I am uncomfortable with the assumption that this is what Hil (or those agreeing with Hil) means, especially when she doesn't seem to be here right now to clarify.

VW, I don't think anyone here is piling on Hil. But the article that is spurring this discussion absolutely was saying things like that, among other things, and in far more judgmental terms.

(There was an article about theology and atheism. Thus, the "I don't need to know anything at all about religion to know that it's all nonsense" people are out in force. My thought -- English needs an equivalent word to the Hebrew "apikoros." It means someone who's studied the law and rejected it, as opposed to someone who isn't religious just because they've never learned what it means. Having only the word "atheist" to describe both of those people makes for circular discussions.)

That said, I do think there's a notion in here that some people can justify their atheism and others can't. I do not think Hil, or anyone else here, was throwing stones - but I do think the implication is there, and it bothers me.

VW, I don't think anyone here is piling on Hil. But the article that is spurring this discussion absolutely was saying things like that, and in far more judgmental terms.

Ok. Thank you for clarifying that. I didn't read the article. I suppose I should have.

That said, I do think there's a notion in here that some people can justify their atheism and others can't. I do not think Hil, or anyone else here, was throwing stones - but I do think the implication is there, and it bothers me.

I hope you haven't gotten that impression from me. If so, I'm very sorry, because it is not at all how I feel. I do have a certain, different kind of respect for people who learn everything then walk away...probably partially because I can't seem to do it. But that doesn't mean I don't respect those who came to their own conclusions in different ways.

Again, Brenda is me. I'm not so much reacting to Hil as this attitude from the article:

My chief objection to the new atheists is that they are almost completely ignorant of what's going on in the world of theology. They talk about the most fundamentalist and extremist versions of faith, and they hold these up as though they're the normative, central core of faith. And they miss so many things. They miss the moral core of Judaism and Christianity -- the theme of social justice, which takes those who are marginalized and brings them to the center of society.

...and it goes on like that. Blah blah belief in God is clearly the default and correct position, and anyone who doesn't believe in a higher power is just mooching off the moral value systems created by those who do, and he hates us and we have stupid hair.

The whole interview is so obnoxiously condescending it makes me want to puke.

[eta - It would probably help to link to the article in question]

The whole interview is so obnoxiously condescending it makes me want to puke.

This. The bit about how atheists can't justify having hope made my eyes roll to the point of perpetual motion.

This. The bit about how atheists can't justify having hope made my eyes roll to the point of perpetual motion.

Oh, dear.

From the part of the article that Jessica linked to...

They talk about the most fundamentalist and extremist versions of faith, and they hold these up as though they're the normative, central core of faith. And they miss so many things. They miss the moral core of Judaism and Christianity -- the theme of social justice, which takes those who are marginalized and brings them to the center of society.

Well, huh. I wonder why they do that? (that was my best sarcastic tone.) That's almost laughable. And if there was the slightest bit of argument in that position, I'd actually argue it the other way--it's the fundamentalist's fault, not the atheists.

Semi-related, my students final paper was a research paper on a moral or ethical dilemma. Most of them didn't understand those terms, so we got out the dictionary, searched online, etc., but I tended to have to explain to them where different "moral codes" come from. They could easily say that religion was one of them, but often couldn't come up with anything else. Ugh. Just ugh.

And, you know, looking at that article, that's actually someone I wish I could like. I happen to believe in both creation and evolution, but ick. Just ick. Talk about taking 100 steps back.

The Buffistas give me hope!

I actually didn't find it that insulting, because he was referring to people who are writing books about religion and the religious, and I think they do have an obligation to know what they're talking about. As for the rest of it... well, I can understand how, if your faith is the foundation for your hope, you assume they're linked for everyone. Which I guess means I ended up rolling my eyes, getting bored, and clicking away.

I am so tired. I hope that belly dancing gets me going this afternoon. I've missed the first 2 classes but since I've taken with this instructor before I think I should be OK.

I actually didn't find it that insulting, because he was referring to people who are writing books about religion and the religious, and I think they do have an obligation to know what they're talking about.

Yeah. If you're going to say "Theists say this and theists believe that" either in a book or one of 376 letters to Salon you should have some clue about what theists actually say and believe.

And if someone counters your mis-statement "well its all garbage anyway!" is not an intellectually rigorous response to their point.

A particular peeve of mine is the assertion that if someone believes in God they are childish or deluded or insane. You can't prove there is such a thing as God. You are merely acting on social conditioning and certain chemical processes that you THINK are some effects of God. Belief in God is a dangerous plague on mankind and more people have been killed because of God...

Do you love your parents? Your friends? Your kids?

Unless you can replace "God" with "Love" (and some people can) you don't get to call me nuts for believing in something intangible yet significant.

Edit: Now I am going to go put that up on Salon and the point will be utterly ignored. Let's go watch!