'Militant atheists' up in arms over Spore's sim-religion

/agreed

+1 from me too (as an atheist). I mean, it's a game. I can't see getting that worked up over it. Don't like it? Don't play it.

True that. These fundamentalist / extremist Atheists are just as bad as any fundamentalist religious Muslim or Christian -- at least in belief. You don't see Athiests bombing the Creation museum or anything. But the fact that they take such a hard line approach to things really gives a bad name to atheists -- who for the most part are people that just want nothing to do with religion but respect the right for people to practice it.

+1. Also an atheist, also don't like the militants. That's not to say I think prayer in school or swearing on bibles in court is ok, but I also have no problem with anyone putting religion in a GAME of FICTION.

For god's sake (heh) fellow atheists, find something more useful to put your time into.

The atheists that I do know, and tolerate being with, are people who acknowledge that I am a religious person, and they respect that as long as I don't push my beliefs on them and they don't push their beliefs on me. We can actually have decent debates on the issue and still be friendly.

Militant atheists though, seem like a bunch of burnt out ex-Catholics or Fundamentalist Protestants who's parents were one step away from being Carrie's mother. Their angry with how they were raised and vent that out on well-meaning religious people who aren't the ignorant pricks that they speak out against.

Animeman - I'm sure those people exist, but there's a hell of a lot more religious people expounding on their religion than there are atheists expounding on their not-religion. Not that it makes it ok for the Atheists to do that, but I'm just saying, stones, glass houses, etc.

I'm also an Atheist (as you can probably tell from my avatar), and I don't see why any Atheist would have a problem with a religion mechanic in Spore.

Seriously, every cognizant life form on this planet has used mythology as a means to explain their environment, why should the intelligent life forms evolving in the Spore universe be any different?

Nate,

Your statement is highly relative to many variables. From an American viewpoint, yes, there are more self proclaimed "religious" people than "non-religious", however that doesn't equate to more radicals on one side or the other.

If you happen to be a scientist, you'd be hard pressed to find more radical religious people around you than radical non-religious. My degree was in anthropology and geology and not a single one of my professors were in the least bit tolerant of my religious viewpoint. Often religion (Christianity usually took the brunt of it as it is more politically correct) was flat out ridiculed in class.

Now from a NON western viewpoint you would be even more hard pressed to validate your statement. Did you know that the most populous country on the planet (China) would arguably be defined as "militant atheist"? The government (and citizens) can and do imprison, torture and even kill people who claim certain religions.

Extremists come in every form and atheism is just as susceptible to them. There are very few belief systems that INSTRUCT intolerance- it is people who are the problem.

Spartacus, ridicule does not equal radical. It doesn't take a radical atheist to think that the inconsistencies, contradictions and double standards in religion are funny. That's like saying that when a republican makes fun of democrats, that means he is a radical. No... that means he has a sense of humor about it.

When I see a bumber sticker that says "National Atheist's Day: April 1st" I don't accuse the person of being a radical. I laugh.

Anam,

I didn't say that ridicule = radical. I was countering Nate's statement that there are "more religious people expounding on their religion that non-religious people expounding on their non-religion."

I used two examples to back my argument- a lesser form (ridicule) and a major form (real persecution). Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Except that you started with "from an American viewpoint..." and then ended with an example of persecution in China. Your only example of atheist radicalism in the United States is in the form of ridicule.

But before you start with another example, let me say that I'm not disagreeing with you that there are radical atheists in the United States, some of which are just as bad as theists.

However, I disagree that there are more radical atheists in the United States and personally find it insulting when someone suggests that atheists acting rude somehow compares with religious extremism of, just off the top of my head, bombing abortion clinics.

The militant Atheists are a lot more annoying than the militant evangelists. At least when a religious person tries to convert someone, it's because they actually believe they're saving someone's eternal soul. When an atheist wears a "So many Christians, so few lions" t-shirt, he's just being a dick.

Roto13: I'd rather see cancer get cured then have my 'soul' saved.

The attack many Atheists have on religion is more an attempt to free science from the grip of 'god' then to attack them. Many atheists just wish religion would stop trying to make people stupider, in ways such as the teaching of the idiotic 'intelligent design' in schools, and let mankind progress without asking "WWJD?", since there is no Jesus.

Then they're doing it completely wrong.

Anam,

Sorry, I was not trying to make the point that there are more "radicals" supporting the case of atheism than of any other ideology. I was simply stating that the total number of adherents to any single ideology is not necessarily directly proportionate to the number of radicals of said ideology or vice versa. In other words, there could be a widespread ideology with few radicals, or a very obscure ideology with many radicals.

Yes, I started my argument from an American viewpoint, then shifted to a global viewpoint with the transition "FROM A NON WESTERN VIEWPOINT". I'm puzzled how you could've been confused there. It was a contrasting statement against Nate's obviously American-centric argument. I was AGREEING with him that in AMERICA there are more religious radicals, but GLOBALLY that statement isn't as true.

I agree that being ridiculed in a classroom is not on the same level as bombing a building. But again, just because that is the case in America, doesn't mean it is the case WORLD WIDE. Atheistic Communism has ended millions of lives in world history, so to say that religious radicals are potentially more dangerous or deviant than non religious ones would only hold water in America- which last time I checked, was not representative of the whole of mankind.

Stop assuming that religion is against science or that science is burying religion for it isn't possible.

It isn't possible for it doesn't exist. Science vs religion doesn't exist (I'm a medical student who is a Christian, go figure).

The real battle is naturalism vs theism within science. Evidence is neutral in the battle and can be used by either side to further their argument.

@Spartacus

Yeah, after re-reading your first post I get what you're saying now, I think we're just fighting over technicalities.

However, I will make the point that if you're counting a world-wide view, I still disagree that atheistic extremism is in any way comparable to religious extremism. All you have to do is look at the middle east to see that. People are shot and/or bombed every single day in the name of Yahweh and Allah. So I still don't see good evidence to say that atheistic extremism is worse or even on even ground with religious. But to be fair, I'm not an expert on the subject, so you may know things I don't.

Finally, I want to say it's nice debating with you Spartacus. You actually make points rather than just arguing for the sake of arguing. Bravo.

Same to you Anam.

If you'd like, I wouldn't mind continuing the discussion privately. You can email me at:

kstate_ham@hotmail.com

Sure, though I don't want to do this over work e-mail, and unfortunately I am moving at the moment and don't have internet access yet in my house. =(

However, I've written your address down and will send you a message when I can.

I wouldn't frame the debate in terms of "religion vs. science" so much as "ignorance vs. enlightenment". There are those among the religious and atheist populations alike who are ignorant, and there are individuals who are more enlightened. The difference between ignorance and enlightenment can be summed up as follows:

The ignorant are closed-minded, intolerant of other viewpoints, and are generally opposed to looking for new knowledge and embracing new and potentially different ideas. Those among the ignorant tend to adopt a more simplistic "us vs. them" or "black vs. white" or "PS3 vs. XBox 360" or "politicians are hypocrites and liars" viewpoint rather than recognize the pitfalls inherent in each generalization.

The enlightened are the exact opposite sort of person - they are open-minded, welcoming of other viewpoints, and seek knowledge and fresh ideas at every turn, embracing those in which they see merit. The enlightened will tend to look objectively at a particular situation and attempt to see what precisely is going on, rather than oversimplify - they can see shades of grey rather than "black and white". They would see that (referring to the above examples of "PS3 vs. XBox 360" and "politicians are hypocrites and liars") instead, the PS3 and the XBox 360 have their individual advantages and disadvantages and go with what is best for THEM, and that politicians do the best they can with the limited resources they have control over, and sometimes they can't fulfill all of their commitments.

Of course there can be people in between - ignorant people working to become enlightened, and enlightened people temporarily blinded by emotion or passion and who think ignorantly for a while. Shades of grey.

This is the reality, as far as I can see it.

Agreed, and they are failing on the same point as before: The best militant atheists are the ones who pretend they're religious.

Does Spore need any more marketing (or hype)?

i dont think will wright has ever needed any controversy to sell his trillion selling games.

In what way are you militant? Do you push over the ehxibits in the Kentucky Creation Museum, shouting "James Randi is great!" and stick photocopies of those 'infamous' Danish cartoons to Mosque walls screaming "Richard Dawkins is a pretty decent guy!"?

I'm an Atheist, too - but I don't get 'militant Atheism'.

@James Lockwood:
Also an atheist here, and Richard Dawkins IS a good guy for the record ;). You also do not seem to understand what militant atheism is, it simply means being an atheist and not hiding it while also being active in trying to combat laws, or religious propaganda that have no grounds in reality. It doesn't mean becoming physical, violent or obnoxious, however I am sure the religious use the term with this misinterpretation in mind.

@Intangible 360: That's not entirely true.

I'll agree with you that militant atheists tend to not be violent like some religious nut-jobs. But you're fooling yourself if you don't think that at least some atheists can be just as pig-headed, insulting, and hateful as some religious fundies.

I've read the rhetoric of some atheists that was just as bad as any Christian whacko or Islamic fanatic. I'll say that there are fewer atheists that display this kind of behavior compared to religious-types, but they do exist.

Militant is not the right word. It's complete overkill. It's more like activist or fundamentalist atheist. Just as missionaries spread religion, "militant" atheists spread non-religion and they get very angry and worked up while doing it. I think most athiests are passive and simply choose not to practice religion, but don't want to stop anyone else from doing so. That doesn't mean that every atheist that engages passionately in philosophical discussions about religion is a militant athiest though. But the ones that are making a big stink about a made-up religion (aren't all of them made up?) being in a freakin' game certainly have some issues to deal with.

If anything, you'd think that it would be a mockery to religions people. So that's why I think this story is worth noting.

@ Deadjesterx: I do agree with you. I think militant Atheists are about, and no matter their motives, are just as insane as the Religious lot (but in different ways). I think they generally have a firm(er) grasp on reality (than the Religious zealots), but are misguided. Many of their arguments are supported by science and they use the end result as justification for their actions. The reason they are no better than the fundamentalists is that they don’t explain how they reached their (often valid) conclusions. Carl Sagan is attributed a beautiful quote. I forget what it is. What it is getting at, though, is that the method is far more important than the result.

Religious Atheists expect people to take on faith, if you will, what they are saying. This is known as an ‘argument from authority’ – one of the more common ‘logical fallacies.’ Science was never meant to address the issue of Religion – by its very nature, Religion is unfalsifiable.

*Militant Atheists expect people to take on faith

Sorry about that!

I don't think Dawkins is that great of a guy. The man actively attacks religious organizations with blanket statements, demanding they prove to him that God exists and uses the burden of proof fallacy, which is ONLY a valid excuse in a fair legal proceeding, to protect himself from his own, unprovable claims. Sorry, no religious organization showed up at Dawkins' doorstep and told him his ideas were bogus until this guy came out and began attacking religion. I'd have heaps of respect for the guy if he put forth an effort to argue the merits of atheism without attacking religion, but the entire basis of his claims comes from attacking the opposition.

Plus, the man completely ignores the fact that terrorism and bloody death is just as likely to occur under secular states or organizations targeting completely secular ideals. The Soviet Union is a perfect example, the atheist state is responsible for nearly 40 million murders in the 20th century. Add in the atrocities committed by China on religious groups, most notably Tibet, and I don't even need to add the various other 20th century communist states to the list.

The man makes a mockery of the scientific method and is a sloppy researcher. He points to 9/11 as to why religion is bad and how an atheistic world would never have such atrocities yet completely washes over the actions of Timothy McVeigh, a secular extreme right terrorist that blew up the Oklahoma City federal building, and Theodore Kaczynski, an extreme leftist terrorist that terrorized people for well over a decade by sending out mail bombs.

The guy is a piece of dirt, he has an agenda and does anything necessary to further it (plus the fact he gets tons of money for it should be a clue), including lie and use shoddy science. I have no idea how Dawkins ever got such a positive identity in the Atheist community, he is exactly what they don't need because his actions make them look bad.

If someone is getting paid a lot of money for a religious debate, then that means their opinion is immediately suspect. This goes for any atheist that obtains a government grant or priest that you see on television.

+1 to Sir Laughing Target

@ Laughing Target: I could not attempt to articulate the fallacy of the Stalin (/Hitler) argument - I suggest you read God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

As for the Ad Hominem on Dawkins, I think your points are largely without substance. Many have been critical of him - he does not wear kiddie-gloves (is that the term?) when dealing with the subject ('Children are born without Religion, it is indoctrination that installs it into them.' 'There is no such thing as a Christian child, only a child with Christian parents' and so on and so on). May I ask, are you a Christian, Laughing Target?

If he has an agenda, it is to make this world a more rational one, in my humble opinion. And he goes about it in the correct way - with logic and rationality. He may bait the Believers (The God Delusion is his most recent book - a 'controversial' title) but if you actually read what he has written, you will find it to be accurate, concise and many more of the adjectives we love.

I'm agnostic, so it isn't anything personal. His research is sloppy and the conclusions take too many leaps of faith to be reasonable in any kind of determination of personal belief.

LaughingTarget,

I'm curious about your criticism of Richard Dawkins. Personally, I like the guy, but then I freely admit that I don't know enough to be able to evaluate whether his research is sloppy or not.

Are you criticising him specifically for his stance on religion or do you claim his scientific works to be sloppy too? If so, could you point me to a source so I could read more?

(I don't mean this as a challenge, I'm seriously curious in learning more about this.)

His arguments on religion are sloppy. He takes too many liberties on how a supernatural power should be. He assumes what we consider logic to be unassailable proof that a higher power does not exist, mainly by pointing out biological flaws and saying an intelligent creator wouldn't create flaws because it is illogical. He assumes human logic and diety logic are the same thing. I easily countered this by pointing out that without flaws (not to him, but various supporters), disease, disasters, etc, the planet would be completely overpopulated within a few short generations by a multitude of creatures, completely making the world unlivable. The ideals of Western logic in terms of making everyone live a long, healthy life is completely illogical when you look at long term planetary sustainability.

The bulk of his arguments are straw men, such as his retort to not understanding anything in the Christian realm by saying he doesn't have to know about leprechauns to say they don't exist.

I have no qualms against his actual scientific research, but whenever he speaks of anything religious, the man does nothing but put his foot in his mouth and makes people like me, who actually follow the scientific method in ever aspect in life, cringe.

When the man says shit like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/11/afghanistan.terrorism2

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!" (for the lazy)

Without bothering to do historical research to back up the claims, I know the man is not even remotely competent in anything outside his own field of study. Religion is not even a remotely close to other reasons for war and genocide: money and power. The Romans waged war for centuries, conquering people because that was how they paid for their excess. Every terrorist that happened on American soil prior to 9/11 was entirely non-religious in nature. To drag up one recent event and project it over human history without bothering to even look things up smacks of incompetent science. If I want to know the theories behind evolutionary biology, I won't hesitate to talk to him. If I want to know anything else, I can safely say the guy is clueless.

Thanks, LaughingTarget!

Now, I'm going to disagree with you on a few details, however I agree with you on some of his arguments, specifically in the parts of his book, The God Delusion, where he tries to say what's wrong with religion.

Not that I'm defending Richard Dawkins in his over-simplification of religious violence, but the reason why he is being over-simplified is because he's trying to argue against all religions at once. Personally, I think this is his biggest mistake, where if he'd focus on Christianity or at least monotheism, he could probably make better arguments (which he has is some cases where he was making specific points).

While I understand your point about disease and whatnot, your point is still missing the idea that God can do anything. If God wanted to avoid overpopulation, he could make species reproduce slower or only in certain conditions or anything else. There is no reason to believe that giving people horrible, painful diseases is the only way to control population when you're God.

I think it's fair to say that you don't need to know everything about Christianity to not believe in God. However, I agree with you that if you're going to argue that Christianity is bad for the world, then you'd better know your stuff, because now you're the one making a claim. So I agree with you there.

I'm very surprised by the quote you have from Richard Dawkins, because I've seen him in an interview where he specifically said that he would not use cliches such as the crusades or the inquisition as reasons to accuse religion of being violent. He pointed out that there were political reasons for those that trumped the religious ones. It surprises me that he doesn't think the same of 9/11, which I personally consider 90% political attack, 10% religious crazyness. If I were to defend him in this statement, I would argue that perhaps he meant that 9/11 could have been less severe if it weren't fueled by religious conviction. However, as he didn't say that, I won't defend him.

Normally, when Richard Dawkins talks about the violence of religion, he specifically says that war, resources, politics and whatnot, are the primary sources of violence, but his argument (which you may or may not agree with) is that perhaps without religion, *some* violence could be avoided or *some* conflicts could be less bloody.

I think that you'll find that if you listen to his longer arguments about religion, you may see less "sloppy work," though I'll still admit that I don't agree with him on everything.

Anyway, thanks again LaughingTarget. Love to hear different views.

"I am a jealous and vengeful god." FTW

Kosher?

...ZING!

"The man actively attacks religious organizations with blanket statements, demanding they prove to him that God exists and uses the burden of proof fallacy, which is ONLY a valid excuse in a fair legal proceeding, to protect himself from his own, unprovable claims."

The burden of proof is only a valid excuse in legal proceedings? So I can say that unicorns exist, without having to prove it, and have it taken as fact until one pour soul scours the Earth for one said mythical being?

The burden of proof is just the most logical way of determining fact from fiction. If you think about it, the scientific method uses the burden of proof also. The scientist doesn't just make a hypothesis and publish it; he also has to publish his procedure and results.