iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Secular Humanist Takes On New Atheism

Richard Dawkins

Huffington Post   First Posted: 05/24/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 12:55 PM ET

March 23, 2010 -- Concerned that his positive vision of humanism is being threatened and perhaps eclipsed with a new brand of acerbic atheism, Paul Kurtz has drafted and released just this week a new "Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Values and Principles." The lengthy document has been endorsed by close to 70 distinguished men and women, incorporating many of their suggestions. Kurtz was previously responsible for drafting three highly influential statements, including Humanist Manifesto 2 in 1973, A Secular Humanist Declaration in 1980, and Humanist Manifesto 2000, released the same year.

Kurtz has been the leading intellectual and organizational figure in the atheist/freethought/humanist movement for over 40 years. Throughout his long career Kurtz has sought to develop a positive alternative to the reigning theological orthodoxies of the day. While Kurtz has spent much of his life critically examining religion, he believes that secular humanists need to emphasize and build positive alternatives to religion. For Kurtz, it is not enough to reject God. He has always maintained that secular humanism and atheism are not identical. Throughout the years this put Kurtz at odds with atheist firebrand Madalyn Murray O'Hair. For many years both Kurtz and O'Hair were the leading foes of leaders of the religious right such as Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, David Noebel and others. Now with the emergence of "the new atheism" Kurtz finds himself in the uncomfortable position of being the elder statesman and founder of a movement tempted by tactics he has warned against before.

"I hope this statement will help reorient the humanist movement in a positive and constructive direction by emphasizing what we are for rather than against," said Kurtz, who founded the Council for Secular Humanism in 1980 and the Center for Inquiry in 1991. He now serves as chair emeritus for both organizations.

Among the signers of this new statement, coming ten years after Humanist Manifesto 2000, are heavyweights Rebecca Goldstein, Colin McGinn, Steven Pinker, Lionel Tiger, Patricia Schroeder, Phillip Kitcher, Owen Flanagan, and Ann Druyan (the widow of Carl Sagan). Also included are movement insiders such as R Joseph Hoffmann, Joe Nickell, James Randi, DJ Grothe, Carleton Coon, Edd Doerr, Terry O'Neill, Dale McGowan, Anthony B. Pinn, along with many others.

Writing in the December 2009/January 2010 issue of Free Inquiry, the magazine he founded, Kurtz declared "militant atheism is often truncated and narrow-minded...it is not concerned with the humanist values that ought to accompany the rejection of theism. The New Atheists, in my view, have made an important contribution to the contemporary cultural scene because they have opened religious claims to public examination...What I object to are the militant atheists who are narrow-minded about religious persons and will have nothing to do with agnostics, skeptics, or those who are indifferent to religion, dismissing them as cowardly."

"While I certainly don't believe that we ought to abandon our criticism of religious fanaticism or allow religious doctrine to dictate public policy, the future of the secular humanist and scientific rationalist movements depends upon appealing to a wider base of support," continued Kurtz. Some 16 percent of the American population is not affiliated with any church, temple, or mosque--approximately 50 million Americans--whereas only 2 to 3 percent are estimated to be out-and-out atheists. Hence, Neo-Humanism wishes to address its message to a broader public who we believe should be sympathetic."

Kurtz says that his new manifesto advances a new form of humanism that is not antireligious per se, nor avowedly atheist. "There are various forms of religious and non-religious beliefs in the world. On the one end of the spectrum are traditional religious beliefs; on the other 'the new atheism.' Not enough attention is paid to humanism as an alternative," declares the statement.

"This statement aims to be more inclusive by appealing to both non-religious and religious humanists and to moderate religious believers who share common goals. It seeks to foster moderation rather than divisiveness and to spark a genuine conversation about meaning and value and the common problems that confront us all as a nation and inhabitants of planet Earth," added Kurtz.

The "Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Values and Principles" is available online at www.paulkurtz.us.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

March 23, 2010 -- Concerned that his positive vision of humanism is being threatened and perhaps eclipsed with a new brand of acerbic atheism, Paul Kurtz has drafted and released just this week a new ...
March 23, 2010 -- Concerned that his positive vision of humanism is being threatened and perhaps eclipsed with a new brand of acerbic atheism, Paul Kurtz has drafted and released just this week a new ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 614
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
11:29 PM on 03/31/2010
Bart Erhman does a better job in explaining how religion came about than Hitchens and Dawkins. Another good book, which probably gives a better insight and is more tolerant of religious people, is "Losing My Religion" by William Lobdell. I find these guys better cuz they were both once committed Christians and can connect better with the fundamentalists than Dawkins or Hitchens who were never religious in their lives.
12:14 AM on 04/01/2010
Dear stewie1324

Pardon me if I question your judgment.

Do you think they are better because nobody ever hears about them?

They might be doing a better job explaining why having too many superstitions is bad for a society. But what good is it if they mainly explain this to their spouses and a few other people.

The fact that we need for you to tell us about these people indicate to me that they might be excellent from the church perspective.

-
http://holocausthagaddah.blogspot.com/
12:38 AM on 04/01/2010
Dawkins and Hitchens get press because they are loud and obnoxious.
11:21 PM on 03/31/2010
I agree with this guy. Dawkins and Hitchens are useful for putting down the claims of religion, but while I am not religious, I wouldnt describe myself as atheist simply because atheists still cannot explain the source of the start of the universe or the near-death experience stories out there.

That being said, I base my positions purely on reason not faith and I am for all intents and purposes secular. I find certain atheists seem to want to attack religion though at every opportunity, even when it is promoting secular values. Attack the bad and the absurd, certainly, but you dont need to turn every conversation into whether a higher power exists or not. Most people who are believers are not really practicing or pick and choose what they believe, and can be perfectly reasonable people. Its not necessarily what people believe but what they do about their belief that really matters.
12:45 AM on 04/01/2010
Dear stewie1324

You said: “while I am not religious, I wouldn’t describe myself as atheist simply because atheists still cannot explain the source of the start of the universe or the near-death experience stories out there”.

Who said atheists should know the answers?

Atheists simply hate falsehood - they reject the lies of religion merchants who claim they know the answers in order to exploit the masses.

Here is one example of why the Post-Christian John Adams rejected the divinity of Christ.

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! -- John Adams
http://books.google.com/books?q=Consider+what+calamities+that+engine+of+grief+&btnG=Search+Books

Our Founding Fathers did not find it a virtue to have superstitions, they were against any kind of tyranny of thought and expressing. What they valued was knowledge - science and literature.

Many people I know like to say these days claim that they are not religious. But it is clear to me that are infected with the virus of faith. This country is the most religious in the western world and society is paying a very high price for organized ignorance.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vVXf2PV8pyQC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=#v=onepage&q=&f=false

-
http://holocausthagaddah.blogspot.com/
04:32 PM on 04/01/2010
You're a scary dude, holyfanatic. Please don't hurt anybody.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr Ruthless
I can smell your BS
02:14 PM on 04/01/2010
Atheists do not have to explain anything, we simply do not have belief in a diety, it does not mean we have the answers to these questions. Its a simple nuetral stance for open minded people.
10:04 PM on 03/31/2010
Prof. Dawkins doesn't speak for all atheists, and I'm sure he's well aware of that. But he certainly does a fantastic job speaking for me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thinkingwomanmillstone
great, green, globs of greasy grimey GOPerspeak.
08:29 PM on 03/31/2010
I thought that being an aetheist meant I didn't have anyone telling me what I believe. I have no designated spokesperson.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr Ruthless
I can smell your BS
02:32 PM on 04/01/2010
It only means a non-belief in any deity, nothing else.
01:54 PM on 03/31/2010
To Mr. Kurtz and hisnarrow-minded notion of Militant Atheism I say,

"The Horror... the horror"!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tazzie
Speaking truth to stupid
09:43 PM on 03/30/2010
With the rise of militant Christianity we need Dawkins, Harris, Myers, Hitchens and the others who base their arguments in science and fact.
03:52 AM on 03/31/2010
Well, they sure as heck don't base them on any study of religion!

Glad to know they're basing their assertions on something. But doesn't the burden of proof demand that we produce evidence for a claim vice "base" it on something, which amounts to nothing more than the fallacy of appealing to authority? Science can serve as a false authority as well as anything else. Dawkins and the rest delight in slinging accusations at religion that are broad and unqualified to the point of being disprovable--as such, they are in league with people who claim to have ghosts in their attic or to speak to the dead. Claims which can't be proved or disproved are invalid, regardless of who they come from or what they're purportedly based on.

Claims are true or false by the virtue of their own merits (or lack thereof). Sponsorship is irrelevant to truth.
04:37 PM on 03/31/2010
IT’S THE DIAMOND AND THE DUNGHILL, STUPID!

Our Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, called supernatural superstitions “dunghill” because he concluded that the question whether the Dios-lusion exists or not is almost irrelevant for people’s lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Those of us who admire John Adams and Jefferson believe a supernatural entity never protected little children from being repeatedly raped by priests. So why does the question "Does a god or god(s) exist?" even need to be answered?

To imagine, the way those “full of faith” people do, that a voyeur Dieu-lusion is watching all those pedophile priests for years repeatedly raping these defenseless children and does not lift a finger is such a kinky, grotesque proposition.

Jefferson’s advice was to find the “diamond” in the dunghill - to follow the Golden Rule. Einstein agreed with Adams and Jefferson.

EINSTEIN WAS CONVINCED THERE IS NO PERSONAL GOD
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Albert Einstein
http://stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html

-

In the East God Won - in the West, Science - The high cost of organized ignorance.
http://whengodwins.blogspot.com/
09:35 PM on 03/30/2010
That two percent is crap. I've seen numerous other polls that put us at 13 - 18%; some as high as 21%. Whatever the actual number is, the reality is most likely many more than are willing to admit to it; especially in today's absurdly theistic environment as far as publicity is concerned.
The fact that our Pres is receiving daily prayers is offensive and obnoxious. I didn't hire him to continue living in superstition; I hired him to live in reality and do things based on that reality.

What makes the myths of Jesus or Mohammed any more valid than Odin, Thor and Loki in Valhalla; or Zeus, Hera, Mars et al continuing to exist. What greater proof is there for the non-existence of any of them than these changing tastes of the gullible.

It was a great concept to answer questions that early primitives had no other way to solve; now it is obsolete, offensive and until completely dismantled via stripping it of tax exemptions [nothing really shows how much you believe like having to pay full freight], it will continue to screw up the world and US society.
You wish to live with your head in the sand or elsewhere - fine. Don't make laws based on it, and don't spout it in public via political speech endings. that is more obnoxious than anything I could say that you religious folk find heretical or offensive.
01:12 AM on 03/31/2010
Dear Ridgeback

Please keep in mind that this country is the most religious in the western world.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vVXf2PV8pyQC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=#v=onepage&q=&f=false

As long as this remain the case, as long as we voters value our organized ignorance and our own sacred superstitions more than honesty from our politicians we will force them to be hypocrites in order to get into office and to be reelected. For all I know, Born-again Bush, our former pastor-in-chief might have been agnostic, like “his brain”, Carl Rove.
http://books.google.com/books?q=Carl+Rove+agnostic&btnG=Search+Books

I suspect that when he said that “only Christian have a place in heaven” he said it for political reasons.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1298/bush1.asp
http://books.google.com/books?id=CcaM4PX9WPkC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The son Ronald and Nancy Reagan, Ron, a political commentator in an interview for the New York Times responded that he could never be elected President because he is an atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Reagan

We must educate our public if we want a less corrupt government. It must come from the ground up or else we will remain stuck.

--

http://holyheretics.com/

http://holocausthagaddah.blogspot.com/

HOLY COWS AND CALVES
http://holycowsandcalves.blogspot.com/

IN THE EAST GOD WON - IN THE WEST, SCIENCE
http://whengodwins.blogspot.com/
11:37 PM on 03/31/2010
The two percent deals with strictly atheists, who believe there is no God and are certain of it. The larger figure would probably encompass agnostics as well as people who just claim no religion. Yes there is no proof for religion, but neither is there any proof for strict atheism. We simply dont know where we came from and where we are going. Im happy to leave it at that and live based on reason and secular principles. I dont know why you want to ram your strict interpretations down everyone's throat. So what if the president is reading daily prayers? Maybe it gives him inspiration, or maybe he uses it as a motivational tool.
06:00 PM on 03/30/2010
I quit reading Kurt'z magaziner "Free Inquiry" years ago because it was resolutely rightist on just about every political and social issue. Kurtz was an uncritical admirer of Sidney Hook, who seemed to be American conservtism's favorite atheist until he died. That, and the issue of FI that repeated Hayek's hog wash about the N-a-z-i's being "truesocialists" was the final straw for me, and I cancelled my subscription. Judging by the mail, I started receiving afterward, FI must have sold my name and address to just about every Libertarian organization in the US, even though I had expressly forbid FI from selling or giving my name to 3rd parties. Kurz is a real piece of work who badly needs to get over himself and trying to suckup to more orthodox rightists.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:34 AM on 03/30/2010
From the article:

"For Kurtz, it is not enough to reject God".

If you reject political involvement, you're apolitical or not political. If you have no morals, you're amoral or absent of morals. If you reject the belief in gods, you're an atheist, period. You're either pregnant or you're not. It isn't more complicated than that. I am atheist. Am I a "secular humanist"? I don't know. I believe in secular government and living a life without the burden of believing in religious fairy tales and superstitions. I believe in the power and majesty of being human. Am I a atheist? Yes.
11:41 AM on 03/30/2010
I think the difference between what the 'New Atheists' are saying and the basic definition of atheism is 'believe exactly as I do or you're a blooming idiot'. I call that fundamentalism.
03:12 PM on 03/30/2010
Dear KYZipster.

“Full of faith” people like to complain about the supposed NEW zeal of those who make it loud and clear that they see organized ignorance and the spreading of the virus of religious superstitions as a bad thing.

That is why I always like to use the delicious “dunghill” metaphor of our great Post-Christian Founding Father, the one on the mountain, Rushmore.

Would you call the enlightened, Post-Christian Jefferson a New Atheist”?
I personally would consider this an honor to follow his kind of “radicalism”.

That is why I created my blogs:

http://holocausthagaddah.blogspot.com/

http://holyheretics.blogspot.com/

IN THE EAST GOD WON - IN THE WEST, SCIENCE
http://whengodwins.blogspot.com/

HOLY COWS AND CALVES
http://holycowsandcalves.blogspot.com/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alonzo
Discount anything I say about myself.
06:27 PM on 03/30/2010
Because I don't believe in God I'm a fundamentalist? Really? What if I don't believe in the sky fairy/ What does that make me? Is everyone that does not believe in fairy-tales a fundamentalist? I don't claim that everyone who believes in God is an ourright nut? Too many intellegent and accomplished people believe in HIM. I just think, when it comes to their need to believe in a higher power, of some sort, they're kind of incredibly needy, because they'be put aside all reason, they use in every other aspect of their lives, so that they can believe, based on faith.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryCarterCenter
Theocracy IS TREASON betrays health
06:26 PM on 03/30/2010
What Kurtz is really saying is anyone calling for the Nazi Pimp Pope to be indicted and jailed before the world court is "negative Atheism.'
I fully support thousands of Atheists, well known as well as the censored who fight the crimes of religion that Kurtz approved "positive" voices are either unaware or refusing to fight.
All Atheism is positive and healthy.
While what part of religion is not sick?
I'm an American Atheist who works well with Americans United for Separating State From Church and dozens of progressive, civil rights, fenimist and ecology groups all fighting to undo the damage of religion, theocracy and patriarchy.
Much progress is most fiercely blocked by notions of creationism, Christian capitalism and McCarthyism. Poor women get no abortions as the Hyde Amendment, a purely Roman Catholic politician blocks them.
Paul Kurtz doesn't specify much in his intellectual spray of words, though I see my old friend Patricia Schroeder from Des Moines, Iowa remains loyal to his RCAR Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights.
I have no problem with the vast majority of rank and file American Humanists..
What I'd like to see is Kurtz work with the Secular Coalition for America and end this silly pretense that the fight for freedom from theocracy and religious violence will come by some labeling of "positive" and "negative" freethought.
Kurtz hasn't cornered markets on peace making with his Neo-anything. He's just selling brand loyalty. 843-926-1750 Dial An Atheist Larry Carter Center
11:08 AM on 03/31/2010
Actually, what I think he is saying is that "New Atheists" are kind of like Republicans...defining themselves based solely on what they are AGAINST rather than what they are for.

I don't think he is saying that people such as yourself need to stop fighting against injustice caused by religion, but that there needs to be a positive framework to be offered as an alternative to religion.
10:52 PM on 03/29/2010
Richard Dawkins sounds just like Time Magazine’s “Man of the Century” the great Albert Einstein:

"THE WORD GOD IS FOR ME NOTHING MORE THAN THE EXPRESSION AND PRODUCT OF HUMAN WEAKNESS, THE BIBLE A COLLECTION OF HONOURABLE, BUT STILL PRIMITIVE LEGENDS WHICH ARE NEVERTHELESS PRETTY CHILDISH..."NO INTERPRETATION NO MATTER HOW SUBTLE CAN (FOR ME) CHANGE THIS."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1951333/Einstein-thought-religions-were-childish.html

-
http://holyheretics.com/
11:47 AM on 03/30/2010
Einstein sounds more like Deepak Chopra than Dawkins in this quote:

"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. " Albert Einstein
02:41 PM on 03/30/2010
Dear KYZipster.

Like the Person of the Century, Dawkins always passionately promoted “Thomas Jefferson’s diamond”, aka the “Golden Rule”. Contrary to delusion merchants, Einstein and Dawkins always strongly rejected the doctrine of a “personal God”, aka “Thomas Jefferson dunghill”.

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22The+more+a+man+is+imbued+with+the+ordered+regularity+of+all+events+the+firmer+becomes+his+conviction%22&btnG=Search+Books

Einstein and Dawkins, like Thomas Edison and Nobel Prize winner for Physiology of Medicine, Francis Harry Compton Crick rejected the idea of a non-material soul. Einstein said: the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html

Einstein resented religion merchants who used his name in vain. Einstein said: “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html

Unscrupulous and greedy morality merchants like Deepak Chopra still lie and pretend Einstein believed in God. Dawkins on the other hand expose such demagogues and charlatans.

-
http://holyheretics.blogspot.com/
http://holocausthagaddah.blogspot.com/
10:45 PM on 03/29/2010
Richard Dawkins sounds just like the “Man of the Century” the great Albert Einstein:

"FOR ME THE JEWISH RELIGION LIKE ALL OTHERS IS AN INCARNATION OF THE MOST CHILDISH SUPERSTITIONS.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1951333/Einstein-thought-religions-were-childish.html

-
http://holyheretics.com/
10:21 PM on 03/29/2010
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, our Post-Christian, pro reason and pro science Founding Fathers would have loved an intelligent, passionate advocate for knowledge as Richard Dawking. He is second to none. His contributions to the enlightenment of mankind are so significant I would love to see him get the Nobel Peace Prize.

Dawkins sounds just like the great John Adams:

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.
-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
http://books.google.com/books?q=+Until+this+awful+blasphemy+is+got+rid+of,+there+never+will+be+any+liberal+science+in+the+world.+--+John+Adams&btnG=Search+Books

Dawkins also sounds just like the great Thomas Jefferson:

“The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust”
Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)
http://books.google.com/books?id=3xVZfXfAPy8C&pg=PA36&dq=%22cruel,+vindictive,+capricious,+and+unjust%22&ei=iFiMS6e4NqSclQT5m6SpDQ&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22cruel%2C%20vindictive%2C%20capricious%2C%20and%20unjust%22&f=false

-
http://holyheretics.blogspot.com/
10:17 AM on 03/29/2010
"What I object to are the militant atheists who are narrow-minded about religious persons and will have nothing to do with agnostics, skeptics, or those who are indifferent to religion"
Firstly, Militant? When, where who? I don't know of a single case of militant atheism.
Secondly, How can Atheists have nothing to do with any agnostics, skeptics etc let along religious folk when they are only, as you say, 2-3% of the population. Unless there is an Atheist state, or a series of communes how would the Atheist community have achieved such isolation?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andre Lieven
Cdn.
01:29 AM on 03/29/2010
This whole kerfuffle over 'new atheism' boils down to 'why can't you nasty ol' atheists just stay In The Closet?"

The appropriate answer to that is 'FU.'. The idea that assertive atheism is a problem for anyone other than factless believers is a fallacious myth, designed as I said, to get atheists to shut up.

What Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al, have done is bring atheism out of the intellectual closet. Those older groups that used to include atheists, as long as the nasty ol' atheists didn't bring up religion, are ticked off that their former lock on progressive atheists is gone. Well, tough.

All assertive atheism says is that there is no evidence for any deity, in public. Freedom of speech, kiddies. It even applies to godless atheists...
01:34 AM on 03/29/2010
OK FU
03:43 PM on 03/29/2010
I don't see where you'll get anywhere if you can't respect the very reasonable beliefs of other people, when you group all others together, that's 98% of the population. Dismissing agnostics and liberal and tolerant religious people of every stripe as being just as deluded as a far rightwing Christian or Islamic fundamentalist, mocking their beliefs, suggesting that your view is superior.

It certainly sells books and puts a handful of writers in the spotlight and I enjoy the debate personally but to really move forward, the Secular Humanist approach is much more logical. I define moving forward as exposing Christian extremism (the biggest problem in the US) as radical and immoral and witnessing the day that politicians who accept their endorsement are voted out of office for doing so. This can only happen when more moderate religious people take control of the debate. Atheists and humanists have a place in that debate but fundamentalist atheists just make a lot of noise and piss a lot of people off, just like Christian fundamentalists.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr Ruthless
I can smell your BS
03:13 PM on 04/01/2010
Do you respect ignorance? I don't, so why should I respect ridiculous beliefs based on ignorance?
01:08 AM on 03/29/2010
Agnosticism = God is neither proven or unproven. Okay
Atheism is no more provable than any other religious belief.
Atheism that is promoted as a system of belief is just another religion.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her followers are a perfect example of cult religion.
I don't care what your belief system is, as long as you don't try to beat me over the head with it!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr Ruthless
I can smell your BS
03:18 PM on 04/01/2010
Uh oh, another misinformed thiest. Atheism is a non-belief in any diety, just like a non-belief in santa. Religion deals with deities, atheism does not fit the criteria of a religion.