Penn Jillette: Time for atheists to stand up and be counted

[beefheart]

I wish I could be there. I live in the district of a congresswoman that is openly "non religious" Sure wish that there were more.

Also...James Randi is gonna be there, he is a hero.

 

[William Rea]

I think this can easily be oversold but I do think there is an element, especially in the US, where a lot of consideration is given to religious beliefs, opinions and practices rather than beliefs, opinions and practices in general. A lot of the debates around moral questions (homosexuality, abortion etc.) seem to be focused on people expressing their religious freedoms, which (if only unintentionally) excludes anyone who has the same moral objections but without any religious or theistic basis.

Only if you also describe any large numbers of theists as “anti-atheist”. I don’t see anything in this article or the event that suggests they’re being anti-anything though, they’re just looking to make a statement that they exist as well.

I would hazard a guess that a large percentage of theists are 'anti-theist' of one form of theism or other.

 

[TheGoverness]

I would hazard a guess that a large percentage of theists are 'anti-theist' of one form of theism or other.

I'm more anti-theism than anti-theist, though. It's kind of like a computer with a virus on it; I don't hate the computer, I hate the virus.

 

[CrabCake]

uh the simple fact there are 0 openly atheists in congress despite surely there are dozens, that most americans are so suspicious if not contemptuous they would never consider voting for an atheist, and that this is reflected in the daily lives of millions of atheists who are suffocated into feigning theism

the unifying factor as i understand it is to oppose a THEOCRACY that so many elected officials and even state supreme court judges actively strive for, but simply being able to 'come out' without fear of repurcussion would be a nice starting point

Virtually no one is interested in a theocracy; no elected official, no powerful special interest group, no religious denomination or major parachurch organization, no political pundit with any significant voice...virtually no one. I don't think this kind of exaggeration of an opponent's views or demonization of their personality is helpful to our political discourse.

Obama is not a communist, Hillary is not a socialist, and religious activists have no interest in establishing a theocracy.

Words have meanings. Here's a simple dictionary.com definition of the word you used:
Theocracy: a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

Can you point to a few of the many elected officials and supreme court judges you claim are striving for this?

This kind of exaggeration reminds me of this bit:

 

[William Rea]

Do all atheists think the same way politically? For atheists to be properly "represented" does that equal laws or legislation against or hostile toward religion? Do you automatically oppose a law that religious people support? Atheists and believers have nothing in common?

Penn Jillette is a jerk that happens to share some of my opinions on theism.

I suspect that the Reason Rally will be something of a disaster this year, the organisers have been too busy creating a safe space and pissing off atheists for it to matter to them any more.

Regarding, 'Do all atheists think the same way politically?'. The answer is a resounding no, they do not and that is why Atheism+ has been an unmitigated disaster for atheism. Too many social justice warriors have tried to attach their agenda onto atheism and made enemies of allies in atheism and that is actually not the fault of religion or theism.

 

[TheGoverness]

Penn Jillette is a jerk that happens to share some of my opinions on theism.

I suspect that the Reason Rally will be something of a disaster this year, the organisers have been too busy creating a safe space and pissing off atheists for it to matter to them any more.

Regarding, 'Do all atheists think the same way politically?'. The answer is a resounding no, they do not and that is why Atheism+ has been an unmitigated disaster for atheism. To many social justice warriors have tried to attach their agenda onto atheism and made enemies of allies in atheism and that is actually not the fault of religion or theism.

Absolutely. Atheism+ was a complete disaster for the atheist movement. It's all because of those damned SJW's. They literally rip apart every social and political movement they touch.

 

[William Rea]

Just realized I called Penn Jillette, Penn Teller in one of my earlier posts.

My error.

Sorry.

All the errors you make in your posts and you are only apologising for that one Frank? Too funny.

 

[William Rea]

So, they would define themselves by what they are against, and position themselves as being in opposition to government sanctioned religious speech? I suppose it's possible. But is that an issue that most atheists and agnostics really care about enough to form a pressure group to fight for it? I don't have the statistics to know for sure, but I get the sense that the vast majority of atheists and agnostics actually don't have a problem with "Under God" being in the pledge and other such minor issues; and that even if they do, it's among the least important issues they care about. But again...just like you, I'm also guessing on that one.


But again, I think that kind of shows the problem. We don't really know what they would be about. What would pandering to atheists look like?

It is a fact of the matter that atheists are defined by their lack of belief in terms of what they find no apparent evidence for; If theism did not exist then there would not be atheism. I have no problem with that, it is a simple case of, if you assert a deity then I will ask for evidence, if you don't have any then I will dismiss the claim. If you can't show it then, you don't know it.

It would not be 'pandering to atheists', that is the religious entitlement culture speaking.

What I believe that most political atheists strive for looks pretty mundane and actually is pretty mundane in the West but, nonetheless it is important.

 

[Frank Apisa]

All the errors you make in your posts and you are only apologising for that one Frank? Too funny.

Have you ever acknowledge an error, William?

I have acknowledged many errors; I make 'em. And I am adult enough to acknowledge them.

Are you?

Can you point to any acknowledgement of an error here in DP...BEFORE I asked you this same question several months ago?

 

[Sweden]

Penn Jillette: Atheists, stand up and be counted - CNN.com



This made me laugh:





This has some relevance:




Shall be interesting to see how this gathering turns out. Will there really be 'tens-of-thousands"? Or just a hundred or two?

The comment about Gary Johnson rings loud too.

I did not lose my religion, I threw it in the dustbin (am. trashcan).

 

[Frank Apisa]

It is a fact of the matter that atheists are defined by their lack of belief in terms of what they find no apparent evidence for; If theism did not exist then there would not be atheism.

Really.

Well "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE "theism"...so that is patently incorrect as written.

And the nonsense that atheists "are defined by their lack of belief in terms of what they find no apparent evidence for" is gratuitous nonsense. Many are defined by the fact that they assert there are no gods...rather than that they simply lack "belief" in them.

I have no problem with that, it is a simple case of, if you assert a deity then I will ask for evidence, if you don't have any then I will dismiss the claim. If you can't show it then, you don't know it.

Same goes for atheists who claim there are no gods as part of the REALITY of existence.

It would not be 'pandering to atheists', that is the religious entitlement culture speaking.

What I believe that most political atheists strive for looks pretty mundane and actually is pretty mundane in the West but, nonetheless it is important.

Oh, is that what YOU BELIEVE?

How very interesting.

 

[Sweden]

Atheists don't believe in God. In what way are they not being represented?

I think if we're going to be honest, a large number of non believers could more accurately be described as anti-theist.

Anti-theist is fine by me CountryBoy. I detest religion and all forms or irrational superstitions. Particularly when the believers attempt to impose their 'morality' on the rest of us.

7% of Americans identify as atheist or agnostic. In Sweden its more like 77%.

 

[Sweden]

Virtually no one is interested in a theocracy; no elected official, no powerful special interest group, no religious denomination or major parachurch organization, no political pundit with any significant voice...virtually no one. I don't think this kind of exaggeration of an opponent's views or demonization of their personality is helpful to our political discourse.

Obama is not a communist, Hillary is not a socialist, and religious activists have no interest in establishing a theocracy.

Words have meanings. Here's a simple dictionary.com definition of the word you used:
Theocracy: a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

Can you point to a few of the many elected officials and supreme court judges you claim are striving for this?

This kind of exaggeration reminds me of this bit:

Not quite true. Muslim activists have the establishment of a theocracy as the main aim of their lives. In the US and everywhere else.

 

[CrabCake]

Not quite true. Muslim activists have the establishment of a theocracy as the main aim of their lives. In the US and everywhere else.

We were discussing the alleged "many" elected officials and supreme court judges in the US that are striving to establish a theocracy according to chromium.

Do you have examples of such people?

 

[Your Star]

I find it puzzling that atheism is viewed as such an important part or maybe the most important of a person's identity. Well, it's only puzzling if what I repeatedly hear from atheists that it's a simple non belief. I, personally, give very little thought to things I don't believe in. I don't believe in flying ponies. Let's have a non belief in flying pony rally.

On the other hand, my own religion is a very large part of my identity and that I would rally for, or I might rally against something I'm hostile toward. Is this an anti-religion rally? That doesn't seem like that's what Penn wants. I think an event like this is all good but I also think atheists who truly don't see their atheism as any kind of big deal would be unlikely the ones to go to this, so that I think the hostile, mocking, evangelical atheists will be over represented and Penn's idea that this will showcase that atheists are nice, caring, and "normal" probably won't pan out, but we'll see.

If your religion is a very large part of your identity, why would criticize someone else for having their beliefs be a part of their identity? Also, this is as much of an anti-religion rally as church services are anti-atheist events. You see?

 

[CrabCake]

It would not be 'pandering to atheists', that is the religious entitlement culture speaking.

I think you're completely missing the point here.

My point was that for atheists to organize as a political group, they must have political aims. What you described (non-belief) is not a political matter. The reason I ask how you pander to an atheist is because it illustrates the problem. How do you give atheists what they want? If I were a politician who wanted to pander to this group, or even one who genuinely cared for the group, what policies would I need to pursue in order to please that group? How do I get that group on my side?

The fact this question is so difficult to answer illustrates the problem with an atheist political group. There just isn't such a thing as an "atheist agenda". Some atheists are libertarian, some are socialist, some are centrist...there aren't any unifying issues for them to gather around. Atheists like Jillette want the government out of their lives while atheists like Sam Harris want more government involvement.

Political groups like the NRA and the religious right work because they have a set of core political principles that they are willing to fight for. What are those core principles for atheists?

 

[Frank Apisa]

If your religion is a very large part of your identity, why would criticize someone else for having their beliefs be a part of their identity? Also, this is as much of an anti-religion rally as church services are anti-atheist events. You see?

If you had actually read what you quoted from X Factor, you would see that he was NOT talking about "their beliefs"...but about their supposed "lack of belief."

You see?

 

[X Factor]

I'm more anti-theism than anti-theist, though. It's kind of like a computer with a virus on it; I don't hate the computer, I hate the virus.

You equate religious beliefs to a computer virus and you "hate" them? Religious beliefs are a wrong that needs to be corrected? Am I actually sick or mentally ill to you? Don't be afraid to say - it wouldn't be the first time I've seen it.

What you've stated here looks very similar the "love the sinner but hate the sin" thing I'm sure you've seen. My only point being that we might not actually be as different as you'd probably like to think. I'd have less in common, I think, with someone who was truly ambivalent about religion.

 

[X Factor]

If your religion is a very large part of your identity, why would criticize someone else for having their beliefs be a part of their identity?

I don't, at all. In fact, my whole reason for that part if my post was to acknowledge that I can totally understand how this rally would appeal to someone who does place great importance on their own belief that there is no god. I just see a bit of an inconsistency, though, with on one hand saying it's a simple lack of belief, nothing more - nothing less and saying it's, at the same time, a huge part of someone's identity.

Also, this is as much of an anti-religion rally as church services are anti-atheist events. You see?

That's a good point. I can think about God or my religion without a single thought about atheists. We can gather every single week without once bringing up atheists. Oh, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's the exception rather than the rule. How is it possible to not give a single thought about religion, though, when it's the disbelief that is the only unifying factor? At a church service, the unifying factor is a belief in God. We can gather and our entire focus can be on God and nothing else. You don't think there will be some anti religion sentiment prominently expressed there?

 

[Your Star]

I don't, at all. In fact, my whole reason for that part if my post was to acknowledge that I can totally understand how this rally would appeal to someone who does place great importance on their own belief that there is no god. I just see a bit of an inconsistency, though, with on one hand saying it's a simple lack of belief, nothing more - nothing less and saying it's, at the same time, a huge part of someone's identity.

It's the lack of belief in a god that is being celebrated here. A celebration of human life and free thought. Though, I think you can find a common thread of a respect of rational thought and science among atheists.

That's a good point. I can think about God or my religion without a single thought about atheists. We can gather every single week without once bringing up atheists. Oh, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's the exception rather than the rule. How is it possible to not give a single thought about religion, though, when it's the disbelief that is the only unifying factor? At a church service, the unifying factor is a belief in God. We can gather and our entire focus can be on God and nothing else. You don't think there will be some anti religion sentiment prominently expressed there?

Of course there is anti-religion sentiment, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. However, it's not the only thing that are bringing people together. It's a celebration of life, love, human connection, free thought, rationality. You know, all that hippy dippy ****, lol.

Also, and more to Penn's point, atheist's, while growing as a demographic in this country, are ignored in the political sphere. There is no major politician that is an atheist, and religion is very often melded with our politics in a way that makes a lot of atheists uncomfortable.

 

[countryboy]

Anti-theist is fine by me CountryBoy. I detest religion and all forms or irrational superstitions. Particularly when the believers attempt to impose their 'morality' on the rest of us.

7% of Americans identify as atheist or agnostic. In Sweden its more like 77%.

But I bet you're fine with imposing your version of "morality" on the rest of us. Am I right?

 

[Sweden]

But I bet you're fine with imposing your version of "morality" on the rest of us. Am I right?

No, you are quite wrong. It is for each one of us to decide on moral issues for him or herself. Although I'm 'pro-choice' I think healthcare workers should have the absolute right not to participate in abortions if that would conflict with their own morality. And although I am not a pacifist I respect the right of those who are not to serve in their nations armed forces.

 

[countryboy]

No, you are quite wrong. It is for each one of us to decide on moral issues for him or herself. Although I'm 'pro-choice' I think healthcare workers should have the absolute right not to participate in abortions if that would conflict with their own morality. And although I am not a pacifist I respect the right of those who are not to serve in their nations armed forces.

I see. So, are you saying you don't support legislators with whom your own ideals coalesce?

 

[Sweden]

I see. So, are you saying you don't support legislators with whom your own ideals coalesce?

What 'legislators' would they be? Some Americans?

 

[countryboy]

What 'legislators' would they be? Some Americans?

I was under the impression Sweden was a democracy. How do you pass laws there?