$$$

Let's just sit and ponder for a moment the hypocrisy of a theist complaining about atheists making $$ from "anti-theistic literature".

An atheist puts his mind to work and tells the truth (highly un-popular), thereby making a little money.  Add in a few thousand death threats and the seething hatred of millions of people and you'll probably be spending that money on security.

A theist will sell an untrue myth (popular) to the vulnerable, indoctrinate the vulnerable's young and often will be very well paid for it.  Many of those will claim to heal multiple millions of afflictions for the right price while living in luxury and splendor.  Get huge tax breaks from the government, be granted absolution for some of the most horrible crimes in history, beg humans for their $$$ while keeping those same humans mentally and emotionally enslaved to an ideology.  

Is that about right ?  Maybe I missed the fact that there are a dozen "atheist" bookstores in every town in America devoted to nothing but books on atheism and kitschy atheism memorabilia.  Or is that theism?

Someone should tell Mel Gibson that the $371 million dollar piece of crap he put out (and made on the movie) is pocket change compared to what a movie on atheism could bring in.  Who knew ?

Thank you, Pile, for pointing this out. It is exactly what I have tried to say in the past, but much better said.

To those Bible-thumpers: Remember that the Bible is the best selling book of all time. Don't make yourselves look like fools by disparaging the money a book makes.

There's nothing wrong with that. The point is that we must show everybody why reason, logic, and skepticism are better than blind faith. Insults alone won't help anybody. Though they are fun...

Don't thank me yet... I think Michael Shermer's diatribe is stupid. I just posted it here to see what other people thought.

Michael Shermer does a disservice to the freethought movement by moving into the slaveowner's house with watered down rhetoric asking for a live-and-let-live approach towards dealing with mentally retarded people who are systemmatically trying to destroy the world.

Let's address some of his goofy claims:

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail.

Tell that to the anti-slavery movement, or the anti-smoking movement. There are plenty of examples throughout history where beliefs, actions and behavior that have been shown to be harmful have been altered, curtailed or abolished.

2. Positive assertions are necessary.

Oh really? So that's why relgion works? Because of all the "positive assertions" that are made? Not because any of the hellfire and brimstone, original sin, you're-going-to-die-if-you-don't-repent crap eh?

3. Rational is as rational does. IOW it's not rational to be condescending...

Again, this doesn't jive with the M.O. of theist leaders. They even have their own term to describe their brand of condecending arrogance: They call it self-righteousness. Shermer really shows off how insecure he is with this boneheaded contention.

4. The golden rule is symmetrical.

This may be the only thing that I agree with, but Shermer still doesn't get it. Let me be the first to make it clear to him and everyone else: If I'm delusional and suffering from mental retardation, I certainly would appreciate it if someone told me in no uncertain terms, that way I can seek treatment a lot sooner. Just because theists "can't handle the truth" doesn't mean the rest of us are little babies and need to be treated with kid gloves.

5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief.

This is just insulting to anyone who has any goddam clue what the anti-theism movement is about. IF belief was personal and not institutional, Shermer's suggestion might have some weight, but the freethinking movement has never suggested personal belief be sanctioned. It's the personal belief that becomes publicly promoted and pushed as policy and law and political correctness that we have an issue with. When every theist on the planet respects AND DEFENDS the separation of church and state, then and only then will Shermer's idiotic, utopian, bong-hit-influenced, pipe-dream-of-a-world-where theists and atheists respect each other have any chance of existing.

So freethinkers need to take the high road eh Shermer? Exactly what good does that do in this day and age? Have you looked around at the dynamics of communication these days? Do you see the will of the majority prevailing in ANY arena where there's a minority force with more aggressiveness? Oh wait, Jesus said, "The meek shall inherit the earth" and what happened to him? Oh that's right, he got nailed to a goddam cross!  And it's all of god's "meek" followers who now rule the world.

I would agree with you if I saw any evidence that your attiude was beneficial.

But every single time I see that aggressive, abusive, elitist attitude thrown at a theist, they simply pull back into their rose-colored delusion, except this time with even more hatred for the satanic atheist.

The part of the human mind that compartmentalizes magical thinking is like a child. You will not get that child to grow up by abusing them.

1. The anti-smoking campaign is gaining ground, but still has a long way to go. That is with the added benefit of tabacco users dying in droves!

Anti-slavery: failed until violence was used.
Abolition: failed
Anti-drugs: failing
Anti-war: failing
Anti-abortion: failing

The point isn't even that anti- movements don't work, the point is that substitution works far better. If you take away something, you'd better put something good in it's place, otherwise a typical human will latch on to the nearest thing that resembles what they lost.

We are trying to promote logic and reason in all aspects of life. Our efforts will be much more successful if we keep this in mind. After tearing down the theist talking point, we must then immediately point out how logic and reason make more sense and are more beneficial to the world.

2. The positive assertions of religion are redemption and heaven. The carrot and stick approach is the best method of training any animal, including humans. Though I am growing to despise religion, it is not all hellfire and brimstone. The warm-fuzzy part is what most people gravitate towards. And in my opinion, the greatest fault of the atheist movement is that it lacks the warm-fuzzy.

3. You really want to emulate the worst of the theists? Besides, those self-righteous pricks really only command the attention of the aged and weak-minded. Most religious people are much more moderate.

4. If you were delusional and suffering from mental retardation, you think somebody simply telling you that to your face would change anything? Especially if 90% of the people around you were suffering from the exact same affliction?!? They must be gently led, or they will not be led at all. You speak of theists who "can't handle the truth" as if they were a minority that could be treated harshly without repercussions. Please allow me to disabuse you of that notion. Yes, they are babies. They need to be treated with kid gloves. Otherwise they will find a shotgun and explain their feelings with both barrels.

5. Freedom of religion is merely the foundation of what we need to work for. Obviously the worst of the self-righteous theists will not work for this, but rather push their own agendas. It is up to us along with the more rational theists to ensure they don't get their way. In this way, it is imperitive that we respect one another so that we can work together for this fundamental right.

I don’t see the link here. We should be cautious about irrational exuberance whether it is irrational exuberance by being too extreme or likewise… irrational exuberance about being too passive. I don’t see how you’ve shown that the authors listed have ever reached an irrational exuberance. As you noted on our show you wrote a positive review of The God Delusion, consider Sam Harris a friend, and liked Hitchens book, you just take a different approach then they do. In fact I was surprised to hear you wrote a letter like this considering your recent appearance on our show where it sure seemed like you found quite a bit that you approve of in what we and the authors listed have done.

As we seemed to agree on that show, atheist diversity is acceptable and some will be more passive than others. People like Harris, Dawkins, and we here at the Rational Response Squad understand why someone would want to put a positive foot toward science as opposed to a negative foot toward religion when approaching life. Some people prefer this world outlook so much so that they’ll always be like this. They may even live their entire life without being confrontational towards religious people or its concepts. I understand those people exist, can respect that, and think those people are important. In fact I wish I had it in me to be that type of person. People like Dawkins, Harris, and those close to me simply have a hard time thinking like that. We think we must speak up so that several generations from now our great great grandchildren don’t have to.

I personally was one of these “respectful atheists” for a while. After 8 years of discussing religion online and 8 years of the Christian right gaining power I realized a different approach may be crucial to save our country from the interferences of religion in government. Unfortunately it seems that since our religious population tends to elect leaders that are religious or biased towards religion affecting change at the government level hasn’t always been successful. It would seem then that another approach would in fact be to affect the people, the people who vote. While I very much support the extremely crucial litigious sort of work that several major atheist orgs do, I see changing the hearts and minds of the people as another way to cut off the beasts head. Changing the hearts and minds of the people will occur via a multi pronged approach. Some will best be served by becoming curious and picking up a copy of skeptic magazine. They may find breaking the chains of religion to be calming and enlightening through your magazine. However not everyone operates in this manner. Some people don’t realize there is a reason to rethink questions like God when you pass the age of reason, they’ve been taught to embrace based on faith, and therefore critical examination hasn’t crossed their mind on the issue. A case could be made that the authors listed above were the catalyst for a great many confused people that had no clue that they should turn on their thinking skills and abandon irrational god belief in order to find their solace in life. Different strokes for different folks. We respect that some people will be positively affected by a simply scientific approach and I think we all hope that you, Greg Epstein, and those that align their beliefs with yours find reasons to respect our blunt and yet honest approach. After all if it wasn’t for us (and the authors listed) there would be a lot less attention for the community at large. As Brian Flemming noted in his blog during Epstein Gate, it’s in poor form when atheists receive a platform from blunt talkers like Harris and then use their platform to talk down about his methods.

In response to your bullet points

I’d bet a few dollars that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett (why is Dennett even part of this list?) would all agree with your first point. I can find positive views of the world and how to live it from all four of the aforementioned gentleman. All of the men listed are well known for holding critical thought and reason on a pedestal. To infer that their movement is simply “anti-something” (I don’t even believe this is a “movement”) is to not know much about what the men listed are trying to accomplish. I am sorry to note but feel compelled to note that the view that this “movement” is simply “anti-something” by itself is a view typically held by those with such hate and vitriol for us that they prefer to hold a delusional outlook of our position in an attempt to impugn our character and efforts.

You’ve included a man nicknamed Darwins Rotweiller on your list of “new atheists,” there is certainly much championing of science and evolution from the crew listed. We make tons of positive assertions. For the most part we all agree and assert that “faith is irrational as a means for determining beliefs that are logical to hold” would you agree? It seems awfully odd that this is a point on the list, as I contemplate which positive assertions to list I realize that the list is hundreds of thousands of assertions long, that maybe you’re just not inclined to see it that way, and that maybe I shouldn’t even bother listing any (as I know that you’re already very familiar with their work). Should you seriously not be able to find any positive assertions for science and reason from the works of books listed and from the efforts of groups like mine, I can provide a small list upon request.

While Sagan was an amazing man, other amazing men have said otherwise. Isn’t it possible that there is rational middle grounds… can you see how a diverse approach from a diverse group can be rational? Engaging in ridicule doesn’t make one irrational if they’ve come to conclude that the person they’re speaking with has become semi-impenetrable to reason. Sometimes people need a reality check and sometimes condescension is just what one needs to kick them into gear.

Sam Harris brought up a good example in a truthdig interview…

“I think this is a war of ideas that has to be fought on a hundred fronts at once. There’s not one piece that is going to trump all others.

But I think we should not underestimate the power of embarrassment. The book Freakonomics briefly discusses the way the Ku Klux Klan lost its subscribers, and the example is instructive. A man named Stetson Kennedy, almost single-handedly it seems, eroded the prestige of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s by joining them and then leaking all of their secret passwords and goofy lingo to the people who were writing “The Adventures of Superman” radio show. Week after week, there were episodes of Superman fighting the Klan, and the real Klan’s mumbo jumbo was put out all over the airwaves for people to laugh at. Kids were playing Superman vs. the Klan on their front lawns. The Klan was humiliated by this, and was made to look foolish; and we went from a world in which the Klan was a legitimate organization with tens of millions of members—many of whom were senators, and even one president—to a world in which there are now something like 5,000 Klansmen. It’s basically a defunct organization.

So public embarrassment is one principle. Once you lift the taboo around criticizing faith and demand that people start talking sense, then the capacity for making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we’ll start laughing at people who believe the things that the Tom DeLays, the Pat Robertsons of the world believe. We’ll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power.”

Again, why is Daniel Dennett on this list?

I speak up because I see a travesty on our planet. I see a society with tons of promise and hope but its being hindered. The science that we hold near and dear is under attack, it’s happened before (see: burning of Alexandria Library). At this moment in time it’s important for us to call a spade a spade. Those who have a belief in a god are not able to logically, philosophically, or scientifically defend their view. We know that faith is not a valid means of determining the existence of anything, and we should be pointing this out… this is science! If I held a belief that I couldn’t prove you can bet your life fortune that I’d want someone to call me out on it. I don’t care if they’re calling me out on it with all the kindness they can muster or all the hatred they can spew. I want to be called out on claims that I make illogically and I want to live in a world where it’s ok and normal for us to do this all the time. So when you speak of the golden rule, keep in mind that from what I know of myself and all of the authors mentioned we are in fact acting exactly as we would want others to act towards us.

My last problem with this point is your first three points. You’ve implied or inferred inaccurately that that “new atheists” or the authors listed, or whoever you’re referring to are simply anti something, don’t embrace science, don’t make assertions, and aren’t rational… which to me is either one big “prejudgment” or one incredibly jaded and vacuous view of the position of those listed.

But religion does threaten science it does threaten our freedom, it has for a great many years, as illustrated in each of the books from the authors you’ve listed. You said you read their books, right? This last point of yours seems like you’ve given us an open pass. You say as long as it doesn’t threaten science and freedom we should be respectful, but since it does threaten science and freedom one could infer that you think we can be disrespectful.

On the issue at hand… we noted in our podcast with you, we promote freedom of disbelief, I believe to some extent all of the authors you mentioned do as well, and inferring that they don’t is a gross mischaracterization of their position.

I agree with King. Through scientific understanding some day hopefully the majority of the planet will understand how in fact we are all connected, and that there is actual proof for the claim that we’re all related. We care for the future of humanity and all humanity and that is why we speak up, not because we’re Nazis, fascists, freedom haters, racist, or prejudice. I hate to have to point it out yet again, but inferring any of those negative stigmas again is a gross mischaracterization of the authors positions and an opinion typically held by those deluding themselves to reinforce theistic self delusions.

A Rational Atheist,

Brian Sapient

When I try to understand the nature of some of these people who promote a more benign, milktoast approach towards addressing such controversial issues, I can't help but come up with the notion that they just don't get it. There's a very important, very crucial aspect of the dynamic of virtually all progress, that some of these so-called learned men, seem to have forgotten:

Progress is problem solving.

Problem solving requires identification and understanding of problems.

Therefore all attempts to identify and understand problems are a positive and hopeful process.

The opposite of this is apathy, nothing more, nothing less.

Let me give you an appropriate analogy from my own personal life. I am by trade, a software engineer. I program computers and I design systems. I create processes that if done properly, provide new and helpful services to mankind. I'm not suggesting this in any grandiose sense. I'm just saying, this process helps people.

According to people like Shermer, I have to get my hands dirty with two undesirable aspects before I can help people. First I have to identify a problem to solve. If I was polite, I guess, I could avoid doing so. Then, assuming I commited the offensive transgression of suggesting I had a better idea, I would get to work on it, and all along the way I "debug" the issue, seeking out things that don't seem to work, and removing or replacing them. I could make sure that I do not offend anybody by suggesting there's a better way to do something, or that someone else's system wasn't broken or inferior. But then there would be NO PROGRESS. If there's one thing that most religion has claimed throughout history, it's that nothing is broken, and nothing needs to be fixed with its own dogma, but then it seems every 11.5 seconds a new sect is born from people who disagree with this, but only just enough to take their own sky fairy over to a newer, bigger building.

And this is the basic idea. All progress, in virtually every category of existence is predicated on the idea that something can be improved upon, and the on