the RAW STORY main site, but rather one of several blogs that have latched onto this piece as an example of "religious intolerance." I would ask readers directed by these blogs to take careful note of how many times Ms. Barton announces that she is not talking about all atheists, as her critics have claimed.

When I read this piece, I knew that some people would infer ideas from it that simply weren't in the text. That this has happened does not surprise me; that the perpetrators seem to claim they are authorities in the field of logic, while arguing against an obvious straw man, does. I take particular exception with those posts that have changed her wording in the few quotes they provide. Whether this was intentional or simply lazy, I cannot say. I am not a mind-reader, though some of her critics seem to believe they are (apparently, she hates Jews and homosexuals--though she is a Jewish lesbian!) However they came to these misrepresentations, they are nonetheless irresponsible.

more:http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

[Random_Australian]

83. Previously, I recall seeing that, and thinking it an untruthful disclaimer

as the language is at odds with that disclaimer.

See especially "First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state"

This is *rather* inclusive, as it implies that the line between atheism and atheist extremism is actually at the beginning of disbelief of supernatural things.

However, we must not let our passions run away with us and claim more than that; no more than intellectual dishonesty and broad brushing (for that paragraph; the other paragraphs may hold other nasties)

But as such, criticism of that poster that is at odds with the disclaimer are not necessarily invalid.

[maddezmom]

85. using the word "perpetrators" seems awfully defensive

considering the editor states further down, he 'knew it would provoke":

Some backstory for those who have expressed interest: I did request a second draft of this piece, as one reader has already reported on the comments forum. This is rare, as RAW STORY values free expression in its opinion columns. The author and I reached some common ground, and I chose to run the piece, knowing that it would provoke. RAW STORY has repeatedly published editorials critical of religion, so I felt it was only appropriate to allow space for an opposing viewpoint. As another RAW STORY editor wrote to me, "the point is, they're her opinions and she has a right to express them." Apparently, not everyone is as willing to hear the other side out.

[Random_Australian]

89. Nice catch! You have a keen eye, I must say!

:yourock:

[JNelson6563]

128. It does lack "thruth-iness"

and it is this disclaimer, moreso than the vicious screed (aka "editorial") that has turned me off of Raw Story.

:toast:

[JNelson6563]

90. "extremist"=those who admit atheism?

Or those who won't sit idly by while fundies and other lunatics ram their nonsense down the throats of all? I'd wager on it.

God save me from your people. Your self-righteous, terrified, stone-throwing, mediocre writing skill possessing people!

Julie

[H2O Man]

91. Where? n/t

[Taxloss]

92. It seems the left has hate speech as well as "whackjobs"

This is hate speech, pure and simple. I think a certain columnist has recently been made to feel stupid, and this is her bitter way of feeling better about herself.

[Festivito]

98. WOW! The DU expressions here surprise me.

I notice the title:
"Raw Story Columnist Attacks Atheists and Secularists"
is not:
"Raw Story Columnist Attacks EXTREMIST Atheists and Secularists"

This theme of omitting the word extreme follows in almost all the posts.

It is as though the concept of atheist TO ATHEISTS THEMSELVES has become so tied to the word extreme used by others in this oft cruel world that any mention of extreme applied to atheism melds into nothingness. As though it disappeared, as it disappeared from many of the posts, as it did from the title of this thread.

I had no idea this tunnel between us would be so dark. I see no light in this tunnel. I'm attempting to go inside by feeling the walls carefully as I dare.

[Random_Australian]

99. Hold on mate, here's a candle:

She defines anyone who does not believe in God as an extreme atheist, thus the freaking dislike.

"First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state"

[JNelson6563]

100. There it is:

"First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to --->those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims,<--- not to those who merely support a separation of church and state"

So those who are truly atheists are "extremists" according to the author. What next Raw Story? Easter/Christmas/Christianity under attack?

:puke:

[KittyWampus]

156. she doesn't mention the word God. You have just misquoted her.

[Random_Australian]

169. O.K, disbelieve religous claims. Splitting hairs IMO.

[yodermon]

160. Incorrect.

The sentence you quote is defining the word secular, NOT extremist

The paragraph that defines atheist extremist("whackjob") was the next one down.

The whackjob is a special sort of atheist, one so absolutely certain of the inerrancy of atheism and so virulently opposed to religion that he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defense of the former and against the latter. He will meet any criticism of atheism or positive representation of religion as a horrible attack on his way of life or as support for religious extremism and oppression. Just as the religious extremist holds that his belief in a supreme being alone makes him morally and spiritually superior, the atheist extremist holds that his belief that no such being exists and virulent opposition to the reverse make him intellectually and ethically superior. Finally, he will ignore any and all reason or evidence that refutes his claims.

What she is not saying is that All Atheists share the above characteristics.

That said, I think her article is one big straw-man of the "war on Christmas" variety. The few individuals who fit the description in her paragraph would be naturally marginalized by reasonable mainstream atheists. All of a sudden she's given them a focus out of proportion to their influence -- unless you listen to hate radio.

In effect she's made a mountain out of a molehill, and given the rabid right-wing yet another broad brush with which to paint all liberals/secular humanists/atheists, as if they needed the ammo.

[Festivito]

164. You're right, it's either a goof, or a cloaked attack then contradicted.

1. Her "first" is to describe her term: atheist-whack-job.
2. She describes secular{sic} as disbelievers beyond separationists.
3. She describes secular-extremists as atheists without all atheists being atheist-extremists.

Either she goofed, or she meant to make a cloaked attack that she would then contradict in the next paragraph.

4. She describes whack-job as a special sort of atheist that latches on to outrageous claims.

Well, what's a secular versus atheist versus whack-job versus extremist. It is all made unclear. What seems clear is that she used too many words, trying too hard, and ruined her own article.

She meant that there could be fringe atheists whose extremism would warrant being called wacko, just as there are religious zealots whose extremism would warrant being called wacko.

I'd like to know the answer, but with this much confusion, it's not worth the work ... not here, not now.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

321. So You Refute The Poster's Point By Making The Same Gross Error?

Cause that was a definition of the adjective. Immediately following the definition of the adjective the author then uses it in conjunction with the word extremist, which you again omitted. That is what is relevant to the context. The author first defines one term - secular, as basically a synonym for atheists. But then the author uses that definition with the word extremists, thereby again readily showing they are referencing only extremist atheists, not all atheists. So not only is the thread title inaccurate, but your defense of it used the same ill logic in my opinion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. Maybe because the 'extremists' are never named?

Which then gives the impression there is a sizeable group of them, working to subvert liberal principles (and if you think that's hyperbole, re-read her last 2 paragraphs).

She does quote from a couple of atheist groups - but what is so 'extreme' about these statements:

'Atheism' is the acceptance that there is no credible, scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a God, god/s or the supernatural.

Religion is oppressive. The act of subjugating human will to "divine will" is oppressive. The practice of obeying clergy, of letting them make our decisions for us, is oppressive and irresponsible.

The first is a definition of atheism, with a claim about evidence for gods that has been made for hundreds of years, often by practising theists - they contend you must make a 'leap of faith' to truly believe in a religion. Yet Barton calls this claim 'outrageous' - so people who accept it are pushed into her 'extremist' category.

The second has a provocative and broadbrush first sentence. But it is explained - religions that claim a divine will and a powerful clergy are oppressive. Some, such as Buddhism, don't come into that category. The actual Manifesto goes on to give specific examples of oppression by religion. Is this any more outrageous than, say, claiming that morality derives from God? Should all religious believers who claim that be shunned by liberals?

[charlie]

106. It's her own fault

Her sloppy thinking and expression leaves it so that it can be construed that many ordinary atheists are "extremists." She characterizes extremists as strident, doctrinaire, and aggressive -- so far, so good. But then, she lists their claims, calling each "outrageous."

Outrageous claim number 1: Atheism is based on evidence and reason and is philosophically provable or proven. Atheism is a matter of thought not belief. In other words, atheism is true; religion is false.
...
Outrageous claim number 2: Since the natural is all that we have or can scientifically observe and/or measure, it is all that exists.

Those are views held by plenty of atheists and are neither extreme or outrageous.

Couple that with her wish to clean "the atheist whackjobs out of our own attic", I'm not surprised by the anger.

[sendero]

103. This guy is an idiot...

.. I'll beleive in "god" as soon as he offers the absolute tiniest hint of proof that he/she exists. If that's too much to ask then so be it. Until then I'll look around and conclude that most people don't really believe in god but merely use feigned belief to further their own decidedly un-god-like agendas.

[dogday]

104. Variety is the spice of life

You don't have to like it, but you have to tolerate it...

[Random_Australian]

105. Nor do we. What works for the goose works for the gander!

And Rfitqc spoke, saying: "She shall say crap like that, we shall get pissed."

[dogday]

109. I have seen many get pissed on these

threads posted on DU about Christians... It runs both ways like it or not....


on edit: I am puttin on my flame suit

[Random_Australian]

OOooohhhh nice flame suit! (As an immoral ^extreme^ atheist, I'll nick it)

[dogday]

113. We are all going to burn anyway lol nt

[Random_Australian]

115. Unless you give to the Tom Delay Persecuted Christian Fund.

Whereas I've been told that the Lord is positively slavering to throw me into a lake of fire. Like I'd want to be in heaven with a nutter like that.

[dogday]

117. I don't believe our burning will be act

of God, but of man....

[Random_Australian]

119. I do not believe burning as an act of God, but there are those who

see the acts of man as acts of God.


I do not believe in God.

[Strong Atheist]

110. Get to the back of the bus, you godless atheists!

in a nation comprised predominantly of those who believe in some sort of supreme being, our success as a movement depends on disavowing the secular extremist as a legitimate voice of the left

What a crock.:eyes:

[Marnieworld]

386. That to me is the point of the piece and is the most offensive

The whole article is just filler to prepare you for her main point, her true wish. Everything up until the end is just a rambling distraction. Ms. liberal thinker wants to supress speech of a group that she never truly defines, never quotes from any organization or individual directly but invents points of view from her idea or fear of atheists desires. She wants to eliminate a group of people from having a "legitimate voice." That's the goal of the whole thing- to motivate other religious progressives to have the courage and support to say get out of our group if you aren't religious because we think you are dragging us down. In my 34 years I heard the same thing about gays and even African Americans. Some voters are hateful and we'd rather court the hate vote than actually standing up for freedom. It's hate under a cloak of practicality but hate nonetheless.

I don't know of any group that would tolerate being silenced. I don't know of any group that would not find an attempt to shun them to be offensive. If speaking up in response is extreme than everyone is an extremist. I'm sure she doesn't consider herself an extremist by believing she has a "legitimate voice" though not that long ago in our history, and in many places throughout the world many would want to silence her voice as well because she is a woman.

Here's a thought. If these practical people who want religious (Christian in US predominantly) voters instead of saying that they hate non-believers too they should talk about how Jesus would be a liberal and how the current domestic and foreign policies are as far from Christ as possible. What do I know though? My voice is now illegitimate.

[malaise]

112. Atheists hands are clean

We don't kill in the name of figments of our imagination -i.e gods. I don't give a fugg who believes what but when they are killing people in the name of these beliefs and destroying humanity and the planet under the cover of religion, I can't remain silent.

The writer would better concentrate on the loonies who have been brainwashed by murderous oil barons, robbers and their political cronies and therefore provide cover for criminals.

[mr blur]

122. You see this is your problem, right here:

From her rant:

"Secondly, in a nation comprised predominantly of those who believe in some sort of supreme being, our success as a movement depends on disavowing the atheist extremist as a legitimate voice of the left."

Most of you live in a country where people care (or profess to care) whether or not others believe in the same invisible cloud being as they themselves do. I mean, really, who gives a fuck? What does it matter what your neighbours, your co-workers believe? I can't imagine what it must be like living in a society where there is some kind of problem revealing that you don't believe in god and just getting on with your life. So much fear.

[symbolman]

127. UnHoly shit, BaitMan!

not much of a Raw STory fan.. wondering if the same old plame stories, like the latest Leopold "16 Words were LIES" (Like that's NEWS), weren't bringing in the hits, gotta maintain those ads, I guess with everyone gobsmacking their dodging Monkey ads they're making plenty of money, worked like a charm.

The old Invisible Man argument, rationality vs faith, impossible to defend for either side, is a cheap trick, and a cheap shot at the same time, and used by many for some kind of glory.

I personally just want to see some good come out of this, like "Atheist Parking" Spaces or special "Atheist Challenged Olympics", etc..

But, I have just one thing to say, that when an Atheist dies they DO get a special tombstone,

"All Dressed up, and no Place to Go.."

Raw Story should apologise. But they'll just make it go away, that's what they do.. if someone points out that they screwed the pooch, after much facial scarring with strange words to make sure that person NEVER says bad things about the site again they LET IT DROP.. NO ONE posts anymore, it's a VACCUM thread and it drops like a rock..

Why should they apologise? It's THEIR BLOG, not HERS. So HER WORDS become THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.

This is why REAL journalists and newspapers, etc print RETRACTIONS and APOLOGIES. Because they were WRONG.

THis is what happens when you invite EVERYONE to "write" for your site, making sure you have a steady supply of attack dogs should someone dis the way you push old stories, and act as if you can't say certain things as you are too important and know too many people and might like, DIE or be killed or something, but it comes off sounding more like Barney Fife in the end.. Glad that LA LA is defending FREE SPEECH in this thread so I get to post my opinion on all this.. (and your site DID say that 22 Indictments were expected to come down, the only thing that keeps anyone from proving it, and as you probably well know, is that the DU was switching over to a new format at that point and those threads went Bye Bye.. I KNOW I saw it, and so do others..)

But why apologise and end the situation when the HITS KEEP COMING and the AD money is FLOWING, just like each and every "breathless BREAKING STORY" that are sometimes two years old..

Much like Drudge, I don't go there.. flame me if you must, but according to my religion then you'd just be a RAWBOT and I'd feel sorry for you. Then when other people that agree with me speak up they can be called MY ATTACK DOGS, which is so "out there" that I literally have to shake my head upon reading it.. OTHER people are NOT my attack dogs, they have THEIR opinions, and some of them agree with me, that's all it is, simple..

Now, about those DAMNED AGNOSTICS, goddam fencesitters! (kidding, I LIKE agnostics)

[Random_Australian]

129. I think you meant 'perhaps DAMNED' and 'possibly goddam fencesitters' ;)

just fooling around.

[yodermon]

175. Your beef ought to be with

"Radar Magazine" (http://www.radarmagazine.com/the-wire/2005/10/05/index.php#wire_003399 )
posted 10/05/05

Breaking! Plame Indictments Imminent
10_2005_rove.jpg

EXCLUSIVE: The D.C. rumor mill is thrumming with whispers that 22 indictments are about to be handed down on the outed-CIA agent Valerie Plame case. The last time the wires buzzed this loud — that Tom DeLay would be indicted and would step down from his leadership post in the House — the scuttlebutters got it right.

Can it be a coincidence that the White House appears to be distancing President Bush from embattled aide Karl Rove? “He’s been missing in action at more than one major presidential event,” a member of the White House press corps tells us.

If the word on the street is right a second time, we have a bit of advice for Rove: Go with vertical stripes, they’re way more slimming.

or Larry Johnson (http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/10/a_new_tidbit_on.html )

A New Tidbit on the Plame Affair

by
Larry C. Johnson

Had lunch today with a person who has a direct tie to one of the folks facing indictment in the Plame affair. There are 22 files that Fitzgerald is looking at for potential indictment . These include Stephen Hadley, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, and Mary Matalin (there are others of course). Hadley has told friends he expects to be indicted. No wonder folks are nervous at the White House.

Posted by Larry Johnson on October 18, 2005 at 03:48 PM

as they appear to be the primary sources of this tidbit last October.
If Raw Story had ever done original reporting on the "22 indictments", then it would have been immediatly mirrored all over the blogosphere for eternity.

Perhaps Raw Story linked to one of these stories at some point, as did countless bloggers? Maybe using a red font? How horrible of them.

[izzybeans]

130. Another graduate of Falwell U.?

snip-

The religious nutballs on the extreme right have kept us rational lefties so busy that we've neglected an important although onerous duty -- cleaning the atheist whackjobs out of our own attic, the extreme left. (Of course, extremisms of the religious or atheistic nature are only a small part of the sum total of extremism. Every form of thought has its own whackjobs of varying stripes.)

This is intellectual laziness and extremism personified.

The rest is just a bunch of nonesensical jibber-jabber. If I were karl Marx I'd say "Ah, another alienated soul splintering off from her fellow human, and over religion..." But then again all religions aren't repressive, just the very small pockets that have had to reform to conform to secular standards of equality and justice.

The rest of this essay she holds onto a thin thread, starting with the third graders distinction between thought and belief. Next time try distinguishing between belief and theory, and then read some Philosophy of Science. It would really help her understand.

[Random_Australian]

131. ...

:toast:

As for the disclaimer's honesty, see upthread. (The one the moderator starts)

[MissB]

162. The columnist sounds like a whackjob.

Odd.

[Random_Australian]

170. You should here some of the people I'm arguing with!

O.K. one of them.

[ComerPerro]

165. How is an atheist any more of a whackjob than a Christian, Jew, or Muslim?

[DanCa]

176. I am a little confused here.

Is extremism good or bad? Is an extreme christian a good thing or bad thing is extreme atheism good or bad? What is the definition of extremism and who sets it? Yep I am confused all the way around.

[Random_Australian]

177. Extremism bad, anyone who does not believe in God is an

extreme atheist. Thus we atheists take a LOT of offense.

[DanCa]

179. Not all athiests are extremist

I read that in the article. Not all Christians are fundies. Not all muslims are terrorist.

[Random_Australian]

180. ...

"First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state"


Whackjob close enough to extremist?

[DanCa]

182. People can believe or disbelive what they want.

Funny though when people insult me for praying for a parkinsons cure I can take it with a grain of salt. Though I agree with you major point no one regardless of what they believe or not believe in should be insulted. The golden rule you know do onto others as you wish they do on to you.

[Random_Australian]

183. Golden rule sounds about right.

Glad we agree. Sorry that there are those that laugh.

As for the insults, one needs must be careful, but in the presence of the person, for instance, I should change my manner.

Another good example is the prayer thing, whilst I am supportive of it when I meet it, (giving persona positive outlook and all that), if someone in the Atheist forum needs to blow off steam about what people expect from prayer, I'd understand that.

Careful with insults, everything has it's place.

[DanCa]

185. Agreed

I think most of us here (freepers not included) are on the same side politicly speaking. We should concentrate on things that unite us instead of dividing us. I know a lot of great people who dont believe in good. There are people who say that there christian that I can't stand. As my grandpa said some of the richest people he knows don't have a dime in their pockets.

For now lots concentrate on getting rid of Bush and his phoney religousity. Thats whats causing this tension. Gawd the chimp has screwed up everything from the weather to theology. What's next on his list?

:hug:

[Random_Australian]

190. Thanks for the hug. Great post.

:hug::pals::hug:

Welcome to my buddy list.

[GirlinContempt]

211. I expected better from you, R_A

[Strong Atheist]

276. Oh, she comes out with her bigotry right near the top:

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state.


This clearly says that ALL ATHEISTS are whackjobs. If the same was said about theists, or GLBT, or African Americans, or feminists, it would be obvious bigotry/racism/sexism, as is this.

All the atheists have noticed this bigotry right off the bat.

[GirlinContempt]

287. Would you read what I have to say about that

and stop following me around from post to post repeating yourself like a broken record, please?

[sendero]

187. Me too..

... but I know extreme idiocy when I see it :)

[Chomp]

188. I'm an

Evangelical Atheist Whackjob.

And proud of it.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

192. It's wonderful to see so many DUers calling this article

for the rubbish it is.

[Beelzebud]

201. Atheism is a religion, like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

How can I be "extreme" about something I don't ever discuss, or even think about?

[GirlinContempt]

206. This thread makes me agree with the article the more I read.

It's something I've been saying for a long time. And no, this article isn't attacking ALL atheists or ALL secularists, it's attacking a somewhat vocal and virulent minority of atheists who ARE extremest and even fundie in their views. This isn't the kind of person who doesn't want religion in schools or in the state, but supports free practice of believers and freedom of belief outside of state institutions.
This is the person I see on DU who claims that all people of faith are crazy, delusional, should be locked up, that all religion is the enemy of science, and claims a belief in a logic so illogical it could make your head spin.

This is the kind of person that openly attacks people or organizations for being religious, and even desires to see churches and other organizations disbanded or stifled. These aren't abstract examples, these are people I have personally encountered here on DU.

I am an atheist, this behaviour has always made me sick, and I agree with this columnist.

Painting the presented ideas as a hatred of atheists and secularists is disingenuous and laughable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

213. No, there's nothing about 'crazy', 'should be locked up'

or 'enemy of science' in the piece. She does, however, class those who say there's no evidence for gods or the supernatural as people who threaten the ideas of freedom and liberty. Check that last paragraph, and the 'outrageous claims' she says define the 'whackjobs'. Those 'outrageous' claims are actually quite common, and quite reasonable. She really does hate atheists - and, for some reason, tries to redefine 'secular' to mean the same thing.

[GirlinContempt]

216. I'm not talking about the piece

I'm talking about the atheist 'whackjobs' I encounter on DU.

But I don't think that saying THE EXTREMISTS who are ATHEIST have the POSSIBILITY of threatening liberty is saying that all people who say there is no god are threatening liberty and freedom. That just doesn't add up.

And those claims are outrageous. I don't see a single one that doesn't make me shake my head with disgust. Just as actual claims that all atheists are horrible, ethic-less murderers makes me shake my head and want to scream.

Which of those claims are 'reasonable'?!

[muriel_volestrangler]

228. If you're not talking about the piece, how can you agree with it?

Disgust?

1: "Atheism is based on evidence and reason and is philosophically provable or proven. Atheism is a matter of thought not belief. In other words, atheism is true; religion is false."

Reverse that, to be "religion is true, atheism is false", and you get the position of every religion. Does that make the 5 billion religious believers 'whackjobs' too? That religion is based on belief is accepted by most religious people. The 'belief' in atheism extends to believing there is an objective world - which all religious people believe too. The only dubious bit is that atheism is 'proven'. It certainly has the huge weight of evidence on its side. Yes, I think this statement is reasonable.

2: Since the natural is all that we have or can scientifically observe and/or measure, it is all that exists.

Yes, that's reasonable. It's certainly a better way of approaching the real world, rather than taking someone's word for a supernatural being that has no evidence.

3: All religion is oppressive.

Organised religion tells people what to do, based on claims of divine revelation. It's not democratic. I think this is reasonable, though maybe exaggerated (personal beliefs aren't oppressive, but are they 'religion'?)

4: The eradication of religion in favor of secularism will bring about utopia.

She actually then says it's 'marxists and anarchists' who claim it is one of the things needed for a utopia. Given the tendency to oppress from (3), it's arguable, in that form. Her argument against it promptly reverts to 'will bring about utopia', and consists of saying 'utopia is unobtainable (as shown by Genesis!), so the argument is outrageous'. Since she can't point to anyone claiming it, it doesn't really count for deciding who are the 'extremist atheists'. Unless she's admitting that there aren't any, really, because no-one believes this particular one.

5: All religious people want to force you or convince you or coerce you to believe as they do.

She says she's working entirely from personal conversations here, so maybe she can't understand hyperbole as a figure of speech - we don't know how the claim was made to her, and whether it was meant seriously. However, Christians and Muslims are meant to 'spread the good news', and many attempt it. In general (not just in religious matters), it's a human trait to want to convince people to believe as you do - that's why we have discussions like this. Yes, I think this is a reasonable claim too.

So I think that when you look at the 5 claims, many atheists will make them - so to her, we're 'whackjobs' undermining liberty. She wants to expel us from the left.

[GirlinContempt]

238. I was talking about agreeing with the piece

and how I had seen specific examples of extremest atheism on DU. The specific part you mentioned when I said I was not talking about the piece was directly referring to DU.

1. The claim that atheism is a matter of thought rather than belief, or lack there of, is something I disagree with. And only a fundie atheist would claim that it is proven, so I think that point 1 holds.

2. Number two is not reasonable. No scientist that I know would ever claim that only what we can see or measure exists. That isn't to say a person should automatically believe in something other than the measurable or visible, to claim it is the ONLY THING that exists is unreasonable. And claims of no evidence are disingenuous because there is no evidence to the contrary, which is important. Science does not discount things because there is no current evidence proving it true or false. But your statements about the 'real world' and 'taking someones word' don't merit a thorough response.

3. Do I really need to break this down? *sigh* All religion is not oppressive. There is nothing that states that democracy and oppression are the only two available choices. However, if we want to talk 'reasonable', I think it is more 'reasonable' to assume that the vast majority of people who practice religion do so of their own free will, and choose and follow whatever 'laws' and 'orders' handed to them. That is not oppressive.

4. I have heard people say these things, and seen people post such things. I'll see if I can dig up a link. But, that claim WOULD make someone an extremist. And it is not a reasonable thing to support, unless you are an extremist.

5. Again with the 'all want' 'all do' being reasonable. It would not be reasonable for me to say that, in my city, something like 90% of the native population has gone through the legal system so all natives are criminals. It would not be reasonable for me to say that because I encounter quite a number of rude, snarky atheists that all atheists are rude and snarky. One of the definitions of reasonable is 'Not excessive or extreme', and labeling a whole group of people is excessive or extreme.

[Finder]

244. You say you are an atheist but...

your point #1 seems to indicate you are an agnostic.(which is fine) I can't think of any religious/supernatural claim that has yet to be proven. Logic dictates one cannot prove a negative and the burden is on those to prove the positive.

I do agree with most of your other points but not sure I understand how it relates.

[GirlinContempt]

246. It relates in that

the person I was replying to said that those 5 points were reasonable, and that the articles author was therefore attacking all atheists because the 5 were reasonable and common. I disagree that they are reasonable or common. So that's how it relates.

As for being an agnostic, :shrug:

:rofl:

[billyskank]

402. I feel no burden to prove His existence

It's simple: you just believe or you don't.

Anyway, who says you can't prove a negative?

[muriel_volestrangler]

280. You regard those who call believers 'crazy' etc. as extremists

Barton thinks those who believe her 5 points are the extremist whackjobs. If you're agreeing with the the op-ed, you're taking her definition of extremist.

1: You may not agree with something, but that doesn't make it 'outrageous', or a basis for calling someone an extremist whackjob. Evidence from the natural world - the kind accepted in courts, or scientific discourse, says there are no gods. Therefore by most definitions, it is 'proven'. It is not proven in formal logic, however. But using the standards of evidence of the justice system or science is hardly 'extreme'.

2: You're saying it is unreasonable to not believe in the supernatural? As an atheist, what bit of the supernatural do you believe in, that stops you being unreasonable (and therefore a potential extremists)? My words don't merit a response? Nearly all beliefs in the supernatural occur when someone accepts another's word for an explanation (ghosts, astrology, the afterlife, a powerful god - do I need to go on?) That's why belief in the supernatural is about taking someone's word - the number of people who invent their own supernatural ideas are tiny. "The real world" - yes, that's what we all live in. Not a world of platonic ideals, or some heaven.

3: You do know the derivation of 'hierarchy', don't you? Priests tell people what is moral. If you fail to live up to these moral standards, you are told you will suffer eternally, have revenge taken on you while you're alive, or be reincarnated in a more painful existence. Yes I think religion oppresses people.

4: You've seen someone saying the abolishment of religion would cause a utopia, on its own? Because that's what Barton argued against. Not that abolishing religion would make the world a better place. And I don't think I've seen anyone asking for the forced abolishment, either - just that this would be a better place if no-one fell for the oppression of number 3. I'll wait for the links.

5: We don't know what these people said to her, or if it was meant to be serious. "I know these people you don't who told me something, but I don't name them, or specify what they actually said" is a piss-poor basis for labelling some people "extremist whackjobs" who are trying to subvert liberal politics.

I'm really fascinated to know what bit of the supernatural you believe in. Please answer that one, at least.

[GirlinContempt]

296. Oh jeeze

1. Courts and science do not say there is no God/gods. It is not proven. Now, scientists, I believe, SHOULD work under the supposition that there is no god, but that is an entirely different discussion. I don't dispute that hard evidence is the kind accepted in courts, or scientific discourse, but I will dispute that it says that there is no god, or is somehow considered proof.

2. I don't think it's unreasonable to not believe in the supernatural. In fact, here is what I said:
hat isn't to say a person should automatically believe in something other than the measurable or visible, to claim it is the ONLY THING that exists is unreasonable.

3. Religion does not oppress people. Do people oppress people? Yes. You are familiar with the definition of free will, are you not? This chosen freely are not oppressive.

4. It'll take me a while to dredge through the last year od GD to find it.

5. Trying to subvert liberal politics? :crazy: Right. Ok. You aren't actually referencing anything I've said, and I'm unclear as to how it applies to anything in this discussion.

I don't believe in the supernatural, but I also won't make baseless claims that it does not or can not exist.

[trotsky]

299. Congrats, GinC.

You're an atheist whackjob!

I don't believe in the supernatural

From the article: "whackjob... will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims."

Do you understand the objection many of us have to at a minimum, poor wording? By not believing in the supernatural, that means you don't believe any religious or spiritual claims. You're an atheist whackjob, just like the rest of us.

Now how do you like the article? It's written about you, too!

[GirlinContempt]

300. Oh, interesting that the article doesn't say that.

Now, those two paragraphs COULD have been clearer, but giving it more than five seconds thought would clarify it. I don't think that's what she said. I think she should have worded it better, and grouped her thoughts more concisely, but she did not define a whackjob as someone who disbelieves all religious and spiritual claims. I made a couple of other posts about this. I think it's ridiculous to jump to that conclusion.

[trotsky]

303. You don't "think" that's what she said.

Yet countless atheists here on DU and in the comments section of Raw Story as well as the blogosphere think otherwise.

Unfortunately what's further mangled the issue was that the article has been posted in two slightly different versions, one on Melinda's blog and one on Raw Story. But in both she's pretty clear that if you don't believe in any religious or spiritual claims, you're a whackjob (either secular or atheist).

[GirlinContempt]

305. And others agree with me.

What's your point? Truth is not determined by numbers of belief, and I'm stating MY interpretation of it, which I believe to be correct.

And I still haven't seen evidence that she believes that all atheists and secularists are whackjobs, none that negates my defense, in any case. All I've seen, so far, is no you're wrong, because I said so. And I explain why I think someone is wrong, and I get back "No you're wrong because I said so". I have to accept that, but I still don't agree with it.

[trotsky]

318. "You're wrong, because I said so."

Which is your argument as well, apparently. Or at least once you establish what you "think" the author meant. To me, that indicates you understand how the words as written have been interpreted the way they are, and you're clinging to the hope that the author is NOT a bigoted religious asshole seeking scapegoats to purge out of the party, because her words clearly indicated otherwise.

All in all, this was just another stupid attempt to marginalize the atheists, drag out the strawmen, flog them, and blame them for the inability of Democrats to get any traction in the political marketplace. It disgusts me to no end.

The fact that so many atheists virulently objected to her choice of words as well as fallacious logic indicates just how sick we are of being made the scapegoat. A powerless minority within a minority party, and we're somehow to blame.

I don't care what the fuck some random atheist has said somewhere. Let them purge all of us out of the party and see what good it does. Next it'll be those uppity homosexuals who are demanding equal rights and scaring away the nice heterosexual majority. Ooops, I guess they'll be knocking on the author's door. Sucks, don't it?

[GirlinContempt]

322. Yawn

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1007330&mesg_id=1012563

Everyone wants to be persecuted. I just don't understand why.

[muriel_volestrangler]

304. You don't believe in the supernatural, but think that making claims

on whether it exists is ridiculous? Then you're an agnostic, not an atheist. You're claiming it's impossible to rule anything out.

1: So the standard of proof needed in a court or science is below that needed in theological discussions, and to claim otherwise is outrageous? Wow, you are very agnostic. What things in life do you think can be proved? Do you step beyond "I think, therefore I am"?

2: You seem to have just admitted that the 'whackjobs' take a reasonable position. They don't believe in anything supernatural.

3: Oh god, we're descending into the guns argument, are we? When books written 2000 years agao are taken as the infallible word of a deity, and the followers of a religion hold the same views as each other, it's the religion doing it.

5: From the article:

In modern America, atheist extremists as a group don't have the wealth, influence, numbers or power to affect the way most of us live our lives. However, we should learn from what has happened elsewhere and be prepared to meet them if or when they do.
...
the greatest danger the atheist extremist poses now is to the integrity and success of progressive movements. If we are to truly uphold the liberal ideals of freedom and liberty, we must stand against extremists of all stripes who would threaten those ideals. Secondly, in a nation comprised predominantly of those who believe in some sort of supreme being, our success as a movement depends on disavowing the atheist extremist as a legitimate voice of the left. Finally, our commitment to truth demands we counter the fallacies being perpetuated in our name.

Yes, she thinks the extremist atheists are proclaiming fallacies in the name of liberalism. But beware - their power is growing! Watch out for the bogeyman! They "threaten those ideals" of "freedom and liberty".

The column is a crock of shit.

[GirlinContempt]

307. I don't think statements of belief one way or another are unreasonable

But I think that claims of falsity based on its current immeasurably is unreasonable.

The standards of 'proof' in courts or science are separate issues from religion. I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. Just because science separates itself from religion doesn't mean that it proves religion wrong, ditto a court system. I can believe it's wrong with all my heart and mind, but it doesn't cause something to be true.

I think that both sides are reasonable, as long as they aren't going around saying "I don't believe in anything supernatural, so it does not and can not exist" or "I believe in everything supernatural, and no amount of contrary evidence will make me think anything different from what I think right now".

You seem to misunderstand my point here. Lets put it this way. Oppression is the act of subjugating through cruelty or being kept down by unjust use of force or authority. CAN religion be oppressive? Yes. The people in charge can be oppressive, and subjugate or otherwise keep down their believers. However, IS IT by definition oppressive? No, it isn't, any more than say, government is by definition oppressive because it CAN BE. One of the problems I have (this is generalized) with these arguments is that so many of the atheists who claim religion is oppressive and forced are the same who claim to be atheists because they have free will and are under no ones control. If you choose to be religious, and do not feel or are not kept down, oppressed, or treated cruelly, who is to say you are oppressed by your religion? Certainly not me, any more than I would say atheists are kept down by the laws of science.

[Finder]

217. Do you have an example?

I have never seen hatred of religion on DU. Most of the members here are members of various religions.

[GirlinContempt]

218. I absolutely do

I'm going to do a search, and I'll post the results in an edit on this post.

Religion is the enemy of free thought
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=4564542#4564543


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4564542&mesg_id=4567085
I don't have to respect religion - and I don't.
I think they are crazy.
But, yeah, I stand by my statements. If Christians are offended, too bad. They offend ME.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4523629&mesg_id=4523640
Regarding a secular religious cooking show: Why support the religious cartels who have adopted all kinds of window dressing to sell religious fascism?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4269836&mesg_id=4269859

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4269836&mesg_id=4270909

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4269836&mesg_id=4271115
That one above is particularly funny in its irony, for without a search for proof of things we had no proof of before, we'd have no science.

Want me to dig up some more?

[trotsky]

GinC, you're being rather dishonest with your editing and selection.

"Religion is the enemy of freethought" - and this is hatred how?

"I don't have to respect religion - and I don't." - This exact same sentiment was expressed by Bill Maher - do you think he is an atheist extremist who hates religion?

"Why support the religious cartels who have adopted all kinds of window dressing to sell religious fascism?" - The poster is clearly referring to a subgroup of religion that has propped up fascism in its various forms. Do you deny that history and reality? It's going on today in this very country. I ask also, how this constitutes "hatred" toward religion.

"No way in HELL would I trust a supposed doctor who was a creationist!" - Hatred? No, the poster is only saying that they wouldn't trust someone who believed in creationism over evolution because such a stance points to anti-science attitudes. I wouldn't want a doctor who didn't trust science either. Is that hateful?

"yes it does...." - (In response to someone suggesting that religious fundies can't think critically) I think it's pretty clear that anyone who thinks the bible is literally true, talking snakes, big boats, and all, isn't thinking critically. Once again, is that hateful?

"There is no place in science for ideas for which there is no evidence." - Here you're misreading the poster, I think. Plenty of ideas come forth in science all the time, but without supporting evidence, they fall by the wayside. Unproven ideas are dismissed, especially if they don't explain anything. Should the time come when evidence is found, they'll be brought back up to be considered. And a final time: how is this showing hatred of religion?

Want me to dig up some more?

More of the same? No, because these don't support what you claimed. GinC, I have a lot of respect for you, and think you can do better than this.

[GirlinContempt]

243. Sorry, but I think you're being dishonest in your portrayals.

"Religion is the enemy of freethought" - and this is hatred how?
It's bigotry.

"I don't have to respect religion - and I don't." - This exact same sentiment was expressed by Bill Maher - do you think he is an atheist extremist who hates religion?
I don't think he, or that poster, are extremists who hate religion, but I do think they're both rude and their comments are uncalled for, and that (in the posters case) it added to their asshole credentials.

Why support the religious cartels who have adopted all kinds of window dressing to sell religious fascism?" - The poster is clearly referring to a subgroup of religion that has propped up fascism in its various forms. Do you deny that history and reality? It's going on today in this very country. I ask also, how this constitutes "hatred" toward religion.
They are NOT clearly referring to a subgroup, they are clearly referring to the post that was made, about a SECULAR religious COOKING show. That is bigotry and hatred.

"yes it does...." - (In response to someone suggesting that religious fundies can't think critically) I think it's pretty clear that anyone who thinks the bible is literally true, talking snakes, big boats, and all, isn't thinking critically. Once again, is that hateful?
Again, bigotry.

"There is no place in science for ideas for which there is no evidence." - Here you're misreading the poster, I think. Plenty of ideas come forth in science all the time, but without supporting evidence, they fall by the wayside. Unproven ideas are dismissed, especially if they don't explain anything. Should the time come when evidence is found, they'll be brought back up to be considered. And a final time: how is this showing hatred of religion?
Fall by the wayside, yes. But it reads to me like the poster is dismissing religion as nonsense because there is no proof, which is not fair. Unproven ideas are not dismissed, they go off to the side, as you yourself said. I think there is an assumption by many people that because religion has not been 'proven' that it is false, and that it is therefore ok to dismiss and ridicule it.

[trotsky]

251. I think what we have here are two different interpretations

of single posts plucked out of their context.

[Arugula Latte]

345. So let me get this straight:

If I don't "respect" something I find to be completely ludicrous -- whether it be that the sun revolves around the Earth, that Elvis is channeling himself through your fillings, or that there happened to be one human in five billion years of the Earth's existence who was somehow the divine son of a virgin who was nailed up and died and is coming back aaaaaany day or year or millenium now -- that's rude?
So I'm supposed to lie and say I respect that claptrap?

[GirlinContempt]

359. That poster was rude

she was intentionally posting rude things about religious people, and then defending her rudeness with "Well I don't respect it". So yeah, if you do that, it's rude.

[Finder]

240. Well lounge posts tend to be extreme...

since that darn bar is always open in there.lol

[WildEyedLiberal]

227. You must have missed Popeapalooza 2005

I felt very unwelcome as a Catholic on DU last April. There was some unexcusable viciousness.

[Finder]

231. There were other christians doing some bashing as well...

so it was not atheist extremism, but anti-papal hatred.

[WildEyedLiberal]

233. That is simply not true.

There was virulent anti-Catholicism after the pope's death. Anytime any Catholic priest is brought up on DU, it is an absolutely certainly that at least one clever moron will make a pedophile joke. To deny that no one has ever posted anything hateful and contemptuous of religious people on DU is pure and simple dishonesty.

[Finder]

237. I was pointing out that it was anti-catholic not all anti-religion.

Hell, I am an atheist and was offended by some of the tripe against JP and the generalizations about priests.

[WildEyedLiberal]

247. Well, bigotry against one religion counts

If someone is bigoted against Mexicans, but not blacks, they're still a bigot.

I am glad you did recognize some of the hate speech, though. Attacks against anyone for their beliefs (or lack thereof) are odious regardless of to whom they're directed.

[Finder]

256. But you are assuming all slams came from atheists.

Surely you don't mean any protestant that slams catholics is an extremist atheist.

[WildEyedLiberal]

261. No. Whoever slams anyone for their beliefs for any reason

is a bigot. Whether they're protestant or catholic or athiest or what have you.

[WildEyedLiberal]

225. I agree with you

The issue is tolerance, and the inability here to admit that *some* - note, some, not all - athiests are just as intolerant and judgmental of religious people as *some* - note, some, not all - religious people are of athiests. Extremism, intolerance, and judgmentalism of any stripe should not be welcomed in a liberal community.

I don't understand why this concept is so controversial. :shrug:

[GirlinContempt]

239. It seems like people are jumping to a lot of conclusions

and making jumps from a to c without thinking about b.

I am an atheist and I didn't find that offensive, I didn't feel attacked, I didn't see myself in that article :shrug:

[Strong Atheist]

277. Completely

DISAGREE with the columnist at raw story. She is a bigoted sack of shit:

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state.


This clearly says that ALL ATHEISTS are whackjobs. If the same was said about theists, or GLBT, or African Americans, or feminists, it would be obvious bigotry/racism/sexism, as is this.

[GirlinContempt]

284. No it doesn't.

Let's think this through. If we look at the WHOLE of that, she is asking the question, what is an atheist whackjob, and then explaining how secular is referred to, then goes on to explain Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists..

She does not say that the definition of secular presented is secular extremist. She does not say that that all secularists or atheists are extremist. And she goes on to define what she considers to be an atheist extremist, AFTER clearing up the definition of secular for the purposes of the article.

Sheesh.

[Strong Atheist]

286. Wrong

again. She is saying two contradictory things, that all people who do not believe are whackjobs and that not all atheists are whackjobs. Contradictory, and the rest of her slime ball paper makes it clear that she is a f****** bigot, and which of the two statements she REALLY believes...

[GirlinContempt]

289. I think you're wrong.

So neener neener. Thats what this is boiling down to. I don't see ANYWHERE in that article that says all people who do not believe are whackjobs. And I don't see anything bigoted in what she said.
You do.
You aren't going to convince me, and clearly I'm not going to convince you, though feel free to try. You didn't actually respond to anything I said, however, so I'm assuming you just want a back and forth "No me"?

[trotsky]

333. "Clearing up" the definition of secular???

Try redefining the word.

Naw, not all atheists are extremists. Obviously the ones that shut up and don't offer their opinions are A-OK to Melinda.

[GirlinContempt]

360. Thanks for that enlightening display

:eyes:

[Random_Australian]

356. Point out one exapmle of a DU atheist saying that. I dare you. Go on!

What's that? You were making up the whole thing out of the cloth because you didn't like bieng attacked?

[GirlinContempt]

361. Oh for fuck sake, if you don't start reading the other posts before

flying off, I can't be bothered reposting them for you. Pure laziness.

And, on edit, I don't feel 'attacked'. No one has 'attacked' me, I was responding to a post on a message board. That is my original reply, and I wasn't making anything up. You, however, are doing a pretty good job of piecing together fairy tales because you (by your own admission) feel attacked, and are going out of your way to be vitriolic. Good show, Capt.

[bloom]

376. It would be nice if this article

caused some of the resident atheist "whackjobs" to cool it - if they don't want to be seen as "whackjobs". If they don't care - then I guess they will keep doing what they are doing.


I would define atheist "whackjob" as one who demands that no atheist ever insult another atheist - and when they do - the atheist "whackjobs" go on a "vigilent" (their words), organized attack.

[donsu]

220. laughing madly

at your construct

[salvorhardin]

223. UPDATED: The following response from Melinda Barton...

...now appears in the comments section for her original opinion piece at Raw Story:

{The follow was not requested by, nor does it, or the original piece, necessarily reflect the views of Raw Story or its editors.}

After the publication on my take on secular extremism on Raw Story, I received quite a lot of vitriol from many atheists who felt I was condemning atheism as a whole. While I feel that I made clear that that was not the case, I must admit that if so many people came away with this conclusion, then obviously the article was not as well prepared or well written as it should have been. This is due, in part, to the fact that I have struggled for quite some time with whether I should write it at all. Also, my use of the word "whackjob" was an intentional although perhaps badly chosen play on the common pairing of that word with the word "religious." I apologize to any who felt that I was adding burdens to an already burdened minority in our country.

I'd also like to take a few moments to clarify some points here. The separation of church and state is and always has been vital to the functioning of liberal democracy. It contains both freedom of and freedom from religion and should continue to do so. I strongly support the right of all peoples to believe or disbelieve whatever they wish within the bounds of respect for human rights. In other words, if it's not hurting anyone, go for it. I would defend to my death (yes, I'm aware it's a cliche) your right to believe or disbelieve and am strongly opposed to prayer in schools, the use of the bible in a courtroom, laws based solely on religious precepts with no accompanying social necessity, the teaching of religious belief in public institutions, etc. Although I disagree with atheist precepts, I have respect for the logic and reasoning upon which it is based. This continues despite my acceptance of faith in my own life.

Finally, I do not believe that anyone should be silenced or purged, only that the progressive movement is not required to grant legitimacy to all leftist beliefs. I also believe that we should criticize ourselves with the same honesty with which we criticize others. I have regularly opposed religious extremism and have held it up to harsh criticism numerous times in my published work. I thought it only honest to take a look at the other side despite the fact that I consider religious extremism to be the greatest threat facing us today. If anyone came away with the impression that I consider secular extremism to be even an iota of the threat that religious extremism is, I apologize. I can only assure you that, I would hope, most of my work is better written and prepared and that I will take greater care in the future.

Shalom Aleichem,
Melinda Barton

[Strong Atheist]

232. Well la dee da. Backpedaling on bigotry in the face of pressure.

How .... brave.

[benburch]

236. Nice framing.

She's damned if she sticks by her guns, and damned if she makes nice.

Just an excellent example of the sort of tolerance we stand for here.

:sarcasm:

[Strong Atheist]

248. More like:

When I wrote that LONG, deliberately bigoted article, I had no idea I would take so much heat, so now I am trying to pretend that I never said what I said.

While I feel that I made clear that that was not the case, I must admit that if so many people came away with this conclusion, then obviously the article was not as well prepared or well written as it should have been.

Translation: I did not mean what I PLAINLY said, because I do not want to take the heat.

[muriel_volestrangler]

234. Well, that doesn't ring true

Compare "I do not believe that anyone should be silenced or purged" with:

the greatest danger the atheist extremist poses now is to the integrity and success of progressive movements. If we are to truly uphold the liberal ideals of freedom and liberty, we must stand against extremists of all stripes who would threaten those ideals. Secondly, in a nation comprised predominantly of those who believe in some sort of supreme being, our success as a movement depends on disavowing the atheist extremist as a legitimate voice of the left. Finally, our commitment to truth demands we counter the fallacies being perpetuated in our name.

If she edits out her last 2 paragraphs in the original piece, I'll accept her apology. Something hidden among the comments doesn't cut it.

[trotsky]

235. What kind of non-response is that?

It smacks of a Republican-caught-with-his-hand-in-the-cookie-jar apology. Translation: 'I'm sorry IF anyone misconstrued what I said into something that they found hurtful and bigoted.'

And this gem:

Although I disagree with atheist precepts

Shows that she still hasn't learned anything. There are no atheist "precepts." How does saying, "Nope, you haven't convinced me gods exist" constitute a precept?

[MissB]

250. She should have thought longer about writing it.

As it is, she came off as a fucknut.

[beam me up scottie]

264. Who taught her how to apologize, Rumsferatu?

I didn't think it was possible, but I have even less respect for her now than I did before.

And that goes double for raw story.

[Marnieworld]

387. she doesn't believe that anyone should be silenced or purged

and then goes on to reiterate that 1) atheism is a leftist belief- which buys into GOP memes and spin and promotes this crap. How is not believing in anything until it is proven to you in anyway political? 2) that this nameless faceless progressive movement should get together and decide what beliefs are "legitimate" and what aren't. How is that not about silencing and purging. She dressed it up in more polite rhetoric but it is the same message. Unite against these beliefs, declare them illegitimate or these extremists will take away your right to wear religious garb like the French? Other than all of the "but I'm really a libera" protests she makes how is this not any different from Falwell and Robertson?

[dchill]

241. "those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims,"

So how many of us here are now officially atheist whackjobs? BTW, it's my considered opinion that "those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims" qualify as the very antithesis of whackjobs.

[glitch]

245. So, atheists and immigrants appear to be the next targets, after GLBTs.

At least that appears to be the new focus. Right on schedule, I suppose. Very glad to see the left isn't falling for it, as the right did with GLBTs.

Stick together people, the only way they can win is to pick us off, one by one.

(And for what it's worth, I think rawstory made a mistake and is now compounding it by trying to cover it. At this point I do not believe targeting any group for ostracism was intentional on their part.)

[Warren DeMontague]

295. Yep, along with the pro-choicers, we're alienating "Values Voters".

All fuckin' twelve of them, which translates to 50 million via our friends at Diebold.

Blah, blah, blah.

Raw Who?

[Zynx]

253. This was not a particularly tactfully written article.

However, there are extreme atheists just as there are extreme theists and both are threats to freedom and civility in this country.

[Maddy McCall]

257. And based of false premises.

Looks like something a freshman college student would write. I read about two paragraphs and x'd out.

[Strong Atheist]

259. Tactful had nothing to do with it. The author was a bigoted sh**

who said RIGHT HERE:

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state.

that ALL ATHEISTS are whackjobs. If the same was said about theists, or GLBT, or African Americans, or feminists, it would be obvious bigotry/racism/sexism, as is this. Capiche?

[Maddy McCall]

265. And that's only the first example of false premise in her article.

There are many more.

[American Tragedy]

270. Analogous to saying that one does not regard all Christians as wackjobs

just the ones who believe that Jesus was the son of God. Or a homosexual wackjob as somebody who is attracted to the same sex, not merely someone advocating for gay rights.

[Strong Atheist]

272. Very well put. Very understandable.

:yourock:

[salvorhardin]

275. Avery Walker commenting again

To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

[maddezmom]

290. similar to the ealier one

defensive and it's the blogosphere's fault. :eyes: Thanks for posting.

[salvorhardin]

292. And oddly

Even more offensive. I didn't think it was possible. That Raw Story can not see how this has so badly tarnished their reputation is even more unbelievable. The only conclusion I can come to is that this was no unintended slight but fully intentional.

[Synnical]

354. Yeah, that's my thinking, too

Odd, that, coming from Raw Story. The "opinion" piece has been fully dissected as straw man arguments, both here on DU and other blogs.

I'm quite saddened.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[Warren DeMontague]

291. 'Kay. AFAIC, That's about it for "Raw Story".

They can plainly go fuck themselves, from now on.

[muriel_volestrangler]

301. My thoughts exactly

When a managing editor thinks it's acceptable to have a witch hunt amongst liberals for holding rational views (Home page heading: "The Raw Story | a rational voice" - oh, the irony!), you know the website has jumped the shark. It's as if they've told the GLBT community to get back in the closet to help the Democrats' election chances, or that we shouldn't oppose the South Dakota abortion ban, because it's not 'strategic'.

[Warren DeMontague]

334. Yup. And then to get indignant that folks expect an apology.

Really, what did they expect?

Would they think they could get away with it with no criticism if they wrote a piece about "militant" gays, "uppity" black people, etc. etc?

After all, they're not talking about all of 'em. Just the ones that don't remember their place.

[SoCalDem]

282. In the 5 years I have been at DU, I have seen "nuance" die a slow death

Practically anything that gets posted these days is promptly pounced upon by , shall we say, people of many persuasions, but all with blinders on.

It's very difficult to get much real discussion these days without attacks being hurled right and left.

I guess it's Bush-fatigue, and everyone doubts almost everyone else these days.:shrug:

[skids]

313. It's because people just come online to vent.

Saying anything reasonable gets you zilch replies, unless you somehow manage to do so in a provocative manner. So people have learned to either be provocative, or to say unreasonable things just to get attention, and meanwhile they keep their eye out for something to pounce on. Pure entertainment value. Nothing productive going on. Go figure. It's the "Crossfire"-ization of discourse.

Fortunately there are still DUers who put some effort into making it a grwoth experience.

[SoCalDem]

316. Amen..

I posted a thread decrying Pelosi's statement that minimum wage would be the "SIGNATURE" issue of the campaign, and was accused of hating poor people, driving an SUV, voting for Arnold..you name it..

Very few who responded even GOT the intent.. That we need an organized agenda of ALL the issues..not just an "easy" one.. ..that Pelosi took an issue that 80 per cent already agreed on, and plowed no NEW ground.. I called it a "ho-hum" issue, and you would have thought I was asking to have poor people executed or something..

It's really nice when, occasionally a real discussion breaks out, but that happens less and less these days..:shrug:

[Bucky]

328. Welcome to the internet

Practically no one on the internet practices tolerance or moderation in speech. The written word is powerful, seems so authoritative. So it seems as tho those who write such intolerance are speaking with the full conviction of their hearts. But the truth is, in a face to face society, half the opinionated blather on the net would never be voiced. People are polite by nature and give voice to tolerance far more than to intolerance in their real world lives. The anonymity of the net lets people get rid of the nuance, sure. But in reality most people will accept and act out of civility and save their pukeage for electronic forums.

Don't be fooled by the typed word. If you want a real discussion, talk to a real person.

[Strong Atheist]

372. Hmmm. I am not sure what your point is, but if

you mean that trotsky and BMUS and Synnical and all of the rest of us atheists are taking exception to the bigoted SHIT in this piece-of-crap article when we shouldn't be doing so....

then maybe you should replace "atheist" with "feminist" everywhere in that "article", and see how well it reads...

[Desertrose]

298. Well, isn't this interesting....

Seems others notice this too.

"He will meet any criticism of atheism or positive representation of religion as a horrible attack on his way of life or as support for religious extremism and oppression. Just as the religious extremist holds that his belief in a supreme being alone makes him morally and spiritually superior,the atheist extremist holds that his belief that no such being exists and virulent opposition to the reverse make him intellectually and ethically superior. Finally, he will ignore any and all reason or evidence that refutes his claims."


Interesting indeed.

No surprise this thread is long with a coupla deletions. :evilgrin:

DR

[muriel_volestrangler]

306. Look at the pattern, and you'll see the deleted messages

were all insulting to atheists (all atheists, in fact, I think in every case). I think they were all posted by one DUer, too. It doesn't prove much.

[arwalden]

351. No... She Won't Notice Something As OBVIOUS As That...

... she'll just glance casually at the flurry of subjects... spot a couple of "Deleted Message" placeholders and assume that it was something that those mean-old-atheists did. :eyes:

Yet another trademark hit-n-run... drive-by message with cheap shots!

[GirlinContempt]

308. !

:rofl:

[RandomKoolzip]

366. You found that funny? Really?

Huh.

[GirlinContempt]

367. I find this whole thing funny

[RandomKoolzip]

368. It's not without its demented charm.

:hi: < this is a "g'night" wave.

[GirlinContempt]

369. You're a demented charm

:P :hi: night

[trotsky]

338. Oh, how very interesting.

Someone writes an article that smears a group with a broad brush, and members of that group get upset. Go figure!

Seems that in your eyes, if an atheist feels s/he is slandered or misrepresented, they should just shut up and take it, because if they speak out, they're obviously asserting their "intellectual and ethical superiority."

[arwalden]

349. Yeah! Go Figure! -- I Guess It's A Lot Like This....

It doesn't matter if it's gays or atheists... the theists always feel put-upon whenever the targets of their bigotry speak up and fight back.

[Lolivia]

311. A refutation of some of her more ridiculous points:

Barton’s article is a third-rate attack piece, nothing more. She makes several outrageous claims that she doesn’t actually back up with any evidence. Here’s a couple of her more ridiculous statements:

1. “Why face off with the atheist whackjobs? Because extremism is extremism is extremism.”

Her entire premise is that the left must rid itself of the atheist “wackjobs” because they are extreme and extremism is as harmful as any other, but she never actually establishes that all extremism is equal – and it’s not.

An illustration: I take the position that all evidence proffered in a civil trial must be empirical, factual, and verifiable – that is one extreme. On the other extreme is the position that the evidence can be made-up, false, and/or unverifiable. In the middle is the claim that the evidence can be a mix of the two. Those three positions represent two extremes and one centrist position – but they are not equal, nor is the central position the best. Anyone who is the defendant in such a trial would agree that the extreme position requiring all evidence to be factual is the preferred position.

My only point with this is that if she is going to call for the removal of atheists from the left because of their harmful extremism, she needs to actually show why said extremism is bad.

2. She does an extremely poor job of defining who exactly is an extremist. She carefully defines “secular,” “atheist,” and “extremist,” to include anyone who “disbelieve(s) all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state.”

She continues on by defining a “whackjob,” but provides no specific examples of the actual existence of any of those people. But apparently, a “whackjob” includes someone who “will ignore any and all reason or evidence that refutes his claims.” Evidence such as what? What is the evidence that refutes the claim that the existence of a diety has not been proven? Who are these people, what are there raw numbers/percentages in society, and what is the “evidence” that they refuse to believe? Why is she writing an entire article about some grave danger she can't even clearly define?

On to her “outrageous claims by atheism”:

3. She claims that atheist say “Atheism is based on evidence and reason and is philosophically provable or proven. Atheism is a matter of thought not belief. In other words, atheism is true; religion is false.”

Yet her very own quotes do not show that any atheist has ever claimed that “atheism” (i.e. that there is no evidence for god) can be proven. Her own quotes say that atheists define their thought process as “the acceptance that there is no credible, scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a God, god/s or the supernatural'” No where in that quote is the claim that the existence of a god has been disproven, or that it even can be. All the quote says is that there is no evidence for god. And it IS a thought process to say “I will not accept the existence of something without some evidence of it.” There is no belief in that statement.

And I’m sorry, but the burden of proof DOES lie with the “side” that is claiming the existence of something. If you choose to believe something in the absence of any proof, evidence, or observation, that is fine, but that is using faith, not reason.

She sets up a very poor strawman: that atheists claim god can be disproven, but her own quotes do NOT show that what is being claimed by any atheist.

4. Outrageous claim number 2: Since the natural is all that we have or can scientifically observe and/or measure, it is all that exists.


It’s playing a game of semantics to get into what “exist” or what is “real,” but most definitions lay it out in terms of what is verifiable. If something does “exist” outside of ALL POSSIBLE ability to detect, either directly or indirectly, it effectively does not exist for human beings. Absolute, total, and complete inability to detect something even indirectly is the functional equivalent of non-existence.

5. Outrageous claim number 3: All religion is oppressive.

Again, she sets up a strawman. Her quote from an atheist says “The act of subjugating human will to "divine will" is oppressive.” Notice how the quote is talking about subjugation of humans vis-à-vis a deity, or a human acting for that deity, but she goes on to talk about subjugation of humans by OTHER HUMANS. That has nothing to do with what she quoted. Another bad strawman.

6. Outrageous claim number 5: All religious people want to force you or convince you or coerce you to believe as they do.

But then she says: “I tried to find an "official" source for this hasty generalization with no luck, but chose to include it here based on personal experience.” That’s right, she has absolutely no proof whatsoever that atheists claim ALL religious people want that. She has no proof that that is any sort of official position of even an extreme wing of atheists - or that the position is held by any significant number of atheists. Even if some atheist DID say that - that does not mean they would try to ban religious symbols. One has nothing to do with the other. You can think religious people want to coerce others, and still not want to ban all religious practices. Again, she has shown no evidence of ANY of this.

And then she has the nerve to talk about “our commitment to truth demands we counter the fallacies” and how she decries “intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and cowardice!”

Puhlease! She has called atheists “extremist,” “whackjobs,” “intellectually dishonest,” etc, but has NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THAT. This is even assuming that she really doesn’t think ALL atheists are whackjobs (though she gives a pretty indication of where she falls on that one) – she hasn’t even been able to make a case that there are ANY atheist whackjobs. She sets up strawmen that have no actual relation to what she is claiming – and then goes on to claim these types of atheists are a threat to liberal society. It’s an incompetent smear job, nothing more.

[trotsky]

339. Bravo!

Very well thought-out, eloquently stated rebuttal. :thumbsup:

You should submit it to Raw Story. Seriously.

[Lolivia]

341. Thanks!

So many people on this thread have brought up really good points. I wrote this up rather hastily after reading her train wreck of an article (beats studying!).

As I posted in the A&A forum - it would be one thing if she actually made some reasoned, cogent, and/or relevant criticisms - but she hasn't. She's just done a smear piece, and has nothing to back up her outlandish claims.

[Synnical]

355. Well done!

I've been angry at myself for not taking the time to break it down just as you have. Thanks so much.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[InfoMinister]

317. It's Talking About People Who Attack Religion To Eliminate It

I actually sort of agree with it to some extent except for the idea that we're supposed to go out and tell people what they should and shouldn't do. It's your call. However, I feel that a lot of people are blindly doing exactly what the religious extremists are doing. They're going out there to counter religious extremism with atheist extremism.

[Synnical]

358. Again, Name One

One "Atheist Extremist" who is out to eliminate religion? Name one "atheist extremist" who would not support religious rights?

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

320. On First Read It Seemed Ok To Me. It's Only Addressing The Extremists, No?

I think the extremists on any issue are counterproductive. So in that spirit I'm not sure I see the problem with the article. I didn't get the sense that they were attacking atheists in general, or in round-about ways saying extremist whacko atheists but blatantly meaning all atheists. Instead, it seemed like they were only addressing the extremists, which I see no problem with. Much as I can make a distinction between decent christians and fundy extremist whackos.

I'll read through it again later and see if I missed something that would change my view on it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

331. It seems that "they" don't exist and she tars with a large brush

YMMV




Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Warren DeMontague]

337. To her, an "extremist" is anyone who asserts that it's more logical

to NOT believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence than it is to believe in it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

340. I Just Don't See That In The Article. Where Is That Part? Is There A

longer version of it out there somewhere or something?

[Arugula Latte]

346. I can name plenty of Christian extremists:

Falwell. Dobson. Robertson. Reed. Bush.

Can you name any prominent atheist "extremists" ? Who are these mythical people?: "I so DON'T believe in god that I'm going to blow shit up!" Uh, nope. Haven't heard that.

[leftofthedial]

350. further definitive proof that there is no such thing as

intelligent design.

[DanCa]

352. Golden Rule people

If you dont like being insulted than dont insult others.
Hopefully that will be the lesson of this thread.

[Cronus Protagonist]

357. The problem with insults is that they are not accurate

When targeting them, it's difficult to score a bulls-eye. One really needs a detailed list of things that a target will be insulted by to be truly effective. So I try to insult everybody so as to make sure I don't miss.




Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[fob]

362. "Finally, he will ignore any and all reason or evidence that refutes his

claims"

So this author has PROOF of God?

[Zorra]

370. I like this argument against absolutism a real lot -

"As truth is gathered, I rearrange"

Yes - "Perpetual Change"

[Misunderestimator]

375. Clever. The tone of the article implies that all atheists are whackjobs..

while turning it around inside itself to come off as *not* saying that. Take this paragraph for example:

"First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists."

She says that "secular" refers to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims. Then she goes on to say that atheists are "secular extremists" ("Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists...") then turns around and says that not all secular extremists (atheists) are atheist extremists. What? Why not just say "Although all secularists are atheists..."? Because her language is designed to be insulting and inflammatory.

Before that she writes "Why face off with the atheist whackjobs? Because extremism is extremism is extremism." Putting two and two together, she is most definitely calling all atheists extremists (secular extremists) and by extension, whackjobs.

This article is EXTREMELY insulting to ALL atheists.

[Strong Atheist]

378. Thank you! Thank you! Agreed!

:yourock:

[Javaman]

377. Wouldn't this columnists stance be considered extremist?

Even though I'm an atheist, doesn't mean I think everyone who follows a religion is a nutjob extremist. We all have opinions in this society and mine are no more right than anyone one else's, including people who consider themselves to be religious. It's all just a matter of personal perspective. I choose not to follow or believe and they choose to follow and believe. My life will still go on as will theirs.

The concept of freedom of religion also applies to those that choose not to believe.

Live and let live.

[Strong Atheist]

379. Agreed. The columnist is clearly an anti-atheist bigot. nt.

[Lusted4]

380. How can a nonbeliever be an extremist? (talk about a whackjob)

I believe in my non belief so extremely, I don't believe it.

[Synnical]

382. The Dr. Billy Graham: Atheists are "empty and hopeless"

And religious people wonder why atheists are a tad bit upset when a columnist labels us as ALL as "extremists".

Do you religious people have any idea how insulating it is to be an atheist? The Democratic Party will not even acknowledge us, though they know most us of will vote the party line.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/graham/265469_billy241.html

Don't give up on atheist friends

By DR. BILLY GRAHAM
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

DEAR DR. GRAHAM: I know heaven is supposed to be a place of supreme happiness, but how can we be happy there if our friends aren't with us? My two closest friends don't want anything to do with God and claim to be atheists, and it hurts me to think I'll never see them again after we die. -- J.D.

DEAR J.D.: Perhaps the most important thing I can tell you is to urge you not to give up on your friends. Someday they may realize their own spiritual emptiness and hopelessness, and give their lives to Christ.

[Warren DeMontague]

383. Atheist: Dr. Billy Graham "Full of Shit" n/t

[happydreams]

388. Strawman arguments. Who is the "whackjob" here? nt

[progressivebydesign]

399. I'm a "whack job"? wow.. that's news to me.

I don't go around and stick my nose in other people's lives, I don't preach to people, I don't sue to have books removed from libraries, I don't walk around with photos of aborted fetuses on a signboard, I don't have tons of bumper stickers on my car, I don't insist that the public schools cater to my needs. I am the whack job? yeah.. whatever.

[Minnesota_Lib]

401. So the left needs to embrace religious bigotry? What next, racism?