Some things Thom needs to learn about atheism.

I am really disappointed and angry with your anti-atheism segment on today's show.  If you know anything about atheism, it was not apparent.  I will not address any specifics, other than to say that I refuse to have anything to do with this type of yellow journalism.  I have watched you on RT ever since your show started, but you have just lost one loyal fan.  

Absolutely...

Thom is just another stooge {like Bill O' the Clown Reilly} who carries the water for the Roman Catholic Church.  In 1998 Thom went to go see my evil twin brother, Vatican Pope, and he got to kiss the ring, umong other things catholic priests like to kiss, and then he got officially tagged as the altar boy. 

So now Thom Thom uses his little media show to push his agenda, and one of his little crusades since at least 2008 has been repeating the talking point "Atheism is a Religion"...kind of like monkey see monkey doo, but oops I forgot Catholics don't believe we descended from the apes.

Thom doesn't care whether he's right or wrong, when you become a fervent religious sycophant all that matters is that you think you're playing for the right "team".  Thom Thom thinks he wins points in heaven, like Super Mario Brothers, everytime he pushes his agenda.  The ironic, or oxy-moronic thing about all this "atheism is religion" is that Thom Thom is merely projecting his own insecurities on the rest of the world.  His daddy was an atheist, and his mommy brainwashed him as a Xian.  Obviously Thom Thom was a momma's boy, and even though he wishes his mommy is right, he knows that his daddy was the practical one, full or reason, logic, and rational thinking.

Let's all thank Thom Thom for being a complete and utter A-hole, and pushing his narrow-minded agenda...b/c the more they act like beligirent butt heads in public, the more they are exposing the idiocy of their made up fantastical religious beliefs.

Moreover, some peeps like Thom Thom just can't be reached with logic, reason, and rationalisation.

Much like the stubborn Ostrich, Thom Thom would merely stick his narrow-minded head in the sand rather than become self-aware.  As noted many times by other posts, Religion is so persuasive, seductive, and pervasive that peeps who have a higher than usual intelligence level, can still be sucked down into a deep dark hole of superstition and super ideological thinking. 

Thom Thom only understands the emotional side of the argument, and thus he is stuck firmly upon faith, that mystical delusion that allows one self to dissalow and ignore all other more reasonable, logical, rational arguments even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their narrow-minded belief system.  Projecting is Thom Thom's way of fighting off his own doubting intuition that keeps gently tapping Thom Thom on the shoulder, or at times perhaps shaking him, with the persistant notion that his religion is all bullshit, and utterly false.

One thing I would ask Thom Thom, is that if he is using the word "Religion" has a weapon to scare atheists, or to throw us into a tizzy fit, what does that make Catholicism, which operates completely on the subject of abnormal fear, and the dogmatic teachings driven to the outermost limits....the "Magesterium of the Catholic Church" is a self-contained religion within a religion.   Most Catholics are even discouraged from reading the Xian Bible. 

I would love an opportunity to expose the ignorance, hypocrisy, and self-deception of Thom Thom's little world.

Wow!

How much time can an atheist invest in explaining all the subtle nuances of something they DON'T believe in?

I've never got a hate-atheists vibe from Thom, but he also doesn't toss the entirety of religion into the dustbin as many atheists insist is the only way.

However, he does (in his overly polite way) try to categorize atheism as a religion (which it is not).

Is there really any difference between a religious zealot, a militant homosexual or a self righteous atheist?  No there isn't.  They are all offensive, obnoxious and boring whenever they get up on their soapbox.

I was very disappoint­ed to recently see Thom Hartman whom I agree with very often say that atheist organizati­ons were very similar the religious ones (for example, an organizati­on that distinguis­hes itself from big corporatio­ns and fights their evil ways isn't necessaril­y a big corporatio­n too). Not only is he wrong (too much to get into for this short comment), but he does a disservice to their cause of women’s rights, prejudice, equal protection­, separation of church and state, logical thinking, free thought and scientific progress. Can you imagine an atheist winning a presidenti­al election anytime soon (talk about bias). Thom, you have a promotiona­l ad talking about in-spite of everything that you have read or learned something comes along that changes all of that. Well Thom, I noticed in spite of your father being one how little you knew about the subject. An epiphany is in order.

Thom bases his opinion that atheism is a religion on the idea that atheists evangelize, that is, they have a "set of beliefs" that they try to spread to a larger audience. Apparently, he has never been asked if the Thom Hartmann enterprise is a religion too, based on that definition, with himself (Himself?) as the savior whom we all should worship.

It drives me crazy every time Thom insists atheism is a religion. Just stop it, Thom. Stop it!

There's a prayer section here? Haven't seen it. If so, that's disgusting.

People can make atheism a religion (see the atheist pope above). There are secular religions, and ideology is just another beast in the same family. But just because something can be degenerated in a person to a religion does not make it a religion. Some people are religious about economics (see libertarian trolls) but that doesn't mean economics is a religion. I don't see in many atheists their atheism taking over the part of their lives that would be religion, rather it is just a rejection of religion in general, and more specifically it is a rejection of religion trying to move in in areas where is does not belong, like history and science. The drive behind the religionists is their insistence that secular ideas are trying to replace religion and hence, in their thinking, are becoming religion itself. You see this in the tea party where they claim 'liberals' are trying to replace God with government, evidently because they are supplying social security through an earthly mechanism rather than praying for supernatural intervention. Doctors are similarly trying to replace God. Evolution is to considered a religion that is challenging the church, etc.

As for me, the reason I am atheist is because there is no reason to believe in the supernatural. I probably share views with many religious people, but I am satisfied enough not knowing the reason something is the way it is to not have to give credit to supernatural forces. The history of humanity is giving credit to supernatural forces and then one by one figuring it out - oh, that's what it is, oh, that's what it is, oh, that's what it is, oh, that's what it is. How many "oh, that's what it is"s does one need before they stop assigning supernatural agency as an explanation for things in the first place?

I do believe, planetxan, a tongue-in-cheek religion is not actually a religion.

No - Thom is not Catholic and he didn't kiss the ring - he shook his hand. No need for personal attacks - you can be better than that. Keep it to the issues.

Call into the show  (866) 987-THOM - Thom is fine about being challenged on the air.

He didn't say that about all Atheists and he has an appreiciation & respect for Atheistism. You're putting words in his mouth that were not said. His concern is - why are Athiests any different from the fundamentalists if they are promoting & pushing their belief system?  There are many religions that don't promote that "they know the right way."

Don't worry. I was a tongue-in-cheek on that one myself. But he was a little unnecessarily vicious.

All of the above comments confuse me. As Karen Armstrong rightly said in her 'A History of God', the word 'god' by itself is meaningless. It is given meaning only by those religions or individuals who use it. To call oneself an atheist or a believer already assumes that they understand the word god to refers to something. Personally I don't know what it refers to. I would hope that whenever an atheist or believer say they believe or don't believe in god, they would tell me what, in the name of god, they are talking about.

Here is what we are talking about: There are no supernatural forces. Nature has laws and adheres to them. These laws can be used to explain and predict events. There are no miracles. There are no fairies. There are no angels. There is no heaven. There is no hell. These are concepts in the minds of humans (and maybe other creatures, too, who knows?) Gravity works in a certain way and it always works that way everywhere. It does not stop working one day so a supernatural creature can fly. Atoms form and then interact with each other in a certain way and only in that way. Under certain conditions, Hydrogen bonds with Oxygen to form water. It does not do it sometimes and not others. Under the same conditions, the same thing always happens. Water does not become wine because someone thinks it so. Men do not die and come back to life. Women do not turn into pillars of salt. Lions don't have the heads of humans. An evil spirit does not bury large dinosaur bones to trick us. Virgins do not give birth. Bones of saints have no affect on cancer. Elephants don't carry the Earth on their backs. The gravity or position of Saturn when you're born does not affect your personality. Mumbling ancient poems does not cause tornados to skip over your house. Putting your penis in someone's anus does not change the course of hurricanes. It is not 'religion' to deny penises affect the weather. It is religion to believe they do. If there is not a rational explanation for something, it is not because it doesn't exist, it is because we have not yet discovered it. In short, there is no such thing as magic. There is no god. It is only an idea.

Louise, please, I'm eager for an answer to this:

I mean, Thom's definition is weak, with all due respect. Love him to pieces, but that's one place where he loses me.

Just to add to my previous post, given the last one, these natural laws are not 'beliefs'. They do not require my belief. I may believe they are one way and then discover they are another. Then I will change my view. But nature remains constant. 'Belief' is not part of it. Gravity is not a belief. Evolution is not a belief. Chemistry is not a belief. Convincing people that things that are demonstrably false are false and things that are demonstrably true are true is not evangelizing. It is teaching. Science is not a belief, it is an action, a method.

This is one reason Thom is wrong about atheists who go public. But there's another reason: Atheists are an oppressed minority. When atheists go public, it is tantamount to coming out of the closet; it is how they stand up for themselves, to exercise liberty. For atheists to remain silent about who they are is for them to acquiesce to oppression, to accept the stigma society applies to their position. When Thom dismisses openly atheistic people as evangelists, he slaps yet another stigma —humiliation— to their existence and tries to send them back to the closet.

What atheists miss is that religion is not necessarily about a literal belief in deities. Instead, it can be understood as being akin to art, poetry, and music; that is, it is a realm that provides a deeper character and richness to life, a realm that transcends logic, rather than violates it.

It does neither atheists nor religionists any good to misunderstand the other. However, there's never anything wrong with opposing delusional ideas that lead to ideological intolerance.

I put religion in the same category as art. Not art, but grouped with art, as in art is one thing and religion is a related thing. I find religious text very interesting and enlightening, but I don't find it history or science. I would say most people can look at Greek and Roman religion this way, and even eastern religions, but have a hard time approaching a religion that was beaten into their heads since literally before they could think in the same way. And sadly, I think they loose the meaning. I never really felt Thom had this problem. He keeps a pretty open mind to any religion. Atheism is not really trying to fulfill this kind of role. Although Carl Sagan and others have ventured down that road, and with good reason - reality, once you learn about it, is mind blowing.

Excuse me, Louise Hartmann...but dont' piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

Thom Thom has a respect and an appreciation for Atheism & Atheists?  Really?  He certainly has a strange way to show it.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Thom Thom invite an Atheist on the show with the premise they would be discussing Atheist Banners on the 4th of July???  But that's not what happened...no instead Thom Thom decided to push his own religious thuggery agenda, and damned to staying on point.  Thom Thom kept going back to "atheism is religion" over and over and over again.  Thom Thom showed a complete lack of respect for the atheist on the show, and for atheism in general. 

Atheists are trying to be normal people, and this is what everyone else does in the world...they advertise about their group...or am I missing something about the world of Public Relations, and Marketing???

The fact that atheists had the "audacity of hope" that they might actually be reaching out to some other disenfranchised atheists, who are desperately looking for like minded people to laugh with, care for, and love...I MEAN THE NERVE..HOW DARE THEY...

While we are at it, How dare the Homosexuls do the same thing for the passed 30 years!!!  The battle cry of "I'm Gay, I'm here, I'm pround, Now shut the f#!k up and get used to it", that didn't work at all did it? 

Religious people are very much like the big fat bully kid in the sand box, and they think the whole sand box revolves around them, and that toys are divinely gifted to them, and no one else.  Not only to they refuse to share their toys, but they also don't think that other little boys and girls have the right to ask to play in the sand box...and if they do then they must be scolded and put back in their place.

Thom Thom is nothing more than a religous bully who thinks atheists should be put back in their place {wonder where that might be?}

Remember, Nobody saw the CRUSADES or The Inquisition coming...NO-BODY!

Well to quote the age-old axiom...

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?"

-Hillel the Elder

Your comments, just like Thom Thom's attitude and intimidation, smacks of prejudice and bigotry...

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, religion or spirituality, nationality, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

=================================

It's called standing up for yourself...and we won't be intimidated by you, or Thom Thom, or any other Thug that comes along and tries to push us back into submission.

I think it's possible Thom knowingly uses the "religion" stigma against atheists in response to prominent atheists' attacks against religion in the last few years. Perhaps he knows full well it's a ridiculous claim ("atheism is a religion"); he just wants to push back against their dogmatic way (absolute certainty) of arguing their case.

You've got to admit, Your Highness, (and you know I'm a friend), atheists tend to assume that religion is about the literal belief in deities and supernaturalism, and nothing else. They (the prominent atheists, such as C. Hitchens, may he be cured of his cancer) fail entirely to understand about transcendence, about religion being akin to art and poetry and having a similar function in our lives in giving depth and meaning via metaphor. Thus, perhaps they ask for some of what they get in the way of disrespect? Just a thought.

It just kills so many outspoken atheists that Thom doesn't pass YOUR version of the "liberal litmus test" which requires mandatory refutation of all things religious.

I certainly don't agree with everything Thom says, but that's the beauty of honest and open dialogue (which is his forte).  I don't seek Thom's approval and why should you?

I find Thom willingness to break ranks from the boilerplate liberal anti-religious stance to be refreshing.

When did I say that Liberalism is equated with Atheism?

But now that you bring it up...let's look at the definitions shall we:

——————————————————————————

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom”)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, free trade, and the freedom of religion

————————————————————————————————–

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning “without god”, which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves as “atheist” appeared in the 18th century.[7]

Atheists tend to be skeptical of supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Atheists have offered various rationales for not believing in any deity. These include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[8][9] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[10]

In Western culture, some atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious,[11] although other atheists are spiritual.[12][13] Moreover, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements,[14] such as Wicca.[15] Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[16] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but difficult to follow spiritually.[17]

Since conceptions of atheism vary, determining how many atheists exist in the world today is no easy task.[18] According to one estimate, about 2.3% of the world’s population are atheists, while a further 11.9% are nonreligious.[19] According to another, rates of self-reported atheism are among the highest in Western nations, although also to quite varying degrees—United States (4%), Italy (7%), Spain (11%), Great Britain (17%), Germany (20%), and France (32%).[20]

We're not seeking anyone's approval...So please allow me to state for the record what we are seeking:

Atheist's Bill of Rights {or Third Bill of Rights}:

1. A Job {Discrimination against atheists is rampant in this Country: case in Point - {Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFCI) } But the new ground rules avoid what is perhaps the most contentious issue at hand: whether religious organizations receiving federal grants can continue discriminatory hiring and firing, employing only co-religionists. According to the Pew Forum, 73 percent of Americans oppose such discrimination by religious groups receiving federal aid. For many critics, the practice flies in the face of church-state separation and equal-opportunity employment.

2. A Good Education -{so many are subjected to the whims, crusades, and personal agendas of religious fanatics...case in point: A program is underway to serve the public through educational efforts concerning a First Amendment right and religious freedom issue. This is to bring a state certified Bible course (elective) into the public high schools nationwide. In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise

3. Government protection from the Majority {Many wil say that this is a Christian Nation: A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation JOHN McCAIN was not on the campus of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University last year for very long — the senator, who once referred to Mr. Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance,” was there to receive an honorary degree — but he seems to have picked up some theology along with his academic hood. In an interview with Beliefnet.com last weekend, Mr. McCain repeated what is an article of faith among many American evangelicals: “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.”

4. Civil Protection under the law against discrimination & bigotry, and other acts that would prevent us from the free pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness { I think we can use Thom Thom as exhibit A when it comes to intimidation, harrassment, and bullying tactics the religious will use...and it goes much further and we see evidence of much much worse than that:

United States

Some atheists assert that they are discriminated against in the United States and compare their situation to the discrimination faced by ethnic minorities, LGBT communities, and women.[26][27][28][29] "Americans still feel it's acceptable to discriminate against atheists in ways considered beyond the pale for other groups," asserted Fred Edwords of the American Humanist Association.[30] Other atheists reject these comparisons, arguing that while atheists may face disapproval they have not faced significant oppression or discrimination.[31][32]

In the United States, seven state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century.[33][34][35] The U.S. Constitution allows for an affirmation instead of an oath in order to accommodate atheists and others in court or seeking to hold public office.[33][36] In 1961, the United States Supreme Court explicitly overturned the Maryland provision in the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, holding that laws requiring "a belief in the existence of God" in order to hold public office violated freedom of religion provided for by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[33][37][38] This decision is generally understood to also apply to witness oaths.[39]

Several American atheists have used court challenges to assert discrimination against atheists. Michael Newdow challenged inclusion of the phrase "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance on behalf of his daughter, claiming that the phrase was discriminatory against non-theists.[40] He won the case at an initial stage, but the Supreme Court dismissed his claim, ruling that Newdow did not have standing to bring his case, thus disposing of the case without ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge.[41][42]

As the Boy Scouts of America does not allow atheists as members, atheist families and the ACLU from the 1990s onwards have launched a series of court cases arguing discrimination against atheists. In response to ACLU lawsuits, the Pentagon in 2004 ended sponsorship of Scouting units,[43][44] and in 2005 the BSA agreed to transfer all Scouting units out of government entities such as public schools.[45][46]

Atheists note that few politicians have been willing to identify as non-theists, since until recently such revelations would have been "political suicide",[47][48] and welcomed Democratic California Representative Pete Stark's 2007 decision to come out as the first openly nontheistic member of Congress.[30] In 2009, City Councilman Cecil Bothwell of Asheville, North Carolina was called "unworthy of his seat" because of his open atheism.[49] Indeed, several polls have shown that about 50 percent of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president.[50][51] A 2006 study found that 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that did "not at all agree with my vision of American society", and that 48% would not want their child to marry an atheist. In both studies, percentages of disapproval of atheists were above those for Muslims, African-Americans and homosexuals.[52]

Prominent atheists and atheist groups have asserted that discrimination against atheists is illustrated by a statement allegedly said by George H. W. Bush during a public press conference during his campaign for the presidency in 1987.[26][53][54][55] When asked by atheistic journalist Robert Sherman about the equal citizenship and patriotism of American atheists, Sherman reports that Bush answered, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."[26][55] The accuracy of the quote has been questioned, however, as Sherman did not tape the exchange and no other journalist reported on it.[26] Atheists and atheist organizations have alleged discrimination against atheists in the military,[56][57][58][59][60][61] and recently, with the development of the Army's Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, atheists have alleged institutionalized discrimination.[62][63]

You are right that you did not specifically equate liberalism with atheism (I did).  And you know full well that in our 2 party system, the anti-religion folks tend to be overwhelmingly on the left.

This is where you give me your lengthy list of conservatives that are anti-religion ......

We are all in this together.  Why must you be the sole arbiter of who gets tossed out of the big tent?  Perhaps you do not believe in the big tent philosophy.  Thom must leave the tent per your direction unless he repents of his sin of not despising any and all religion.

I believe your "church" has as much right to exist and flourish as any other as long as you don't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.  Yet you don't think Thom should be able to say anything positive about religion.  Who's the bigot?

By etymological definition, agnostic and atheist ARE NOT compatible, and claiming to be an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST means "I really am not sure of myself."
 

atheist 1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

 
agnostic 1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895) from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).

Notice agnostic was not employed in its present sense until 1870, after science had advanced 300 years from the word atheism. I have never met a biologist who professed to be an atheist, though many are agnostic. Scientists discover intelligent patterns which already exist- which hold life together, which govern the universe. We do not figure things out for ourselves, but stumble upon the answers. Something went ahead of us and we have to pursue patterns of intelligence to move forward.

What is being demanded of scientists is Proof of God which at this time they know cannot be produced eventhough as scientists they know there is something bigger and smarter than we. Thus, in 1870 agnostic became an educated, socially acceptable way of saying, "I"m not saying I don't believe, but that it can't be proven." For, many doctors would not have had careers were they not a member of a Christian church or a Jewish temple.

1870 Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch gave the scientific community the germ theory of disease.

It was indeed the MICROSCOPE which converted both fundamentalist Christians and atheist professors to agnosticism.

I am just wondering if this Robert Koch is related to Fred C. Koch.....

There never has been a war started or fought in the name of atheism. And there never will be. In Darwin's name we pray - amen.

No worldview is entirely irreproachable, including that of science worship. War is not the only evil humans do. Persecution, intolerance, torture—these evils are not acts limited to religiosity.

Must I count the ways atheism and science are not any more irreproachable than religion?

The phrase "militant homosexual" caught my attention, as well. I think that requires some explanation.

Darwin was actually a religious man.  He did not see evolution and religion as mutually exclusive.

When Francis Collins (who wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief ) was appointed by Obama for Director of NIH, there were many unhappy in Leftyville.  Science and religion can coexist.

You can be a "militant" atheist, environmentalist OR homosexual.

As if no one ever heard the phrase "militant homosexual" before.

The point was about self-righteous people up on their soap boxes not being very interesting.

Perhaps you can point to an example, someone who is a militant homosexual, and explain what makes he or she a militant homosexual.

If being PC keeps "militant homosexual" from our acceptable lexicon, why can't Thom say that atheism a religion?

Sorry if I've offended anyone.

I'm not sure what Thom mislabeling atheism a religion has to do with the phrase "militant homosexual."

Anyway, all I'm asking you to do, Labor, is point to 1 example of a "militant homosexual" and explain what makes that person a "militant homosexual." Just 1 example.

Perhaps it applies more to homosexual rights than sexuality?

How about "militant Christian" ..... Onward Christian Soldiers!

Thom's characterization of atheism is not to the liking of many in the atheist community as expressed at length in this thread.  My words appeared to offend some, just as Thom's have.  That's how this circuitous connection is made.

An atheist whining about Thom Hartmann's characterization of atheism is sillier than Christians who whine about PC-ness not allowing Christmas decorations on public property.  Get over it.  It's Thom's show.  If he wants to "mischaracterize" anything, let it be so.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- want to evangalize?- Go Ahead! So much the better! It is precisely the lack of discussion which characterizes today's image-conscious, materialistic society. We do not engage in discourse except in controlled settings where we will not be challenged.

The framers of the Constitution may have had the solution for their time, but the situation is more complicated than to admit of their liberalism as sufficient to answer to the relevance of these questions to the ongoing dynamic of society. By what standards do we pass laws, for example against murder? That is, on what basis? Reason has its answers; in mass psychology, for examle- to admit that such laws are pragmatic does not undermine the principle discovered thereby, that the human species strives for peace, and is most happy in times of peace. But we have managed to turn peace into a state of constant psychological tension, and to define happiness a sort of sadism derived from power and corruption. The spirit of dignity is gone from our pride.

So should every person be of the same moral opinion, based on reason, based on "science"? Better to render morality irrelevant by our way of life, and to let the law fall away forgotten, perhaps even that supreme law of the land, our venerable Constitution which has for so long withstood the tests of human ingenuity.

I have an opinion about Islam; am I a muslim? Of course not. The logic the assertion that an atheist is religious stems from the assumption that the quality of truth itself determines the character of all judgements related to it.

One hears over and over again this tiresome accusation that atheism and science are conspiring to turn humanity into a hive of spiritless, soulless robots. Only the self-appointed defenders of the "ineffable" and that some something which certainly cannot be explained or even mentioned by a the zombie horde held in the sway of rational thinking! But if this spirity world can only be detected on the edge of reason, shimmering on the border of our perception, would it not be the precisely the person most adept at refining the technology and art of cognition who brings this world into focus? After how many tens of thousands of years, philosophy offers us the means of comprehending the nature of rational thought itself in abstract form as well as the method of relating its applications in both practical and systematic fashion, and we are to worry that it is science which threatens to "oversimplify" reality?

If I can glean the gist of your, Nimblecivet’s, complaint, it appears you perceive a mindless and growing threat against “atheism’s” science and reason, your apparent Trinity of all good things under heaven and earth?

Perhaps I have missed your points entirely, though, for I don’t always grok poetry. Regardless, I will go ahead and remind you, just for the heck of it, that your Trinity is not without its flaws, especially not in this society, this capitalist system. Sure, science and reason have brought us quite a long way, and I would be the first to bow down, awestruck, at the sheer brilliance of its many accomplishments on behalf of humankind. However, can we please stay with truth?                  

How many scientific discoveries touted at the start as having great potential for the benefit of humanity turned out, well, badly. How many times, where enthusiasm for science, group think, and knee-jerk positivity propelled science —and us, by a shared geography—forward toward disaster (nuclear power, war, Monsanto's Roundup-ready lethal seeds, for example; a thousand toxic chemicals in our environment; deeply stupid agricultural methods)?

We do not have a good track record for using science for good, for keeping the greedy paws of Monsanto, or big pharma and the rest of corporate America, from corrupting infant scientific technologies for their own ends, disregarding all but profit.

It is not necessarily “the self-appointed defenders of the ‘ineffable’” who object to laissez-faire science. In Europe, the precautionary principle is in force, so that, for example, the public is not exposed to the products of a science gone mad—toxins that prove later to be unsafe; they don't wait until the damage is done, as we do.

Science is not God. Let's not worship it blindly either.

Labor,

I'm just looking to establish a frame of reference, because I honestly don't know what you mean. You used the phrase "militant homosexual," so I'm assuming you can point to at least one person as an example. Put the Hartmann/atheism issue aside for a moment, and give us an example of what you're talking about when you say "militant homosexual."

Surely you wouldn't suggest that someone who demands the legalization of gay marriage is "militant," so I'm just wondering what it is you mean.

Atheist, agnostic, theist - three different ways of approaching what one believes about the existence of God. A-theist means without/no God, agnostic means I don't know, and a theist believes in God. God is a 4 letter word for me, as it has been abused throughout the centuries. I reject all religions, period. However, to me, a human being who stands up and says "There is no God, no Creator, this whole universe just sorta happened" is a fool. A fool!

It goes like this - first there was nothing, and out of nothing came something, and that something was disorder and chaos. Out of chaos and disorder came order, from no life came life, from no consciousness came consciousness, and in the case of humans, self-consciousness.  Evolution just happened, and by chance this earth with it's ungraspable complexity, and myriad forms of life is what evolved. There are no other planets with life, maybe one or two in the Universe. Just a fluke of nature, nothing more.

Right, and the moon is made of swiss cheese...........agnosticism (which says 'I don't know') is the only rational alternative to theism. Atheism is faulty logic and foolishness, usually based on the rejection of a specific religion, like christianity.

Just an opinion. Put another way round, it is not wise to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Etymology is the study of the original source and derivation of words, because things have changed. Etymology is not equivalent to "Old definitions."

You can search any etymology and find that the words have the same derivations. I did not "dig up" what I wanted- it's there everywhere for everyone.

I presented the fundamental derivation of each word. To that, I added my experience in the community of scientists and how understanding more and more about the workings of nature hits you right in the face that there is an intelligent plan to the universe.

Now,

"trying to deliberately insult people."

1. I would never deliberately try to insult anyone, though I am sure I have insulted people who did  not understand me. And sometimes in informal company, I do say the wrong thing. For sure I have insulted my father, but he had it coming. It's a Lear/Cordelia thing.

" You might want to consider why it is that you don't want atheists to also be agnostic......

1. You got me wrong here 100%. As a Believer, I would much rather an Atheist be an Agnostic, but I don't think there is any trans-genderism possible here. It seems like flip-flopping to me.

"Maybe you have some bias against atheists?"

1. You got me right here 100%

My bias comes from the American Symbol of Atheism, Madalyn Murray O-Hair. What a lovely lady! Just take a look at her.

I was in grade school when we stopped saying The Lord's Prayer. It is a harmless enough meditation and was a harmonious beginning of each school day, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Sometimes we even sang a song, and after that everyone felt pretty good. Many many people were devastated by the change brought about by a self-serving lawyer with a big mouth who saw a way to have her day in the sun. The Lord's Prayer could be used by anyone- it doesn't name a Prophet, or use the word God, but expresses hope for providence and protection. Who doesn't need that to face each day?

All I can say is, we never had lock downs, fights, guns, knives, or even vandalism, kindergarten through high school. It's hard to believe people accept this as ok.

XXXXX

First, a question for Dhavid: You are an expounder of the Vedanta, yes? (sorry, if that's the wrong way to put it)  Anyway, is Brahman God? I realize it's a complex subject, but what I'm after is to understand if your "religion" is a-theistic (in the manner of Buddhism), or could you say Brahman is one concept of "creative power" that might be otherwise known as God, but with a different meaning than the usual man-in-the-sky meaning? I reveal my vast ignorance on the subject, but since you're here...

Ha ha, leighmf. My father had it coming sometimes too, though not in a Shakespearian sense.

Please let me suggest that social inequality, poverty and the failure of government to support the commonwealth is more the cause of school violence than the absence of prayer in school.

The effect of the recitation of Christian prayers in school on a child raised in an atheist, Muslim, Jewish household is damage—damage to the child's sense of belonging to his class as an equal, and damage to the value of mutual respect in school. Surely you can see this? So, which value is higher on your hierarchy of values—the First Amendment to the Constitution, or the indoctrination of children toward one religious tradition?

Demanding something would be one thing.  Being combative and aggressive, favoring extreme confrontational methods is another.

Would you agree that there are militant anti-abortion people?

Have you ever seen any militant animal rights activists?

How about militant environmentalists?

Homosexuals are just like everybody else.  Capable of aggression and confrontation.

If I had used anti-abortion activists as my "militant" reference, I don't suppose you'd be taking me to task.  You'd probably be applauding me.

You either think homosexuals are superior beings and above the fray of human nature or believe they have some special place in PC-world where they are not allowed to be held to the same standards as everyone else.  Equality runs both ways.

Based on your comments, it would appear as though no homosexual has ever been combative, aggressive or confrontational in the pursuit of gay rights.  I'm sorry I don't have  a name and number of a "militant" gay rights activist to pass along to verify my claim, so you can stop your coy gay-baiting routine.

I truly believe in equality ..... atheists, agnostics and theists.  Can you say the same?

I stand by my claims of ALL self-righteous people standing on their soap boxes being unworthy of my time.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. There had been for some time some talk about an increase of religious belief in the U.S. People see some value in religion as a cultural heritage, and turned to it when they perceived that it offered a psychological grounding lacking in a society suffering from the excesses of its own indulgences. While I don't dispute that those whose conscience leads them to progressivism can legitimately interpret religion towards the ends of social and environmental justice and progressivism in general I would have to argue that usually religion serves as a substitute for critical thinking and and an inducement to conformity to a method of filtering and limiting reality through a universally-imposed medium (and these days, media) maintained by authority. To solve our problems means understanding the dynamic which is occurring and coming up with concrete solutions. Religion on the other hand is political only inasmuch as it is - well, a-political.

Labor,

Gay-baiting? Wow.

Anywho...

Yes, I've heard of militant anti-abortion people, and I can even name some. Such as Eric Rudolph.

I was simply asking you to name a militant homosexual. Like the Eric Rudolph of gay rights activism.

But if you can't name one you can't name one. I just assumed that since you used the phrase you'd be able to give one example. I assumed wrong. Oh well.

No other planets with life? That's doubtful. I'm not sure people grasp just how many galaxies there are, or the possibility that there  is more than 1 "universe." From my experience, it is the religious fundies who want to deny the possibility that there is life outside of Earth. Some even cling to the idea that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

Anyway, you may want to do some reading up on a few things, including The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Just as evolutionary biologists don't say you and I descended from monkeys (a common misunderstanding perpetuated by the likes of people who run Creation Museums), evolutionary biologists don't make claims of random chance or even "flukes of nature."

http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/evolution-by-natural-selection.html 

The above piece I linked doesn't explain the theory. For a good explanation, I recommend The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Fascinating stuff if you're interested.

And the writings of PZ Myers can be fun: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Zenzoe, I would be labeled as a pantheist by western standards. When I was in seminary (one year) I thougt of such as just plain stupid. Now look at me. Just googled it and the list of people who might fit that label include Einstein, Emerson, Thoreau, Ansel Adams, Lao Tzu, Alan Watts, and Walt Whitman, and Spinoza. Not bad company, I guess.  Also much of eastern yoga philosophy, but there described as vedantist.

I guess the phrasing should have been "anti-gay baiting" to be exact.

What more can be said Garrett?

If I googled gay activist and did some homework, do you think I might find a name out there that I could throw down?  I don't like to pretend to know things that I didn't know before a brief google of a topic.  Being honest about who you are and what you believe in ain't no picnic.

Here I stand, I can do no other.