It's somewhat difficult to comment on this article without having seen the Jonathan Miller show in question, but it appears to caricature atheists much as the elites caricature Christians. I'm philosophically a skeptic or an agnostic but operationally an atheist since most religious beliefs appear so unsupported or in some cases contradicted by external reality that I don't feel I need to give them any weight. I'm a lawyer, not a scientist, but I have scientific training and take an empirical view of such matters. As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," and I just don't see any. No doubt this is the reason why so many working scientists are atheists, in formal outlook or in practice.

You may find examples of atheist "spokesmen," self-appointed, who view it as their life's mission to convince believers of their error. Whether one is Saul or Paul, this tendency reflects their personality or their personal history, not their philosophical outlook. I'm not witnessing on the street corner, nor are any other skeptics I know. I don't begrudge religious people their beliefs or the comfort they may derive from them as long as they don't try to shove them down my throat. It doesn't bother me if there's a creche in the town square. The only time I feel the need to publicly oppose religion is when I feel it is doing great damage in the public sphere, such as corrupting science instruction.

The article's author is a moron in asserting that "in the rigidity of their unbelief ... atheists mimic dogmatic believers." I have a favorite quote from Richard Feynman hanging on the wall over my desk:

"You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we are here. ...

"I don't have to know an answer. I'm not frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me."

"... which from Socrates onwards has been animated by the conviction (or illusion) that knowledge and the good life go together."

For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Ecc. 1:18

Vik:

Reality is unsupported, but you have faith in it, no?

God's perspective is necessarily quite different from humans'.

To believe that a beneficent God could or would not create a system in which great pain and/or cruelty is present is a throwback to the ancient "gods as supermen" concept, in which humans can directly relate to the motives and desires of their gods.
The Catholic practice of praying to saints reflects that same concept.

Humans react with great horror to the abominations of the Holocaust or Pol Pot's insane social engineering, but God meant for all humans to die, and the timing and method of their deaths isn't always an important aspect.

For so many atheists, it's not so much that they don't believe in God as it is that they're very, very angry with Him and can't understand why the rest of us aren't just as angry.

(I just realized that the preceeding sentence has something of a strong parallel to the moonbat Left's attitude toward George W. Bush. One of those things that must be significant, though I can't quite figure out why.)

Full disclosure: Color me an areligious agnostic (all religions are objectively false; the existence of God is an unanswerable question). A dunnoist for short.

I find the author's point somewhat overegged. There are a thousand Pat Robertsons for each Richard Dawkins. When I lived in Pensacola, FL, there was a traveling band of religionists screaming bible verses at the top of their lungs from street corners while cars waited for the signal. I can't count the number of times religionists have presumed to press their beliefs upon me (albeit, in all but one case, very politely, taking a graceful no gracefully.)

A fair number of my acquaintance are dunnoists at least, and I only found out after long acquaintance. They universally refrain from discussing religion. As do I, with the sole exception of this forum.

Mike M: That's it, you know: the reason they hate W so much is that he confesses Christ before men.

Some of the commentators are as prejudiced and simplistic as the author of the article. There may be some loose statistical relationship between religious belief and political views, but that's all it is: a loose statistical relationship. I'm a skeptic without any religious tendencies. I don't hate Bush. I've voted for him 3 times, have given money to him, and generally hold him in high regard. You need to stop stereotyping.

Mike:

Not even with Him, the Father, but angry at their own fathers:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1324/

Atheism is mostly an emotional disorder.

vid:

Statistical relationships are revealing, though you undoubtedly feel that you are unique...

There's a bumper sticker available on the web for militant Agnostics:

"I DON'T KNOW AND YOU DON'T EITHER!"

The you includes Atheists.

I watched Miller's programme. It was an extremely thoughtful show providing a sort of 'history of disbelief', not a polemic against God. It did not offer any 'caricatures' of atheists or theists.

Accompanying the show was a series of half-hour one-to-one discussions with half a dozen philosophers and thinkers (mostly atheists, but a Christian theologian was given air time too).

The author of the piece here misses the point of the programme by a country mile. As does Mike Morley above when he writes:

"For so many atheists, it's not so much that they don't believe in God as it is that they're very, very angry with Him and can't understand why the rest of us aren't just as angry."

What came across loud and clear in the programme is that most (not all, but most) 'atheists' share Miller's personal position (and mine):

Miller made the point that he didn't like to call himself an 'atheist', basically because it affords too much dignity to the thing it opposes.

Far from being 'angry' at God, for most non-believers most of the time, the thought of a God or His absence does not impinge on our consciousness one iota.

Someone who disbelieves in ghosts does not need to assert himself an 'aghostist.'

Applying the term 'atheist' to someone allows theists to put him in a category. It assumes that the correct default position is Belief, so that anyone not in this position is abnormal in some way.

They can thus have their 'condition' explained, either through OJ's freudian analysis, or Mr Morley's 'anger' theory.

I was taken to Catholic Church as a child, but although I went through all the motions and the ceremonies, none of it ever made any serious impression on me in terms of belief, and apart from an hour on Sunday, I didn't think about God at all. When I was old enough to make my own decisions I just stopped going. It was an entirely painless experience.

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars...

I kinda felt the same way and was troubled by the same thought...

Until I caught some caterpillars devouring MY WIFE'S tomato plants.

Then this particular design decision made perfect sense, and I haven't been bothered since...

"Applying the term 'atheist' to someone allows theists to put him in a category. It assumes that the correct default position is Belief, so that anyone not in this position is abnormal in some way."

Brit, you have the benefit of living in a society where atheism is normal. When you live in a society where theism is the norm, then you don't have a choice about how to define yourself.

The 'mad at god' folks aren't atheists, they're theists. You cannot be mad at that which doesn't exist.

Robert:

They are in a category.

Brit:

Extremely well said, and mirrors my experience exactly. As well as those of my acquaintance who have become dunnoists.

Not one of whom gets withing a country mile of OJ's oft cited, but nonetheless specious because of it, "template."

OJ calls atheism a religion.

Well, atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Jeff:

Well, except that you fit the template precisely.

Robert:

"When you live in a society where theism is the norm, then you don't have a choice about how to define yourself."

And of course what the theists in your particular society will try to do is force a dichotomy on you: either your disbelief is true, or their brand of religion is true, eg. a particular version of Christianity.

Thus, any attacks they make on your reasons for disbelief (eg. evolution), they mistakenly see as points for their particular brand of theism.

The absurdity of such a dichotomy becomes clear to anyone who uses his brain, or even just ventures out of his timezone to be confronted by the bewildering variety of theisms and creation myths on offer in the world.

A non-believer can, of course, reject this dichotomy. He does not need to attack, for example, Christianity, to gain credence for his non-belief.

Which is a reason why Dawkins is such an oddity, and so useful for theists. He engages theism in battle, when in fact by far the most devastating position, and the correct one, is indifference.

Jeff:

"atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

I like that one :)

OJ's categorisation of non-believers as freudian basket-cases is impudent in the extreme. Personally I find it amusing rather than insulting, though others might differ.

Brit:

yes, go to a non-theistic nation and tell us about how successful their beliefs are.

Jeff-

The atheist bases his view on faith. Agnosticism is the party of the dunnoist.

"Well, except that you fit the template precisely."

No, I don't. But not one of my dunnoist friends comes even close. Which makes your template singularly worthless as a template.

Tom:

That is a shrewd point, although I'd interject that atheism is no more a religion (as opposed to a religious belief) than is deism. Further, the difference between deism and atheism is probably more one of spelling than anything else.

Agnosticism requires a willingness to say: "Heck, I don't know. (and no one else does, either)"

Atheism and Agnosticism are answers to two different questions. Agnosticism is one way to answer the question "Do you know that God exists", the other answer is Gnosticism. Athiesm is one way to answer the question "Do you believe that God exists", the other answer is theism.

So there are 4 possible combinations:
1. An agnostic theist.
2. An agnostic atheist.
3. A gnostic theist.
4. A gnostic atheist.

Most people think of 4's when they define atheists, but I think that most atheists are 2's, as I am.

All are mere reactions.

Robert:

Agreed. And I think most theists are really 1's.

I know a lot of Christians, but not many who really definitely believe in God.

They believe in the idea of believing in God, all right. They think belief is a good thing, and they aspire to it.

But very few really believe in God. Those that do (3's) are easily identified.

3's behave very differently to 1's. For a start, they're generally trying to convert you when you meet them.

Robert:

Interesting. I had never thought of it using those combinations. Instead, I had always considered agnostic general term applying to whether a particular question is answerable.

The question in this being: Does a God exist. A theist says the question is answerable, and the answer is yes; an atheist agrees the question is answerable, but the answer is no. An agnostic says it is impossible to answer the question, since the knowledge required to answer the question is unavailable to us.

Interestingly, Gnosticism does not seem to be the antonym Agnosticism.

Therefore, I guess I disagree about the categories. I figure it goes like this:

1. Theists: those who believe the question is answerable in the affirmative, and a particular conception of that answer, a religion, is definitively true.

2. Deists: those who believe the question is answerable in the affirmative, but who don't believe our knowledge of God is sufficient to substantiate any particular religion.

3. Agnostics: the question is unanswerable, as, obviously, the substantiation of any particular religion.

4. Athiests: believe the question is answerable in the negative; therefore, all religions are false.

Brit:

Interesting you spend so much time with the 3s here.

Jeff note that 4 is identical to 1 and 3 to 2.

OJ:

Oh I don't think there are too many 3s here.

Pretty much everyone who says they believe in God, and goes to Church every Sunday, really just believes in a belief in God.

Very few people are 3s.

Being a 1 does affect your behaviour. You'll stick some money in the collection box and sing the hymns. 1s are nearly always decent, tolerant people.

But if you're a 3, your behaviour is much more dramatically affected by your belief in God.

3s stand on the street corner yelling that Judgement Day is nigh, or volunteer as suicide-bombers.

Practically speaking, there is little to tell between Atheists, Agnostics, and Deists. At the extreme, some Atheists will try as dogmatically as some Theists to convert others to their point of view.

It is the Theists, though, to whom we must look for "... [standing] on the street corner yelling that Judgement Day is nigh, or volunteer as suicide-bombers."

He posted...