Skip navigation

As a young atheist, I kept my opinion to myself. I even hung out with a Lutheran student group at the university campus because I enjoyed the company. What I thought was a noble notion – keeping my irreligion to myself – was shattered through a knowledge of the existence of religiots such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Fae Baker, etc. The never-ending Parade of Fools continues with the likes of Ann Coulter and Bill Donohue. Many people think that the so-called ‘new atheism’ (What the hell is that? Is there some new way to not be superstitious?) is some spontantaneous phenomenon that has arisen without cause.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We atheists have been around a long time, but we have respected – wrongly, it turns out – the holding of superstitious beliefs. Now these superstitions, which should have remained private and without recognition by state institutions, are affecting public policy with potentially (and, in many cases, already) disastrous and deadly results. We can no longer afford to remain silent when religion is not only being accommodated but is becoming a factor in decisions affecting everyone in which it has no business. The idea that Religion has something relevant to say on matters of public policy or law is smoke and mirrors and its adherents display such abject ignorance that can only be described as inexcusable and repugnant.

I can not stress this in stronger terms: This is wrong. This is unethical. This is immoral. Holding secularism as a virtue is the only sensible course a society can take without it tearing apart at the seams.

Perhaps the ‘new atheism’ does have one thing actually new to offer – demolishing the concept that Religion is immune from criticism. It is time to end this political correctness, draw back the curtain and expose religion for what it is: a load of harmful superstitious nonsense. Time to take off the kid gloves….



  1. Not only atheists think these people are not right like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell who preach hate. Multitudes of lovers of God ignore them and shield our disgust of their comments, but try not to judge them.

    I think they call it ‘new atheism’ because of the anger. Like when I read Sam Harris I don’t hear a sober intellectual, but rather an angry and arrogant sounding man. Same with Hitchens or Dawkins.

    I am a fan of secularism in government too, but not to an Communist extent of banning religion or teaching non-religion to the public. I see the teaching of non-religion or non-God as a form bigotry too, aka China or old Russia and how its school books are geared to indoctrinate a non-God point of view. School books and government should give freedom period. Holding no stance in education or one of diversity.

    I disagree with your idea on secularism as only value worth pursuit in society. If there were no religions, humans would still have conflict. Economics, ideas, laws, land, resources and general selfish would cause wars and hate much like they do now.
    I would propose freedom, equality, liberty, right to property and expression, that is held together by a secular government that acts in righteousness. < from the Hebrew/ Biblical meaning of 'one who realizes his possessions are apart of a community and acts so'

    I like your passion and well written articles, look forward to hearing from you.


    • adoubtersramblings
    • Posted January 19, 2010 at 11:40 am
    • Permalink
    • Reply

    I’m really enjoying your blog. I’m going to put a link to in on mine. Thanks for the comment today too!

    Keep on doing what you’re doing. There’s not nearly enough voices of reason out there yet!

  2. Love this page. A sound and solid call to action – and I couldn’t agree more. Keep up the good work and thanks for having my back with this troll in a suit!

    • No problem, dude. The guy is a condescending prick and deserves what he gets from me. More, actually. Anyone trying to pass off the gospels as eyewitness testimony (as if that is sufficient for the claim to begin with) can safely be ignored. But this guy tries to make the audacious claim that positing a deity as an explanation for the origin of the universe! as being not extraordinary!!! That places this guy clearly in the asshat category.His false sense of superiority is like a nail sticking out asking to be hammerred. I simply can not suffer pricks like him, theist or atheist alike, and won’t. Your blog entry is excellent and doesn’t deserve to be commented on by the likes of unkleE.

      • I agree, but I feel more sorry for the likes of him than anger toward him. It must be a depressingly impoverished existence to unwittingly succumb to Dark-Side epistemology. Of course, now I sound like the pompous ass. 😉

        If he really believes that the god hypothesis isn’t extraordinary, he must have his mind aligned in a very convoluted and unhelpful way. It’s sort of depressing that he represents what is the more sophisticated portion of the enormous religious community.

  3. I’m not angry with him, I just see no reason to not call him out on his patronizing and condescending tone and let him know that he isn’t being the “oh look how nice I am” Christian he thinks he is. My tone can be caustic, but I am quite aware of this and I am using it that way for a reason.

    As for his being a representative of the more sophisticated-theology community, I don’t think so. He’s more well-read than his compatriots perhaps, but he’s still in the fundamentalist category. Extremely deluded, though, since the idea that the god hypothesis is not an extraordinary claim is completely preposterous. Hence there is little point (for me at least) to continue any discussion. The guy is right in line with William “Lame” Craig’s nonsense, and there’s nothing sophisticated about that at all. In fact, Craig makes the same statement, which is why I used his example of winning the lottery. There’s a big difference between particular and general propositions, and when both are unlikely or unheard of, then the label “extraordinary” with regards to the claim must be invoked. I’m willing to bet that unkleE has bought into Craig hook, line and sinker.

    Terry Eagleton represents the more ‘sophisticated’ theology community, I would think. But his theology is so sophisticated that it outwits even him. He was asked once on a CBC radio program whether or not he prayed, and he completely evaded it by saying “well, it depends on what you mean by pray”. Seriously? If that’s sophisticated, I’m breaking out the maple syrup because I smell waffling. Besides, these so-called sophisticated theologies have no more evidence going for them than their less sophisticated predecessors and the Emperor still has no clothes. These so-called sophisticated theologies simply represent retreating actions by believers and acknowledges that science has smashed the previous ones. It’s pathetic to watch, really. There’s is next.

    • I agree on all accounts. I guess by ‘sophisticated’ I meant not a drooling and babbling total imbecile. Not the Ken Ham sort of idiot. But yeah, I think it comes down to two flavors of stupidity. On the one hand, Ken Ham is blatantly stupid and doesn’t even really warrant a rebuttal (at least, if people didn’t take him seriously) but the ‘patient and polite and meek’ type is almost worse because then you sort of feel like they are trying to play nice.

      I have stopped my conversation with unkleE for the same reason. He is dyed-in-the-wool and isn’t even open to the possibility that some of his arguments might be less than accurate. If one can’t even accept the *possibility* that one might be wrong, the discussion is over.

      I’m with you on the decline and retreat of religion. Society is FINALLY getting around to not letting theists get away with whatever they want just because they think the creator of the universe wants them to. The “sophisticated” ones are retreating behind the apologists, but they are next.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: