Misused and Abused: Nihilism

A number of the critics of the "new atheists" seem to think that atheism either automatically leads to nihilism or else is a synonym for nihilism. Neither is the case. Nihilism is an attitude in which all philosophical and ethical systems of belief are rejected whereas atheism is simply the lack of theism (system of belief related to god or gods). How do you jump to the conclusion that a lack of belief in God means a lack of belief in anything?

Yet, fools like John F. Haught in his horrid little book God and The New Atheism make statements like,

“Go all the way and think the business of atheism through to the bitter end; before you get too comfortable with the godless world you long for, you will be required by the logic of any consistent skepticism to pass through the disorienting wilderness of nihilism. Do you have the courage to do that?”

Chock full of bullshit and idiocy. It never occurs to him that it is nearly impossible to be a skeptic and simultaneously be a nihilist. Skepticism is not simply a matter of being contrarian. It amounts to caring enough about what is and isn't true to demand evidence before committing to a belief. It also eludes him that even if it were true that atheists like me "long for" a godless world rather than simply acknowledge it that the statement implies another self-contradiction. Why long for anything if nothing matters?

Yet, year after year there are at least a few narrow minded assholes who find the need to slap the nihilist label on atheists. There may well be a few atheists who happen to be nihilists as well. There are also probably a few theists who end up becoming nihilists. So what?

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
Isaac Asimov

Tacky vs. Violent

Imagine that, the violent theist's "rights" trump those of the atheist with poor taste. Doesn't seem to matter that the Muslim admitted to the arresting officer what happened or that it was caught on video. The guy who committed an act of violence gets away with it since the person he attacked was an atheist.

The judge's bias seems pretty blatant to me.

"If I were a Muslim, I'd find it offensive. But you have that right, but you're way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it's not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don't care about other people's rights as long as we get our say but we don't care about the other people's say."

So which is it, asshole? Do we have the right of free speech/expression or don't we? I admit, I would probably not choose to dress up as "zombie Muhammad" for a parade but that does not mean it is illegal or should excuse acts of violence. Since when is one individual's case dismissible due to how others may perceive Americans in general?

As far as I can tell this is simply an instance of a bigoted judge refusing to do his job.

Projecting Ignorance and Inattentiveness

Why are so many theists such pinheads?

Only those who have never paid any attention to what the so called "New Atheists" have been saying for decades (just because you didn't notice them till after 9/11 doesn't mean they weren't around) would find "Richard Dawkins, Famous Atheist, Not Entirely Sure God Doesn't Exist" to be an intelligent headline. Dawkins, like any one with anything resembling critical thinking skills, has always admitted to not being one hundred percent certain of God's non-existence. This is not new. In fact, there are a couple passages in his book the God Delusion that point this uncertainty out. Only ignorant bigots should find this surprising in any way. It is actually not that difficult to grasp the notion that an individual can be confident in a position without being completely certain.

I do not believe in unicorns. There is not a scrap evidence nor the slightest reason to believe in such a creature. Yet, I have not been to every potential habit where such an animal might exist. I cannot definitively disprove it. I can, hypothetically, concede to ways such a creature could exist without believing it does.
I know what a horse is. I have seen creatures with horns. Why couldn't a horse develop a single horn or horn-like appendage? Narwhals look like they have a horn despite it actually being an overgrown protruding tooth. See, it is remotely plausible. Still silly and still not true.

If theists actually paid attention to the arguments atheists have been making for years such moronic headlines would not be so inevitable. Maybe, we could have a decent conversation if fewer theists behaved like such self-deluded malicious assholes with the attention span of gnats.

Another religious hypocrit, shocking

I find it interesting that the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, would make this statement, ''The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.'' Apparently he is too blinded by his own self-righteous bigotry to see the hypocrisy. He doesn't think anyone should "redefine" marriage but he is certainly fine with forcing his preferred definition on everyone else.

I do agree that the church has no right to tell the state how to handle civil marriages. This is not, of course, his real aim. I wish it was. If the religious bigots who oppose marriage equality would get it through their thick skulls that we don't give a shit what they do in their places of worship maybe they'll leave the rest of us alone. I doubt it but it is a nice thought.