It’s been a while between articles posts, let’s get straight into it:
Philosophy Bites – Links to the First 176 Episodes -Edmonds and Warburton.
LCA 2013: distributed democracy, speaking stacks, links -Sky Croeser.
Anti-Muslim hysteria in Australia -Russell Glasser.
We get email: Believers and their security blankets -Martin Wagner.
Good luck in Somalia- Ophelia Benson.
Egyptian atheist facing blasphemy sentence - Jacob Fortin.
Repairs under way -Ophelia Benson.
A fabulous “Manly Meal”-Ophelia Benson.
WL Craig on Morality and Meaning (Series Index) -John Danaher.
My Favourite Posts of 2012 -John Danaher.
Sexual Objectification: An Atheist Perspective -Richard Carrier.
Prototypical Sexist Atheist on Exhibit- Richard Carrier.
Atheism+ : The Name for What’s Happening-Richard Carrier.
Waldron on pornography -Russell Blackford.
Gay Bishop Comes Up With the Worst Argument to Support Same-Sex Marriage- Greta Christina.
My Letter to the Boy Scouts- Greta Christina.
Same-Sex Marriage Opponents Increasingly Desperate and Stupid – Greta Christina.
Catholic Priest blames women for bringing violence on themselves – Jacob Fortin.
Ultra-Orthodox Jews harass sexually abused girl – Jacob Fortin.
Bill O’Reilly calls David Silverman a Fascist – Jacob Fortin.
Top 10 anti-Christian acts of 2012 -J.T Eberhard.
Most insulting fundraiser ever. – J.T Eberhard.
Don’t Say Gay legislator: being gay is like shooting heroin. -J.T Eberhard.
How often god’s moral decrees bear no resemblance to justice. -J.T Eberhard.
Craig’s Argument for God from Intentionality – Philosotroll.
Witch Hunts in Papua New Guinea – Leo Igwe.
Randal Rauser on William Lane Craig’s defense of the Canaanite genocide -Chris Hallquist.
More Powerpoint Slides from a Christian Pastor’s Anti-Gay Sermon – Hermant Mehta.
Who Still Thinks the Church Has Any Moral Credibility? -Hermant Mehta.
Shells and switches -Deacon Duncan.
God and the PlayStation 3 -Deacon Duncan.
The Gypsy Curse -Deacon Duncan.
A couple of apologetics blogs (see here, and here) have done an apologetics and philosophy book list as a guide for gifts for Christmas, both for the beginner, and more learned apologist. I thought it was such a great idea that I’m going to respectfully steal it, and apply it to atheist and philosophy literature for both the beginner and more learned atheologist.
Unfortunately I can only include the literature I’ve read myself, so please, feel free to add to the list those which you feel would be appropriate.
For the Beginner/Intermediate
Malcolm Murray, The Atheist’s Primer – This is a neat little piece from a serious philosopher that deals with the arguments for the existence of God, the burden of proof, the definition of an atheist, agnosticism, problems with some definitions of God, morality, meaning, mysticism, falsifiability and death – in a fairly simple manner.
John W. Loftus, Why I Became an Atheist – Similar to Murray’s this book covers a wealth of topics, its general theme – criticising religion, primarily Christianity.
Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted – This is the only book of Ehrman’s that I’ve read, I’ve used his The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings as a reference, and it is probably the better book, but having not read it cover to cover I can’t speak authoritatively on it. As it is Jesus, Interrupted is straight forward and deals with many of the objections modern scholarship has with the Bible – a good start for those looking for more depth on it.
Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution is True – True it is that this issue isn’t necessarily tied to atheism. However, many atheists are science minded, or at the very least enjoy learning about science – this book is a great resource to learn about the *ahem* myth of evolution.
Robert M. Price, The Case Against The Case For Christ – As a nod to the aforementioned apologists I guess I should include some work that critiques popular apologist’s literature. Price does a great job in this to point out the obvious flaws in Strobel’s case.
For the Advanced
Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – At the time I read this it went a little above my head, but it’s a solid read and deals with just about anything you could imagine regarding atheism, and reasons to reject theism.
George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God – Not, technically a difficult book to read, and could have gone in the beginner/intermediate section, it deals, really well with many of the same issues as Martin’s, Murray’s, Loftus’ with it’s own style.
Kai Nielsen, Atheism & Philosophy – A huge follower of Wittgenstein, Nielsen deals with a philosophical case for atheism. You may ask why I’ve included 3 books in a similar vein? As you might hear, so many times theists talk of there being no real scholarly work in or on atheism, well, here it is.
Richard Carrier, Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism – While not, specifically about atheism, and also on a worldview I don’t hold, this book does give a pretty good defense for about as strong an atheistic worldview as you can get, and for my money, does pretty well defending it.
Robert M. Price (Ed.), The Empty Tomb – A collection of authors ranging from Michael Martin to Keith Parsons answering proponents of the Resurrection accounts. More detailed work on Biblical scholarship than Ehrman’s for the reader who can keep up.
There are a plethora of other books I could include, but these ones cover several different branches of information with varying depth and clarity – all good reads, all educational, no matter what beliefs you may hold.
- Loftier Musings On John Shook’s Views On Atheism. (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- On Being a Sophisticated Atheist (sandwalk.blogspot.com)
- Dogmatic New Atheism. (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- Respect. (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- Articles (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- Loftier musings on (my) atheism/atheists.. (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- Articles (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- How to avoid the charge of Logical Positivism? The issue of falsifiablity (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- Defining Atheism (sandwalk.blogspot.com)
- Friendly Atheists and the Other Kind of Atheist (sandwalk.blogspot.com)
Atheists get blamed for secularization, yet secularization was well underway in the West long before enough atheists accumulated to add support to the separation of church and state. Secularization is not the same as atheism. Secularization has to do with religion’s control over the outer world, not over the inner mind. Secularization is the gradual replacement of religious control over major political and social institutions. Political secularization prevents governments from favouring religion and it also protects religions from governmental interference. Social secularization finds most civil organizations, such as for-profit business and non-profit colleges and hospitals, no longer controlled by religious denomination. America is a good example of a country in which secularism is the norm while most people sustain their faiths. Some of religions defenders fear secularization, as if people’s faith in god could depend on religion controlling the world… If faith is doing so well, perhaps secularization should not be such a terror. Apparently billions of people can freely enjoy their private faith in god while letting the government do their public jobs (indeed, that was the aim of secularism). Political and social secularization continues, affecting the world as much as faiths propagation… Religions tend to view any competition as another religion, so secularism gets accused of quasi-religious indoctrination and totalitarianism. (Shook, The God Debates, p. 4, 2010)
Shook J.R. (2010). The God Debates. Sussex, United Kingdom. Wiley-Blackwell. P. 4.
- Articles (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- Paul Kurtz on separation of church and state (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- Secularism: Its Content and Context (3quarksdaily.com)
- ABC gets it wrong again: Atheism and Humanism, forms of civil religion? (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- Declaration on Secularism and the place of religion in public life (daddyhogwash.com)
- Why Atheists Give Secularists A Bad Name (And Reputation) (neosecularist.com)
- 1st academic journal on nonreligion (religion.blogs.cnn.com)
- Secular societies are not good things at all [Nick Dutch] (ecademy.com)
- Funeral Dilemma (dangeroustalk.net)
- Rhodes Forum 2011 (internationalpostsecular.wordpress.com)
Hot off his recent debate with Russell Blackford and others, Stephens isn’t smarting at all from his loss but has come out swinging over at the ABC website’s religion an ethics blog (in which he runs), in a piece entitled “The unbearable lightness of atheism“.
And a swing is exactly what it looks like.
Posting, as he notes, his thrust from the IQ2 debate, one is left to wonder just why he would post his losing argument to begin with, and why I am wasting the virtual ink to respond to it, when Blackford and co. did a far better job than I could.
I enjoy blogging, simple as that.
It is always amusing to note the language used by theists when discussing “The Gnu Atheism”, you’ll notice it generally takes the tone they claim said atheists do, ironic it is, and more than a little sad.
Stephens immediately goes for what I imagine most theists consider to be atheism’s job and weak point: morality. Of course anyone who’d spent 5 seconds researching atheism would realise atheism doesn’t have to explain anything, but hey, let us not let the facts get in the way of a good yarn.
It’s the same old yarn really, society in decline, morals run rampant, relativism, post-modernism. The problem is, as with most of the ABC’s opinion pieces, is there is very little room to elaborate and explain ideas, what we end up with is a mixed bag of assertions, which then yield to greater assertions:
It seems that we have reached a point in our national life where we are utterly incapable of reaching any kind of minimal moral consensus on fundamental questions.
What are the threats that we face in common? Where are those sources of corruption, perversion, addiction and even servitude that we ought to protect ourselves and others from? What virtues ought we to have and instil in others in order to make a robust civil society? What are our obligations to others – those living (including those who come to us from without our borders), dying and not yet born? What constitutes a good life? What ends do politics and the economy serve?
Such questions were once the subject of ferocious political and public debate; and, for better or worse, the Left and the Right believed there were answers, and that they had them. (Stephens, The unbearable lightness of atheism, 2011)
Hmm, that’s bleak, but I wonder, as Stephens does, who is to blame? Atheism?
There are few things today more fashionable, more suited to our modern conceit, than atheism. In fact, far from being radical or heroically contrarian, the current version of atheism strikes me as the ultimate conformism.
This is especially apparent in the case of the slipshod, grotesquely sensationalist “New Atheism” – invariably renounced by principled, literate atheists like James Wood, Thomas Nagel, John Gray, Philip Pullman and the late Bernard Williams – which poses no serious challenge to our most serious social ills and so has no other alternative but to blame our social ills in toto on religion.
Now, I don’t want to be misunderstood. I am not claiming that atheism is necessarily the cause of our modern predicament, much less that it is the root of all evil. To make such a claim would be to accord this variety of atheistic chic with too much importance, too much weight. (Stephens, The unbearable lightness of atheism, 2011)
I have to wonder, if the worst thing Stephens can say is that atheism is no longer “heroically contrarian” then we could, as atheists, say that “The Gnu Atheists” and the secular foundations (secular student alliance, ACLU, Freedom from religion foundation etc) have done their job, insofar as they have given atheists a voice and protected the rights of unbelievers – we no longer need to be heroic or contrarian. To which I say, thankyou!
I find it nevernedingly ironic that he claims “The Gnu Atheism”: ” poses no serious challenge to our most serious social ills and so has no other alternative but to blame our social ills in toto on religion.” when one could make the argument, and I am – that is the very thing Stephens is doing in his article.
It’s relieving that Stephens wishes to elaborate that atheism isn’t the cause of the worlds problems, but it does beg the question – why would he spend his first 12 paragraphs talking about a decline in society, then without preamble jump to atheism, simply to say that it’s not the cause of the moral decline? What, he just wants to rant about it anyway? If there is no hidden agenda here, then Stephens is simply really bad at coordinating a narrative.
But don’t think I’m strawmanning Stephens, he continues:
In a way, I think where atheism fits in our cultural moment it is more incidental than that. Our real problem today is the impoverishment of the modern mind, our inability to think properly about such elevated things as the Good, Beauty, Truth, Law, Love, Life, Death, Humanity, the End or Purpose of things, even Sex itself, without such ideas being debased by an incurious and all-pervasive nihilism. (Stephens, The unbearable lightness of atheism, 2011)
So it is, it’s not atheism that’s the problem, but nihilism (then we still ask – why is he discussing atheism at all?). Of course anyone who has read any apologetics would know this is what many apologists charge atheism with, claiming something to the effect of: this is where atheism leads us. Even if this isn’t Stephens’ point, one has to wonder about his perception of the world. Are things so bleak to Stephens? Or are these simply the problems that accompany a theistic worldview, phrases like “the End or Purpose of things, even Sex itself” seem to be problems for the religiously minded individual, would these problems plague a persons worldview who bases such on the evidence?
Perhaps – we could always make the world better, but to assert that the modern mind is unable to properly think on these subjects seems asinine - and not to mention self refuting since if this was true Stephen’s own dialogue here would be unacceptable – particularly when it’s done with the backdrop of atheism flowing in the background. If one is to tie together the narrative Stephens seems to have so much trouble doing – one may assume, after all, it is the atheists fault – for the supposed inability of the modern mind to think properly on ideals which are largely well solved in the secular life? This is circular.
And here we confront a desperate contradiction at the heart of so much atheistic hyperbole (accurately identified by Bernard Williams and others). The New Atheists rely heavily on the thesis that religion is the enemy of progress and human flourishing, and that once the last vestiges of religion are done away with, humanity will be far better off. But they also claim that all religion is “man-made,” and self-evidently so. This begs the question: if religion is indeed this all-pervasive source of corruption and prejudice and moral retardation, where do they believe that religion itself comes from, if not the human imagination? (Stephens, The unbearable lightness of atheism, 2011)
Stephens is, of course, building to his point, which will come to in a moment – for now we see a category error – to say that “The Gnu Atheists” are calling religion the problem and that religion comes from man, and therefore what does this mean – misses a few steps in reasoning. Let us leave aside the fact that no quotations are given, and focus on the argument – Stephens seems to assume that “The Gnu Atheists” think it is “man” who is the problem, but rather it is religion as an epistemological tool man uses that is the problem. “Man” (sorry for the masculine pronoun ladies) may have his faults, but that means religion is all the more dangerous – what “The Gnu Atheists” are saying, if we are to accept, rather generously, Stephens quoting of them – is that we need a more robust epistemological tool – one that draws conclusions from the evidence, not the other way around, one that allows investigation into it’s ideals (re: no dogma), one that takes the world as it is presented to us – things of this nature. Religion comes from the failure of “man” to understand and explain the intricacies of his world, from tradition and habit. But as we see, this is in decline.
Now we come to his point:
And so, it would seem that we are left with an unavoidable choice: either these atheists are really misotheists, God-haters, who rage against the very idea of God, the Good, Truth and Law, and so desperately try to will God out of existence; or their oft-professed faith in the inherent human capacity for progress is without justification; or the history of religion reflects the extraordinary human capacity to pursue the Good, as well as its equally pronounced tendency for Evil, idolatry and nihilism. (Stephens, The unbearable lightness of atheism, 2011)
The atheists, or rather “The Gnu Atheists” it seems after all – are a not the cause, but rather a symptom of our faulty society, their rejection of what Stephens calls “the Good, Truth and Law”, and their “desperate” push to “will” God out is but part of our world of sin (you just know he wants to say it)? It is painfully sad to watch Stephens flounder around attempting listlessly to assign some kind of blame to a world he sees is out of control – of course it has to be those damn dirty atheists – after all, no all-powerful, all-knowing being could possibly be responsible for any of the supposed lack of “Good”, “Truth” and “Law” in the world – no, no , that would be ridiculous.
As far as “The Gnu Atheist’s” supposed faith in the inherent human capacity for progress which is apparently without justification (which again, asserted without evidence), we can simply say that all us over here in the sunny atheist camp are loving life, we’re living in a society with the least amount of violence and crime, some might say we are living in the best this world has ever been. Homosexuals, women and minorities are slowly coming to get their rights – despite what Stephens’ religion might have to say about it, sure the world has plenty to work on, no-one’s claiming perfection, and we’re by no means done. Stephens continues:
It is apparent, is it not, that the current batch of chic atheists are but a symptom of a more general cultural decline, the steady impoverishment of what Hilaire Belloc perfectly described as “the Modern Mind,” which ceaselessly explains away its own moral deficiencies by projecting them onto God and banishing him into the wilderness.
It is just as apparent why such an atheism – with its cartoon versions of history, its theological illiteracy, it fetishisation of science, its hostility to the humanities and aesthetics, its flattened-out brand of morality as mere “well-being,” its cheap gags and mode of incessant piss-taking cynicism – should appeal so powerfully to a culture that has grown accustomed to the vulgarities and trivia enshrined in the modern media. (Stephens, The unbearable lightness of atheism, 2011)
It is here, that all I have been saying comes to fruition, I mean, come on ladies and gentlemen I implore you – do atheists really have to take this baseless, crap, asserted without evidence? I don’t even have the energy to address this ad hominem nonsense except to quote Stephens from earlier, when discussing the “The Gnu Atheism”:
“which poses no serious challenge to our most serious social ills and so has no other alternative but to blame our social ills in toto on religion.” (Stephens, The unbearable lightness of atheism, 2011)
It’s ironic to see how high and mighty the pious are when judging those damn dirty atheists and how much people like Stephens fail to see their own hypocrisy. The above could easily be said of the meandering drivel Stephens has posted here, so in the end, he seems to be no better than the atheists he means to place the entire burden of modern civilization on.
Stephens S. (2011). The unbearable lightness of atheism. Retrieved October 5th, 2011, from
- ABC gets it wrong again: Atheism and Humanism, forms of civil religion? (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- Loftier musings on (my) atheism/atheists.. (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- Believe in mad rubbish because it’s good for you (freethoughtblogs.com)
- Progressive Atheism (atheistrev.com)
- Die, Atheism, Die. (girlcartridge.wordpress.com)
- IQ2 Debate online: “Atheists are wrong” (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
- What’s Atheism? (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Death and atheism (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
- The opposite of worship is not atheism… it’s the worship of the wrong thing. (andrewejenkins.wordpress.com)
- Atheism has a sexism problem (freethoughtblogs.com)
When discussing pseudoscience and illogical thought I should probably do so in the larger sense, not keeping it specifically related to atheism, as I’m on shaky ground when I talk about atheists and what they believe as a collective, and, granted, these concepts generally apply to most people. I’m going to however, attempt to have a dummy spit at atheists.
It is important to note, that atheism, and being an atheist, does not necessarily enail that you are logical, scientific, apply appropriate skepticism or can’t be duped by unsubstantiated nonsense. What pitfalls I see some atheists falling into is that of conspiracy theories (caused by confirmation bias, selectivity of evidence) and sometimes alternative medicine etc.
This is disappointing, but to my theist readers I’d have you know, I would and do go after atheists for their conspiracy theory nonsense (and faulty reasoning in general), perhaps even more so and with greater ridicule than my theist counterparts (in fact that feels like I all I do these days).
Why? I personally want my atheism to be a result, not a method, based on my search of the evidence/arguments, viewed in the light, and application of, science, reason, logic etc (my method is methodological naturalism?). I (try to) use applied skepticism (as opposed to skepticism as a worldview), I evaluate arguments and evidence, for all the things I accept (and things I don’t), within reason of course. It irks me when others don’t, theist and atheist alike.
9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, Obama birthers, homeopathy and alternative medicine proponents, Zeitgeist movie promoters, world government (run by the Jewish folk of course) conspiracy theorists (etc), I hang my head in shame. Of course I remind myself that there’s nothing in atheism that says an atheist should be immune to woo, but, if the “Gnu Atheism” (re: the popularisation of atheism; which isn’t to say I agree with all of the “Gnu Atheist” positions on matters of religion, and certainly not so on matters of politics) has done anything, it’s promoted a skeptical outlook, that values standards of evidence, confirmation, verification, reason, secularism, a refusal to accept religious authority (applied, prescriptive traits as opposed to absolute worldviews). And you certainly see many of the aforementioned credulous atheists have (selectively) read “Gnu Atheist” text, as they seem to mistake an appropriate ridicule of certain religious notions (while still respecting the individual), as the main point and message and missing the fact that the authors are also pushing for Enlightenment and naturalistic principles (see Victor Stenger’s book, The New Atheism pp-11-17, and Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, Paperback Edition pp-13-30 for some of that message). You end up having angry people, however justifiably so, with a basic understanding of their worldview but not enough of their epistemology worked out, that they can’t avoid, well, boulderdash.
It might be worth mentioning something about epistemology and how one can go about discerning truth from falsity, but I fear that’s a long and involved post, perhaps I’ll get started on that?
- What is an Atheist? (anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com)
- Judaism Has its Own Angry Atheists… (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- The Archbishop of Canterbury is Right: Atheists *Are* Cool (patheos.com)
- Angry Atheism is a ‘Boys Club’, and a Religion (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Atheists are Differently Religious – and No, Atheism is not the/a Religion (theframeproblem.wordpress.com)
It’s been remarked to me several times, “why do you care?” About atheism that is, or rather, about that and theism. This has come from atheists too. In Australia, the issue of religion is largely unspoken, people want their beliefs, they want their lack of belief, but they feel no-one should talk about it, no-one should attempt to raise awareness about atheism, secularism and all the issues pertaining to such. Maybe people don’t care, maybe I’m an extremist… Though I’m not sure debating and reading books, and posting on FB is very extreme…
It’s interesting, I mean we all have our passions don’t we? The very people who ask me this, constantly post (on FB) about one or two issues dear to them, politics (some may say just as sensitive a topic), their work, their social agenda etc. I care about my atheism, I care about demonstrable reality, I care about religious persecution and subjugation, of anyone, atheist or Muslim, Christian or Hindu. I care about defending the rights of marginalized people (whether it’s atheists or homosexuals, refugees, women, men, children etc). And I like raising awareness to these injustices, just as I like raising awareness on the nature of atheism, or reason, logic, evidence, scepticism etc etc ad infinitum. Because the theist is way more serious, way more united and way more funded, to strategically push their agenda, and they don’t care, in many cases, about talking about their faith in public, or about raising awareness or legislating against others. If this is how they are, why should I care as an atheist, about discussing my lack of belief, or ridiculing religion? Why should I hide who I am in public? And cow-tow to people who have ridiculous ideas they can’t defend (I’m talking about your average “new-ager” here (you know the one: “I believe this….” and an inane list of crap comes out of their mouth), many theists who actually care, can defend their faith) or haven’t given any thought to. These very same people who give cover to the real extremists in our midst, who tell us our atheist Prime Minster is responsible for the floods, homosexuals for the cyclone, that Muslims shouldn’t be in parliament etc are perhaps who my real beef is with?
Do I talk about it all the time? Am I obsessed with this? Of course. Some say it is the most important issue that has ever, or will ever exist. How many have been killed due to someones belief that their god or gods wanted something from them? How many are marginalised due to belief systems, homosexuals, other believers, atheists, minorities, women etc. I’m not saying all theists and all religions are absolutely, necessarily harmful, there are many evils done without it, I’m saying it can lead to that, and does in many cases, perhaps due to dogma (and some may say dogma is ultimately the real harm)? But the point is, whenever someone steps out of line due to their religion, I care, and I want to let others know.We don’t need a big spiel about the “evils of religion“ because that’s not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about specific incidences, specific times, in today’s news cycle that religion has hurt someone, and I want to ask, can the positives of religion be done, without the negatives? If it can, we should try.
I’m excited about learning, about philosophy, about science, theology, apologetics, counter-apologetics. These questions have been asked for thousands of years by the worlds smartest thinkers. Why wouldn’t I be obsessed with knowing what they had to say? Most of the time I wonder, why aren’t you more concerned with this? Mostly, when I wonder, I conclude that many people don’t care about these issues, especially issues that don’t affect their money. How many people do you see speaking out against the things they see around them? Against things that don’t necessarily involve them? Against the things that piss them off? I guess they do, but if they do, should they be asked “why do you care?” with incredulity? With a kind of “you’re weird” vibe? And I’m not talking joining green peace, and fighting a green war. I’m talking about passive resistance, things we can all do. Passive awareness raising, donating to charities, discussing with people these ideas, debating topics, getting heated, getting pissed off, losing arguments, changing minds, uniting people! Creating a community of non-theists to come to, creating an identity for non-theists to enjoy, hell to even bring theists together with non-theists, to make discourse and disagreement friendly and polite, to make disagreement a good thing, to have disagreement be about ideas, not people and something that leads to resolution, or hopefully, understanding. Oh, and doing our best to keep that wall of church/state separation high!
These topics are linked to all knowledge we have accumulated as a species, because theists think their god or gods are represented in everything we know, atheists or detractors of any kind need to know this information. Sure this may not be possible, but they’ve had thousands of years to come up with arguments and evidence. It takes as much knowledge as you can fit in your head, just to have a debate with one. This research raises your consciousness, I feel since I’ve started researching this stuff, that my understanding as a human has increased, my intellect, my critical thinking, my ability to think coherently, my cognitive ability, my understanding of the world, my confidence in myself have all increased. I wish the same for all of you, theist or non-theist!
That’s why I care. I care about people, I care about right and wrong, I care about reality and I care about our future as a species. I guess I could ask you “why don’t you care??“
“… If you’re an atheist, shut up about it. If you are open or vocal about your atheist worldview, you are a “militant atheist.” Be silent, even though that same standard does not apply to those who passionately disagree with you.” (Noise 2011)
Noise D., (2011).The Myth of Militant Atheism. Why are atheists vilified? What is a militant atheist? Retrieved 23/02/2011. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201102/the-myth-militant-atheism